Say something good about Portland!

[Bodhisattva]

Please answer honestly - where do you think you would be safer walking in downtown at night: Montgomery, Alabama (no Antifa) OR in "an extremely dangerous" Portland, Oregon?
Please feel free to use Google to compare homicide and crime rates between these cities.
Why do you think Trump is not sending troops to Montgomery if it has a much higher homicide and crime rates?

I've never been to Portland and haven't been to Montgomery in nearly-ever, so I can't compare the two. My assumption - as with blue cities I know better (DC, Baltimore, New Orleans, etc.) - is that there are some parts of these cities which are very nice and pleasant to visit. But, much or most of the city would be a dangerous place to venture (high crime) and you certainly wouldn't want to live there (poor schools).

Why does Trump do what he does? He thrives in the chaos caused by his crap-stirring. He gets everyone running around like headless chickens. It's counterproductive, a waste of time and resources, and distracts from the opportunity to do something worthwhile and beneficial. But, he's a politician. Whatever path increases his power is the route he'll take.

Why are some of these mayors and governors going out of their way to shield criminals from arrest? Similar to Trump's motivation: they choose grandstanding and the chance to be a faux-martyr over protecting the public. Politicians will sacrifice everything (and everyone) to increase their power.

If I were president, I wouldn't send in the feds (barring legitimate disaster). If the residents of a city tolerate a certain level of crime due to the policies they vote for, that's on them. Those who don't care for the crime (and/or high taxes, garbage schools, etc.) vote with their feet and move to better areas of the country, if they can. And many, many people do, as seen in the population shifts in recent years. My wife's friend who lives in Portland is tired of the crime and racism and wants to leave but can't yet. Hopefully soon. Life is too short to put up with all the nonsense.

 

[Huckleberry]

I've never been to Portland and haven't been to Montgomery in nearly-ever, so I can't compare the two. My assumption - as with blue cities I know better (DC, Baltimore, New Orleans, etc.) - is that there are some parts of these cities which are very nice and pleasant to visit. But, much or most of the city would be a dangerous place to venture (high crime) and you certainly wouldn't want to live there (poor schools).

Why does Trump do what he does? He thrives in the chaos caused by his crap-stirring. He gets everyone running around like headless chickens. It's counterproductive, a waste of time and resources, and distracts from the opportunity to do something worthwhile and beneficial. But, he's a politician. Whatever path increases his power is the route he'll take.

Why are some of these mayors and governors going out of their way to shield criminals from arrest? Similar to Trump's motivation: they choose grandstanding and the chance to be faux-martyr over protecting the public. Politicians will sacrifice everything (and everyone) to increase their power.

If I were president, I wouldn't send in the feds (barring legitimate disaster). If the residents of a city tolerate a certain level of crime due to the policies they vote for, that's on them. Those who don't care for the crime (and/or high taxes, garbage schools, etc.) vote with their feet and move to parts of the country, if they can. And many, many people do, as seen in the population shifts in recent years. My wife's friend who lives in Portland is tired of the crime and racism and wants to leave but can't yet. Hopefully soon. Life is too short to put up with all the nonsense.

I hope that most people, including you, wouldn’t send troops to an American city under these circumstances because it’s unconstitutional and they respect our founding document. While other presidents have certainly pushed boundaries, Trump seems to have little regard for the US Constitution. I wish that mattered to more Americans.

 

[92tide]

Please answer honestly - where do you think you would be safer walking in downtown at night: Montgomery, Alabama (no Antifa) OR in "an extremely dangerous" Portland, Oregon?
Please feel free to use Google to compare homicide and crime rates between these cities.
Why do you think Trump is not sending troops to Montgomery if it has a much higher homicide and crime rates?

dear leader say portlandia is bad, therefore …

 

[Bodhisattva]

I hope that most people, including you, wouldn’t send troops to an American city under these circumstances because it’s unconstitutional and they respect our founding document. While other presidents have certainly pushed boundaries, Trump seems to have little regard for the US Constitution. I wish that mattered to more Americans.

Agreed. Unfortunately, since long ago the Constitution was deemed a "living document" malleable to one's interpretation, our foundational document doesn't mean much anymore. Most of the what federal government does is unconstitutional. The fanboys of whichever party is out of power only pretend to care about constitutional limits. When their party is in power, the reasoning is "if I like this, it's constitutional." 🤷‍♂️

 

[Huckleberry]

Agreed. Unfortunately, since long ago the Constitution was deemed a "living document" malleable to one's interpretation, our foundational document doesn't mean much anymore. Most of the what federal government does is unconstitutional. The fanboys of whichever party out of power only pretend to care about constitutional limits. When their party is in power, the reasoning is "if I like this, it's constitutional." 🤷‍♂️

While we might disagree on certain aspects of originalism, I think we can agree that what Trump is doing far exceeds actions of other presidents, so much so that he is threatening the stability of our democratic republic. What others might have done does not diminish the danger or excuse the motivations of Trump’s actions.

 

[Its On A Slab]

They had their annual marathon last weekend.

Those poor runners, running the gauntlet of signs that read "Worst Parade Ever" and "Keep Running Like All Of My Exes".

Thousands of people who will forever be marred by the stink of war. And sweat. And the occasional portable toilet that overflowed.

 

[Bodhisattva]

While we might disagree on certain aspects of originalism, I think we can agree that what Trump is doing far exceeds actions of other presidents, so much so that he is threatening the stability of our democratic republic. What others might have done does not diminish the danger or excuse the motivations of Trump’s actions.

I'm certainly not the guy to argue for the merits of Trumpism. I've said repeatedly that I oppose nigh-all of his policies. But, my opposition is because I value the Constitution, small government, and free market economics, not because Trump is from the "wrong" political party. If he were from the "correct" political party, much of his policies would be defended by the same people crying now. Both side play this immature game.

I just find the new found religion on the Constitution amusing. The camel was allowed to get his nose into the tent a long time ago. I've been writing about this for 20+ years, and the big government crowed has mocked the concern. So, now they've received what they claimed they wanted. Realizing too late they've miscalculated is ... too late. If one is going to only selectively care about the Constitution, then one doesn't really care about the Constitution.

 

[Huckleberry]

I'm certainly not the guy to argue for the merits of Trumpism. I've said repeatedly that I oppose nigh-all of his policies. But, my opposition is because I value the Constitution, small government, and free market economics, not because Trump is from the "wrong" political party. If he were from the "correct" political party, much of his policies would be defended by the same people crying now. Both side play this immature game.

I just find the new found religion on the Constitution amusing. The camel was allowed to get his nose into the tent a long time ago. I've been writing about this for 20+ years, and the big government crowed has mocked the concern. So, now they've received what they claimed they wanted. Realizing too late they've miscalculated is ... too late. If one is going to only selectively care about the Constitution, then one doesn't really care about the Constitution.

Speaking only for myself, if Trump were serving as a Democrat, I’d be just as opposed to his actions as I am now. I hope that most of those who oppose Trump would feel the same way, though I’m sure you’re right that some party loyalists wouldn’t care.

Are you saying that if someone disagrees with you about originalism in any capacity, you consider their concerns about the Constitution to be irrelevant and hypocritical?

 

[Bodhisattva]

Speaking only for myself, if Trump were serving as a Democrat, I’d be just as opposed to his actions as I am now. I hope that most of those who oppose Trump would feel the same way, though I’m sure you’re right that some party loyalists wouldn’t care.

There are some here, and millions in the country, that are tribal with their politics. They don't really believe in anything except loyalty to whatever their party is doing. They'll decry whatever the other side does but won't even notice their own side's flip flops. The GOP of my early adulthood advocated for free trade; now it's the pro-global-trade-war party. The Dems were the protectionist party, but how they complain about the results protectionism. Have they suddenly got religion on policies that cause inflation? Sadly, no. They support plenty of other policies that are drags on the economy.

Are you saying that if someone disagrees with you about originalism in any capacity, you consider their concerns about the Constitution to be irrelevant and hypocritical?

There is certainly room for healthy debate about what the Constitution means. Legitimate debate should be perpetual. But, one has to have a starting point that the Founders intended for a small, limited government. And what we have now (and for a long time) is neither small nor limited. Amendments, not reinterpretation, is the legal way to change the Constitution. If the Constitution allows for A, B, and C, but one wants the feds to also do D - Z because the commerce clause and taxing authority magically allows D - Z, the person advocating such is dishonest.

I have studied the Constitution in the classroom (undergrad and law school) and via a bit of independent reading on the subject. I'm no expert, but one can certainly read the Constitution and get a sense of what is and is not a legitimate role for the federal government. The big government crowd created the leviathan we have now. And now the monster has turned around and is running roughshod over things said crowd cares about. For generations, people have worked at destroying the Constitution, and now they are concerned that its protections from government overreach are gone? To these people I say, "Welcome to the party, pal. Too late, but welcome anyway."

 

[some_al_fan]

Watch the video. It is really funny. This influencer in high heels has discovered the ANTIFA parliamentary operations.

Craig R. Brittain (@brittainforsenate) on Threads

Katie Daviscourt: "I had the suspect held for 35 minutes, then 20 ANTIFA militants helped my assault suspect escape into an ANTIFA safehouse, that's one block away from the ICE facility, this is where they're conducting parliamentary operations, resting, showering and eating."

www.threads.com

 

[Its On A Slab]

I sometimes wonder what passes for “education” these days. The government schools crank out obedient voters and confused citizens who can’t balance a checkbook or explain marginal utility, yet feel deeply entitled to the fruits of other people’s labor. Meanwhile, my 1.5 children — educated at home, in the wild, and through the noble chaos of real curiosity — are thriving. They read Hayek before breakfast and ask me at dinner whether Mises would’ve approved of crypto. They’ve managed all this without the benevolent hand of bureaucrats guiding their crayons. Somehow, they survive.

Economics, to me, isn’t about charts or policy debates. It’s about human action — the choices free individuals make when they’re not shackled by the hubris of central planners. That’s what the Austrian School understood so well: the wisdom of the market, the folly of intervention, and the dignity of voluntary exchange. Every regulation, every subsidy, every “program” that promises fairness only muddies the price signals that keep society sane.

And as for the Constitution — the original intent wasn’t complicated. The founders weren’t writing a “living document.” They were building a wall to keep the state out of our homes, our speech, our livelihoods, and yes, our bedrooms from being converted into barracks. The Third Amendment — that quaint little clause about not quartering troops — isn’t just about soldiers. It’s about privacy, property, and the sanctity of the individual against government intrusion. It’s the quiet line in the sand that says: this space is mine.

So while the bureaucrats busy themselves “fixing” things that weren’t broken, I’ll keep reading Menger, sipping coffee, and teaching my children what no state curriculum ever will — that liberty, once surrendered, rarely returns.

 

[some_al_fan]

U.S. House Speaker calls Portland naked bike ride ‘most threatening thing I’ve seen yet’

"The most threatening thing I’ve seen yet was the naked bicyclers in Portland who were protesting ICE down there," said U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson Tuesday.

www.oregonlive.com

 

[crimsonaudio]

I hope that most people, including you, wouldn’t send troops to an American city under these circumstances because it’s unconstitutional and they respect our founding document. While other presidents have certainly pushed boundaries, Trump seems to have little regard for the US Constitution. I wish that mattered to more Americans.

Again I’ll weigh in to say that, for the most part, I agree.

But like most everything in politics, there’s *some* gray area. “Legal” or not, most everyone I know has welcomed Trump’s political sh into Memphis.

At some point the discussion circles back to Obamacare - if the rules followed lead to destruction, what good are the rules?

Ideology is great until you literally aren’t safe going shopping.

 

[some_al_fan]

Again I’ll weigh in to say that, for the most part, I agree.

But like most everything in politics, there’s *some* gray area. “Legal” or not, most everyone I know has welcomed Trump’s political sh into Memphis.

At some point the discussion circles back to Obamacare - if the rules followed lead to destruction, what good are the rules?

Ideology is great until you literally aren’t safe going shopping.

If you want law and order then you hire more police officers, not send US military

 

[crimsonaudio]

If you want law and order then you hire more police officers, not send US military

Yes.

But when the local police are staffed at 80% and the local leadership stubbornly refuses to do what is needed to ensure public safety, what’s the answer?

I’m a rule follower by nature, which is why I find the quote used in my signature here so interesting. We follow all these rules but if they lead to destruction, what good are the rules?

Public safety is job one of government, and when that is failing, something has to be done to rectify it. I only wish the governor of Tennessee cared about the people of Memphis so we wouldn’t have to have this discussion, but even he sat idly by and watched Memphis implode.

 

[Bodhisattva]

If you want law and order then you hire more police officers, not send US military

Hard to do that when you defund the police and make the police ignore certain crimes. Maybe allow the police to arrest the criminals and require the DAs prosecute them to keep predators locked up instead of turning them loose over and over again until they kill someone.

 

[Huckleberry]

Hard to do that when you defund the police and make the police ignore certain crimes. Maybe allow the police to arrest the criminals and require the DAs prosecute them to keep predators locked up instead of turning them loose over and over again until they kill someone.

Did they “defund” the police in Memphis?

 

[Bodhisattva]

Did they “defund” the police in Memphis?

Don't know about Memphis but not arresting or prosecuting criminals is considered social justice in many blue cities/states.

 

[some_al_fan]

Don't know about Memphis but not arresting or prosecuting criminals is considered social justice in many blue cities/states.

If you don’t know about Memphis, why are you insisting that federal troops should solve Memphis' crime issues?

 

[some_al_fan]

Yes.

But when the local police are staffed at 80% and the local leadership stubbornly refuses to do what is needed to ensure public safety, what’s the answer?

I’m a rule follower by nature, which is why I find the quote used in my signature here so interesting. We follow all these rules but if they lead to destruction, what good are the rules?

Public safety is job one of government, and when that is failing, something has to be done to rectify it. I only wish the governor of Tennessee cared about the people of Memphis so we wouldn’t have to have this discussion, but even he sat idly by and watched Memphis implode.

How is it a job of the federal government to solve the problem?
If people want less crime, then they should vote accordingly in the local and state elections.
If financing the local police is an issue, then TN's congressional delegation in the US Congress should try to secure more federal pork funds to resolve it.
Sending the US military is a costly short-term fix, which won’t solve the problem long-term.