Reason Roundup

Those Curfews Sure Didn't Work

Plus: George Floyd's death ruled "homicide caused by asphyxia," and more...


Last night looked like a recipe for disaster as cities across the country instituted curfews to curb protests against police brutality and protesters showed no intent to comply. And, in some cities, disaster did come to bear, as cops and National Guardsmen fired tear gas and rubber bullets at peaceful crowds and looters struck again. But overall, Monday night's protests seemed to bring less police-on-protester (or press) violence and less looting and vandalism than did the previous few nights.

Throughout the day and early evening of Monday, the scene on American city streets was peaceful and subdued, as demonstrators exercised their First Amendment rights and police forces largely tried to stay out of their way. This continued apace in many areas as the night wore on—with some major exceptions.

The first comes courtesy of President Donald Trump, who decided to be bravely escorted by cops to a photo opportunity in front of a church after clearing out peaceful protesters with permission to be there by firing tear gas into the crowd.

Priests and clergy were also driven off "with tear gas and concussion grenades and police in full riot gear," said Gini Gerbasi, an Episcopal priest.

"Under normal circumstances, Donald Trump crossing the street to hold up a Bible in front a church would be a cringeworthy photo-op. He didn't read from it. He didn't step in the church and pray. He just awkwardly modeled with a Bible. It was the crudest photo-op symbolism imaginable," writes Tim Carney at Washington Examiner. "In its full context, though, Trump's trip to St. John's–the church vandalized and partly burned by rioters on Sunday night–was worse."

That was all before the D.C. curfew took effect at 7 p.m.

Once tear-gassed D.C. protesters dispersed, smaller groups formed at various police barricades on streets surrounding the White House.

By a little after 8 p.m., law enforcement—a mix of D.C. Metropolitan Police, U.S. Park Police, and military police—had systematically driven everyone but about two dozen protesters out of the area.

Cops cordoned off into a small area on I Street, about a block north of the White House.

The remaining protesters sat down in the street and waited, holding some American flags and periodically chanting, as police led them out of the area one by one, tied their hands behind their backs, took their shoelaces, bagged up their belongings, and loaded them into police vans. A small gaggle of press was allowed on the sidewalk nearby.

The last of the D.C. sit-in group was loaded into vans a little after 9 p.m.

By this point, the bulk of the protest crowd had reconvened elsewhere.

Around 9:20 p.m., a huge group marched around Logan Circle, just north of downtown D.C., heading south toward Chinatown.

Everything was calm, even as the group marched past federal agents and military vehicles stationed along the streets.

But as the crowd made its way through the restaurant- and shop-lined 7th St NW, a few windows were smashed in (I didn't see this directly, just the aftermath of glass strewn on the streets) and police cars with sirens on began driving up behind the group of marchers.

Then, a military helicopter appeared overhead to start its "show of force" routine.

The helicopter hovered low above protesters marching down 7th Street near the Capital One Arena. It sent dust and dirt and sometimes other detritus whipping down the street, forcing protesters to shield their faces with their clothing or duck into doorways to avoid the debris.

As I ducked into one doorway, a plank of wood came flying from somewhere and landed at my feet.

The helicopter let up after a few minutes, and the crowd continued marching toward the federal courthouse at Judiciary Square, a few blocks away.

Then the military helicopter returned, hovering noisily over the crowd and sending strong winds and debris whipping by everyone once again. Many kneeled down, raised their hands or protest signs, while others stayed standing.

The bulk of the crowd didn't budge, as the helicopter did a couple of rounds of flyovers. About 20 minutes after it started, the helicopter finally let up and protesters continued marching.

Another group of protesters, near the White House, was apparently chased north toward Swann Street NW, where police began arresting people. Several homeowners reportedly let protesters into their houses to avoid arrest. Some weren't able to leave until this morning.

(More on the D.C. protests, from Reason's Christian Britschgi, here.)

Nonviolent protesters were also arrested Monday night in Oakland and Hollywood, California, in Dallas, in Atlanta, in New York City, and elsewhere.


About 60 people were arrested in the Chicago suburb of Cicero last night, and two people were killed, according to the Associated Press. In Philadelphia, a shop owner fatally shot someone trying to loot their store.

And protests in St. Louis "started peacefully Monday" but "became violent overnight," A.P. reports. Four St. Louis police officers were reportedly taken to the hospital with non-life-threatening gunshot wounds; it's unclear how they were shot or by whom.

Meanwhile, peaceful protesters in Atlanta were tear-gassed by local cops and the National Guard. Louisville, Kentucky, also saw a helicopter and tear gas deployed at peaceful protesters.

But in Tennessee, "more than 60 National Guard troops put down their riot shields Monday evening at the request of peaceful protesters who had gathered in front of Tennessee's state Capitol in Nashville to honor George Floyd."

Police in some other places also managed to go light on mass arrests and tear gas, enabling protests to go down without major incident.

In New York City, hours of peaceful protest were marred by some folks smashing windows or doors of shops like Macy's and Nike. "Video posted on social media showed some protesters arguing with people breaking windows, urging them to stop, but instances of vandalism and smash-and-grab thefts mounted as the night deepened," notes A.P.

On Monday, New York City announced that a curfew from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. is in effect "every night … until it is lifted." Mayor Bill de Blasio has since said the curfew will actually start at 8 p.m. tonight.


• Violent enforcement of curfews will only perpetuate the cycle of police violence.

• "Homicide caused by asphyxia":

• Riots may be destructive, but abusive policing is tyranny, writes J.D. Tuccille.

• Sigh:

  • Saying Kamala Harris will be good for fighting police abuse is like saying Tom Cotton will be good for ending war. And yet:

• There's a bipartisan push in Congress to demilitarize the police.

• California regulation strikes again:

• Will "law and order" rhetoric help Trump win reelection? Maybe not.

NEXT: What Should We Do If YouTube Censors on Behalf of the Chinese Communist Party?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. GIVE THIS MAN A MEDAL: Protester Brings ‘Riot Control Bees’ to Keep George Floyd Protest Civil

    Janesville’s Greg Hoeft had a brilliant idea to make sure his protest didn’t become yet another destructive riot — he brought 12 carts of bees to the event, which he planned to release if the protest got out of hand.

    “The riot control bees are in their holding yard waiting to clear the streets of Janesville and keep peace to this county. I’m willing to bring them in and kick them over if things get out of control,” Hoeft posted on Facebook, The Gazette reported.

    1. Hello.

      Is 2020 over yet?

      Between the riotards, the Coronatards and the leotards and all their dumbass supporters not sure I can take much more of this irrational exuberance.

      1. Leotards? People who go gaga over a certain movie star?

        1. Speaking of tards,

          In case you wondered where Tony was, if you look at last nights thread you’ll see the answer is

          “here every day all day long running sockpuppets”

          1. I saw he made his return draped in cum stained velvet.

            It was divine.

            1. I thought was his stage name for drag racing?

              1. Make money online from home extra cash more than $18k to $21k. Start getting paid every month Thousands Dollars online. I have received $26K in this month by just working online from home in my part time.every person easily do this job by just open this link and follow details on this page to get started…

                ……………….► New Income Opportunities

                1. I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially rewarding Job I’ve had . Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month .cac . I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr

                  Heres what I do……………… See More here

          2. Well, that’s what 五毛 Tony’s paid for.

            1. So Mike Drop is De Opresso Liber, and they’re both actually Tony.

              1. As far as I’m concerned all trolls are the same. Can you really distinguish between pieces of a boringly predictable hive mind?

              2. Wrong-o.

                1. Sure Tony.

        2. Just go with it!

    2. Oh, yeah, what are you gonna do? Release the dogs? Or the bees? Or the dogs with bees in their mouth and when they bark, they shoot bees at you?

      1. I just watched that episode the other day. In today’s context it seems you have made a perfectly cromulant reference.

        1. One sure to embiggen us all

          1. fucking love Hans Sprungfeld.

    3. So, when these protestors tell me I’m a white supremacist and just as responsible as real white supremacists unless I actively work against racism, does that mean they are rioters looters and arsonists because they aren’t actively and continuously working against the rioters looters and arsonists?

      (and no that’s a shitty band name, they all are)

      1. That’s because its really the name of a track on an album released by a shitty punk band.

    4. ok, that’s pretty silly, but it sounds like it was effective. Good on Mr. Hoeft!

  2. Police: Rioters Set Fire to Home with Child Inside, Then Block Firefighters

    1. We can’t give you Free Palestine, but for you, I’ll sell at cost.

    2. I’m sure there won’t be any distortion to the FBI’s hate crime numbers. Well, any *more* distortion. Again.

  3. Those Curfews Sure Didn’t Work

    Even the president broke one.

    1. “But overall, Monday night’s protests seemed to bring less … looting and vandalism than did the previous few nights”
      Journalists are such hacks.

  4. I disagree that it was a ‘mistake’; the far left saw that something was about to be done to start fixing a problem, at which point they kicked off riots to make sure that didn’t happen. They don’t want issues solved, they want to use issues for their own political benefit.
    Five days ago conservatives were focused on seeing justice done for George Floyd


    We are focused on seeing rioters arrested

    These riots are the biggest mistake BLM has ever made

    1. So, you do self-identify as a conservative, not a libertarian. What about one word of condemnation of Trump’s photo-op? Seems that a true conservative would want to save conservatism from Trump.

      1. The Bulwark is thattaway

      2. “Seems that a true conservative would want to save conservatism from Trump.”

        Nah that’s just something simpy progs and Never Trumpers and Jeff (but I repeat myself doubly) emote.

        1. You are morally bankrupt then.

          A few prominent conservatives, who are starting to break ranks, would disagree with you: Justin Amash, George Will, Ann Coulter

          1. Ok but you mentioned conseratives.

          2. “You are morally bankrupt then”

            Because I don’t care about the wailings of bought and paid for faux conservatives and the bleating of their prog backers?


            1. If you are a libertarian, then you must surely oppose Trump declaring himself king every chance he gets. Or declaring flag burning to be illegal. Or declaring checks and balances a historical myth and that the president is untouchable for 4 years at a time.

              1. “If you are a libertarian, then you must surely oppose”

                I’ll tell you that I oppose people like you telling me what I oppose.

                And having conversations with people like that.

                1. So how libertarian is making flag burning illegal?

                  How libertarian is declaring the president a king for 4 years at a time?

                  How libertarian are record setting deficits?

                  How libertarian is separating families and locking up toddlers in cages indefinitely? (This is still happening, and yes, it was caused by Trump’s 0 tolerance policy change.)

                  How libertarian are these quotes, “I have total authority. TOTAL.” … “I take no responsibility.”?

                  How libertarian is “Take the guns first, then do due process later,”?

                  How libertarian are no warrant internet search history searches?

                  How libertarian is voter suppression?

                  How libertarian is constant lying, often times about easily fact checked things?

                  How libertarian are abject conflicts of interest?

                  How libertarian is nepotism?

                  How libertarian is lobbying our enemy for help getting elected?

                  1. no means no guy

                    1. He hasn’t accepted that no one gives a shit about his posts, because he’s constantly caught being a dishonest piece of shit not worth noting anymore than the gum on your shoe.

                    2. He seems to gave lost his fucking mind

                    3. I see. Proudly state your opinion, then declare it sacrosanct. Very cool. Very intellectually honest.

                    4. NO MEANS NO GUY

                    5. “talk to meeeeee!!! i’ll keep insulting you until you TALK TO MEEEEEEEE!!!!” – De Opresso Liber/Tony

                    6. Proudly state your opinion

                      This is particilaury funny because DOL is actually upset that Kush won’t state his opinion. It’s like DOL’s troll software glitched and he can’t recover

                    7. Jesus Christ never go full crazy girlfriend Liber

                    8. obama ate a dog, you have 36 comments on this page.

                      Do you have any criticism or comment that isn’t absolute projection?

                    9. Cry more Tony

                    10. obama ate a dog, you have 36 comments on this page.

                      That’s not the only handle he’s running today.

                      You fall for this Every. Single. Day.

                    11. IKR?

                2. And yet you are engaging in conversation with De Opp.

                  1. “And yet you are engaging in conversation with De Opp”

                    Who is also you.

                    And no actually, he said “no means no” twice

                    I realize you don’t grasp this so no, that is not a conversation, call everyone you have ever met and apologize to them for your behavior.

              2. When did Trump declare himself King?

                1. lost



                2. Several times. He claimed he has total authority over the states. He has claimed in court, twice, that checks and balances is a historical myth, and that the president is immune from all oversight or law enforcement. He has argued that the president is king for 4 years at a time, can interfere in any other government action, and that there is no such thing as a conflict of interest when it comes to the president. In other words “I am the law.”

                  1. Hilariously, he simultaneously claims he is a poor, oppressed victim of THE DEEP STATE.

                  2. You got a cite for anything your claiming?

                  3. Specifically him saying he’s King, since you claim he’s said that multiple times.

              3. Except he didn’t do any of those things.

          3. My comment was directed specifically at Ra’s.

            1. No actually, that’s not how the reply button works.

              1. He said “you” twice and it clearly is to you not Ras but look how easily he just lied about it

            2. lol what an ovvious lie

          4. >>Justin Amash, George Will, Ann Coulter

            industrial quality cherry picker.

            1. Not cherry picking. I listed the three I know who have broken ranks. Not many have broken ranks. That’s the sad point.

          5. There’s nothing conservative about those three opportunists. And showboating for peer approval doesn’t equal standing by your principles.

            1. There is nothing conservative about George Will?! That is pure, unadulterated 100% gaslighting.

          6. We get it. Conservatives who bow down and morally preen before leftists are your favorite type of conservative. Go tell is how great Rubin is while you’re at it.

            Coulter is just an attention whore.

            1. We get it, you like conservatives who blow up the deficit by multiple orders of magnitude. But hey, at least you got to punish some of those icky browns.

              1. lol you suck at sockpuppeting Tony.

                1. You guys have a real problem with paranoid delusions. Not even kidding.

                  1. and you suck at sockpuppeting Tony

                  2. They really do.

                    1. AHAHAH CRY MORE TONY AHAHAHAHA

          7. I have not seen, nor heard from, Ann Coulter since the last time I watched Bill Maher about 5 years ago. Otherwise she’s a great example.

            1. I have. And she is being quite critical of Trump’s hiding in a bunker.

              1. Good for her. Wouldn’t have guessed you were a fan.

          8. Justin Amash isn’t conservative.

            Ann Coulter has been running a grift for 20 years. Boondocks even called her out on it.

            You don’t even know who the ‘prominent conservatives’ are – you just know some famous names associated with the Republican party.

            1. You are gaslighting. Notice you didn’t try to refute George Will’s being a bonafide, prominent conservative.

      3. So, you do self-identify as a conservative,

        Lol he was quoting the tweet he linked to you fucking retard

      4. Yes, if only we could go back to the good ol’ days of George W. “True Conservative” Bush and unneeded wars, watering down of the 4th amendment, Patriot Act, attempting to nominate cronies to the SC and then ending up with “Mr. Institution” John Roberts, the list goes on. Now that was true conservatism!

        Trump may be a blowhard but he can at least nominate truly conservative judges, cut taxes, and not be intimidated by the media. He’s a protectionist, which is unfortunately necessary unless you want the country to completely implode as the working class falls apart.

        Higher prices at home depot for cheap Chinese manufactured goods seems to be his huge sin along with talking shit on twitter and not kissing the ring of Bill Kristol and George Will.

        1. Cut taxes = explode the deficit.

          What happened to fiscal responsibility?

          1. its almost like ther’s another variable you forgot to list…

            do you realize how stupid you sound when you say things like what you said there?

            1. I am well aware of the other variable. That does not absolve anyone in government from exploding our deficit.

              Do you have any stupid you look when you claim the president who brought us the greatest deficit increase in our history is a conservative?

              1. “That does not absolve anyone in government”

                I didn’t bring it up to absolve anyone I botught it up to point out how fucking stupid you are for saying “Cut taxes = explode the deficit”

                And it worked.

                1. You are too stupid to talk to.

                  Trump cut taxes, and exploded spending. Are you gonna make me post the cbo figures that show you love big government?

                  1. “Trump cut taxes, and exploded spending”

                    and YOUR stupid ass put the equal sign between them, opening yourself up for the mockery that followed

                    1. You are special, right?

                      Trump cut taxes and exploded spending. He did both things. I never said the two were equal. That is your deficient brain doing something weird again.

                      So do you oppose Trump’s reckless spending and debt servitude he is sentencing our children to, or do you like big government? Would you like to see how much more Trump is spending than Obama? It’s a lot. Oh well, here . I’ll post something simple for you to read, since I am getting the picture the cbo report will be a little above your reading level.


                      Trump doubles Obama’s deficits…in 2019! If you include 2020, then Trump is doing something like 4x or 5x Obama’s deficits.

                    2. “Trump cut taxes and exploded spending.”

                      Then instead of an equal signn the character you should have used is called an Ampersand

                      it looks like this


                      glad we cleared up your error, feel free to cut and paste that if you need it in the future

                  2. Right, but that’s not what you said. You said cutting taxes exploded the deficit. Which it absolutely doesn’t.

              2. “Do you have any stupid you look when you claim the president who brought us the greatest deficit increase in our history is a conservative?”

                Probably very, but not as stupid as you look for coming at me, a person who never claimed Trump was consrvative.

                1. He can’t help himself from just making up shit so he doesn’t have to think too hard.

                2. Go to the top of this thread and look what at what we were talking about before you jumped in, half cocked and full of stupid.

                  1. ok, you still look stupid for coming at me, a person who never claimed Trump was consrvative.

                    in fact, now you look even more stupid because you fucked up and can’t admit it too

              3. Well, you know, as long as taxes are cut, that’s “fiscally conservative” according to the cult of personality, even if spending has bloated like Trump himself.

                1. you should probably take that up with people who think that then, but I don’t know any so I can’t help you

                  1. We were taking it up with them, but then you got in here and took a big dump. I know mommy and daddy would have been proud of it, but this is not the time or place.

                    1. ahahahahah cry more Tony!!!

                      “We were taking it up with them, ”

                      no actually we can all see thats a lie.

        2. Being a libertarian, I’m not particularly concerned with who is a “true conservative”. I am concerned with the ethical cowardice of people and politicians who are conservatives who refrain from calling him out on his ethically reprehensible behavior, wandering principles, and just plain insanity.

      5. So you self-identify as a liberal, not a libertarian. How about one word of condemnation for your party’s sedition? Seems like a true liberal would want to prevent the overthrow of legitimate elections

        1. Good attempt at mirroring what I said, but I’m not a liberal. Unless you count classical liberal.

    2. I have many many doubts that the riots are being perpetrated by BLM and not fucking white suburban larpers acting out their “anarcho-socialist” wet dreams.

      1. It’s both, along with paid commie agitators. Unless you think someone besides BLM spray painted “BLM” on a fireman’s memorial.

        1. It’d be brilliant if it was a Trump supporter who did it. Along with my suspicions that, during yet another set of riots in California during the Republican Primary in 2016, and right after Ted Cruz urged calm and what was characterized as sympathy to the demonstrators, Trump campaign people paid demonstrators to start marching with Mexican flags in front of the cameras.

          1. First riots gave voice to the voiceless. Then riots were actually started by white supremacists and Russians. Now riots were started by police (I think this one will be the most popular)

        2. I could see it, they caught some white kid doing it elsewhere. Antifa’s handbook specifically says blend in with BLM and don’t advertise your presence, they want the blame to fall on BLM. I’m not a huge fan of BLM, because they tend to make what should be a police abuse problem into a race problem, but in this case they’re just useful idiots at worst IMHO.

          1. Could be. Antifa is definitely magnitudes worse than BLM. But I would be shocked if some of the violence isn’t attributable to them.

            1. It absolutely is. Much of it, actually. Antifa want chaos. They think it favors them. They sneak in under the auspices of protesting Floyd’s death, but supporting Floyd is definitely not their goal.

              1 Antifa was turned in for rioting….

              By his parents. LOL. A 20 year old who lives with mommy and daddy.


            2. I wouldn’t doubt if Antifa ranks were filled with FBI agents as well. They’ve taken a beating lately and need to do something to get Americans back on their side. After an unsuccessful coup, a nice riot would make Americans realize why we need them on the wall.

              1. If we have to take the bad anyway, might as well appreciate the good, I guess.

        3. I could almost guarantee that it was some white, still-living-at-home-at-28, ‘progressive’ that did it.

          Nobody loves saying ‘Black Lives Matter’ more than white progressives. It allows them to feel good about the change their effecting in the world while they sit and drink their Starbucks.

      2. super-hot blonde front-and-center on Sunset Boulevard last night says you’re correct.

        1. Did the cops hose her down for their “safety”?

          1. lol should have. some former defensive lineman in riot gear fired a canister at her feet instead.

      3. There are a lot of different protests and riots in 100 different cities. You can find whatever you are looking for. There are all kinds of different people out there on the streets right now, some protesting peacefully, some looting and rioting.

  5. He didn’t read from it. He didn’t step in the church and pray.


    1. Prediction: Sometime this week, we will see a tweet from Trump that says nothing but, “GOD!”

        1. That’s a lot of typing.

  6. A thread about how protesting during a pandemic was described when conservatives were doing it

    1. Yes, but you don’t understand.
      Those people were crass, white working-class, so the media were very certain that they were dangerous and irresponsible and would spread the virus and kill thousands.

      Whereas these noble protesters are using an issue that they perceive may help the DNC and hurt Trump, so the media is very certain that they are virtuous and responsible and the virus is irrelevant, unless the situation turns to Trumps advantage. Then they will be regarded as plague rats.

      1. You’re on the Journolist listserv?

  7. Here are grieving, distraught warriors for peace and justice swarming a Louis Vuitton store and running away with merchandise. It’s all part of the grieving process. I did the same when my grandma died. Very normal stuff folks. Don’t judge.

    1. Spamming now, Ra’s?

      1. You really can’t spam the morning links.

        1. Some here take those as fightin’ words

        2. Then how did we end up with registration?

          1. Mary…
            That’s how.

            1. SHHHHHHHHHHH! Don’t invoke the Frolicking Native.

      2. Ra’s is doing the work ENB won’t do.

        1. ENB is smart enough to get paid for writing for Reason.

          1. And you’re too stupid to understand what a quote is lololol

          2. I’m pretty sure neither intellect or libertarian sympathies are job requirements at neo-Reason.

        2. Won’t? Or can’t?

          I mean, her tiny lady brain may not be equipped to handle real reporting.

  8. Please, fans of the President. Tell us again how libertarian he is and how the church incident is bringing us to the Libertarian Moment.

    1. LOL

      The Libertarian Moment will begin the day President Joe Biden is inaugurated.

    2. I didn’t see any use of water cannons like they did in the Detroit riots when Johnson was president.

      1. Are water cannons considered racist now? Seriously, where did they go?

        1. Everything is racist. Pay attention

        2. Hong Kong po-po are using blue dye to mark the protesters for later arrest….maybe there’s something to that. Mark those anti-fatty (is that what it ‘stands’ for?) queers so they stand out instead of cowardly hiding behind their mask.

    3. Tell us how riots are the actual libertarian policy. Especially shooting at cops.

      1. You first.

        1. They’re not.

          Your turn.

        2. I’m not the one confusing anarchism with libertarianism.

          1. Anarchism and chaos are not the same things.

      2. There are a lot of other options in between “Trump is the perfect libertarian” and anarchists shooting cops, you know.

        1. A lot of people don’t handle nuance very well here, it’s all “protesters are all violent thugs and arsonists and looters, the whole thing is a commie plot!” and “police are all violent racist thugs!”

          1. The Trump fans really have a problem with nuance. But then again it’s a self selected group of people who support a guy who … doesn’t understand nuance.

            1. Nor do you.
              You’re dogmatic and dimwitted

    4. “Please, fans of the President. Tell us again how libertarian he is”

      Shouldn’t you of all people understand spectrums?

      1. OK, tell us how libertarian he is on the spectrum. Because to me, he looks just like a far right populist authoritarian. Kinda hard for a president to rate anywhere on the libertarian spectrum if he unironically considers himself to be an all powerful dictator who is untouchable for his term.

        1. “OK, tell us how libertarian he is on the spectrum”

          Why? My point was that a political spectrum exists and he is somewhere on it.

          “Because to me,”

          I dont care.

        2. “Kinda hard for a president to rate anywhere on the libertarian spectrum if he unironically considers himself to be an all powerful dictator who is untouchable for his term”

          are you fucking retarded or have you not had it explained how spectrums work?

          1. He’s a dishonest piece of shit. He is worthy of mocking, and that’s it.

          2. How far on the libertarian spectrum is a leader who declares themselves all powerful in court on several occasions? I say nowhere on that spectrum.

            1. “How far on the libertarian spectrum”

              Where, not how far. I guess you really don’t know how spectrums work.

              “I say nowhere on that spectrum”

              Considering that you just demonstrated that you don’t know what a spectrum IS or how one works, I am at a loss as why I or anyone else should care what you think.

              1. No one cares what he thinks. If he wasn’t such a dishonest piece of shit, it would be obvious that’s he also pretty dumb

                1. I care what De Opp thinks. He seems to be a genuine libertarian, which has become a rare commodity here.

                  1. of course you care you’re the same person

                  2. Lol. If there’s one thing Lying Jeffy certainly is not it’s genuine anything.

                  3. Thanks, dude.

                    1. The guys that thinks that if an organization doesn’t have a headquarters and a website it doesn’t exist just stood up for you.

                      Makes sense actually.

              2. You guys’ pedantry is reaching peak levels, I hope. “How far” is very different than “where”?

                In this spectrum are there 2 axis or 3? There are only 2, more libertarian or less libertarian. So you could say how far someone is toward libertarianism.

                Or you could pick a pedantic choice of phrase to avoid having to defend the main point, which is what you have chosen to do. Which I understand completely. Who would want to actually try to defend Trump’s actions as being libertarian? That would be idiocy.

                1. ““How far” is very different than “where”?”

                  aahahahaha he doesn’t know why he’s being mocked ahahahaahha


                2. “In this spectrum are there 2 axis or 3? There are only 2, more libertarian or less libertarian. So you could say how far someone is toward libertarianism”

                  God this is so wrong

                  Please stop you’re embarrassing yourself.

                3. I will point out Mr Luber that you are the only one talking about this hypothetical “libertarian” spectrum, and the OP made it clear he was talking about the entire spectrum of political beliefs

                  obama ate a dog
                  June.2.2020 at 12:37 pm
                  “OK, tell us how libertarian he is on the spectrum”

                  Why? My point was that a political spectrum exists and he is somewhere on it.

                  For some reason you hijacked it and then proceeded to humiliate yourself.

                  It is in fact the very thing you complain to the OP about upthread, jumping into a conversation and then diverting it. No doubt you will have an excuse.

                  This whole incident and your subsequemt shame could have been avoided had you just not been a moron.

                  1. “No doubt you will have an excuse.”

                    We’re just being pedantic. He already gave an excuse. But yes, he probably is doing some mental gymnastics as I type to come up with another one. Or he’ll not respond here and pretend this convo never happened.

                    1. Arguing about “how far” vs “where” isn’t pedantic? Come the fuck on.

                      Just tell me how much of a libertarian Trump is. Tell me how wanting to make flag burning illegal or declaring the presidency to be above the law is libertarian.

                    2. You said he was “nowhere” on the spectrum. That’s not how spectrums work.

                  2. I “hijacked” nothing. The conversation was already about Trump and his place on the spectrum:

                    Geronimo Silva
                    June.2.2020 at 11:24 am

                    “Please, fans of the President. Tell us again how libertarian he is”

                    Shouldn’t you of all people understand spectrums?

                    This was the first comment I replied to. So the “spectrum” was already in play, and I didn’t do that.

                    I’m not sure what bolding obama ate a dog’s comment is for. He didn’t have a point, and he certainly never even alluded to any sort of political compass. In fact, he wasn’t even in the conversation until he made that lying claim. Which you then ran with full steam.

                    You show up after all this time with that? I’m disappointed.

    5. Has anyone not red-flagged EVER claimed Trump was libertarian?

    1. If you’re able to, chip in now to the
      @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota.

      You mean the white supremacists protesting? Post bail for them?

  9. Too bad a lot of these people no longer have jobs to go to in the morning.

  10. Killing unarmed people in restraints = bad
    Rioting, violence against cops, and destroying the property of innocent people = also bad

    Why is this so fucking difficult for people?

    1. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

      But here we are.

      1. They do if the DNC and their media organs think that they can make an election issue out of it.

      2. But three lefts do – – – – – –

    2. The armchair commentators in favor of the riots assure me all the looted businesses are insured. I’m not sure when they assessed the properties but I trust them.

      1. Seriously, that is beyond retarded.

        (1) You still don’t have the right to destroy other people’s property. Full stop. That should should be enough but
        (2) Insurers will claim business is not worth much, would probably close in the next few weeks because they just went 3 months with little to no income and future profits are a big question mark;
        (3) You’re hurting your own community, dumbfuck. who is going to put a new business there?
        (4) Insurance companies paying out all this money are going to be totally cool with it and not raise rates for everyone but they’re super nice and generous people, right?

        1. As as aside, insurance policies usually have an “acts of insurrection” or war clause exclusion. Those business owners won’t be getting a dime.

          1. Although with Trump declaring Antifa a terrorist organization they maybe able to successfully argue its covered under their terrorist coverage. Not that it’s an excuse to riot and loot. Many businesses were forced by law to buy that insurance after 9-11.

            1. Except that was just Trump posturing. There is no there there for Antifa, so there’s no organization to outlaw, and on top of that it wouldn’t be legal for him to declare a domestic organization as a terrorists.

              1. The Minneapolis councilman (and son of the AG) pledging his allegiance to Antifa is just posturing too, but it’s good to know where they stand

                1. The subject was whether insurance claims can take advantage of Trump’s declaring Antifa as a terrorist organization. (Which is something Trump didn’t actually do, and can’t actually do.)

                  1. “The subject was”

                    Fuck you. You’re not the arbiter of what people post.

                  2. And in arguing your side of the subject you made the claim “There is no there there for Antifa, so there’s no organization to outlaw” which demonstrates your ignorance for us all to laugh at.

                    1. OK, smart guy, point me to Antifa USA headquarters or their main website?

                    2. I wasn’t aware that a headquarters and a website were required for existence. That’s an interesting theory. And by interesting I mean moronic. But at least you made me laugh at you, so this post served some purpose.

                    3. “OK, smart guy, point me to Antifa USA headquarters or their main website?”

                      ahahahahah omfg ahahahahahahah

              2. Ah, an antifa apologist (I guess I should say “antifa denier” to put it in terms the leftists understand).
                Yea, go with that

                1. Nardz, I will give him credit: he’s a better-written, more eloquent troll than the usual lefty flotsam that washes up here.

                2. Didn’t utter one word of Antifa apologist.

                  1. “There is no there there for Antifa, so there’s no organization to outlaw”

                    You just typed this. Stop being stupid please.

                    1. It’s true. There is no Antifa organization. I don’t even like Antifa. I’m just stating facts.

                      It’s not my fault that Trump apologists often have animosity toward facts.

                    2. Ahh, I get it. You’re that Pod character. A simpleton. There’s lots of organizations that don’t have one centralized authority ruling over the entire organization. Ironically, many other terrorist organizations are similar.

                      Just because it’s due to your ignorance, denying the existence of Antifa is still being an apologist.

            2. Because, in case nobody has noticed this yet, Trump often says he is going to do shit without checking first whether he can actually do it.

              1. I agree it’s a long shot.

              2. So a politician.

                1. That’s a weak cop out.

                  1. it was a weak criticism you got what you deserved

          2. On the contrary, they’ll collect handsomely when they have an accidental fire or flood unrelated to but simultaneous with the riot.

            1. Yeah, insurance companies are super easy to dupe to collect insurance, especially after the real reason their buildings were destroyed was shown live in national TV.

              1. Rest assured Johnny Dollar will be on the case.

                1. Wow, another OTR fan! This board’s chock a block full of nerds.

      2. One, they’re often not. Two, so what?

        It’s like how people I knew who used to commit credit card fraud would say stupid shit like ‘they have a fund to pay for the fraud!’.

        Another favourite of mine is ‘so what the government shut that business down! Someone else will take its place!”

        I’m surrounded by jack offs, buffoons, retards, morons, knaves and fools.

        I’m at a point in my life where if someone says idiotic things like that in polite society and general talk, I quietly keep them away from me.

        As far as I’m concerned, people like that are part of the problem and can straight fuck off.

        1. Well, what good is a policy anyway if it never pays off?

          1. What good is a brain if you don’t use it?

        2. I’m surrounded by jack offs, buffoons, retards, morons, knaves and fools.

          How is Sacramento these days?

      3. #libertarianmoment

      4. Yeah, I’ve heard that one. And we all know insurance companies are bottomless wells of cash that will never go broke or raise their rates dramatically.

    3. A not small part of the actual rioting is other people with other issues taking advantage of a moment of anger.

      Then you have unemployment levels not seen since the great depression leaving many people with idle hands.

      Then you have desperate people who see no hope of getting justice through the system.

      1. But mostly, you have Marxists and looters


        2. There are also libertarians who are fed up with police abusing power.
          You know what a libertarian is right? Think back to days past before you rented your brain to an orange politician.

          1. Ok, eric: what percentage of the rioters are libertarians fed up with police abusing power, in your estimation?

      2. “Then you have desperate people who see no hope of getting justice through the system.”

        This is the part that is severely under estimated and appreciated. Once cynicism and mistrust sets in with the law-abiding, productive and peaceful citizens it’s game over. They’re the silent and imaginary line keeping it all together and giving legitimacy to the system. If they feel abandoned, this is a terrible problem.

        Beccaria warned once there’s perceived injustice you lose the plot.

        This is what no one seems to get and with left-wing Mayors and Governors in positions in power now, this is likely by design.

        Maybe it’s because I’m older (and presumably wiser) but what I’m seeing out there isn’t ‘protesting’. It’s nihilism.

        1. Why did you throw in blame on left-wing mayors and governors into your analysis? That came out of nowhere, with no connection to the rest of what you said.

          1. Probably because the riots are occurring in left wing urban centers completely controlled by left wing politicians

            1. Riots happen in urban centers. Urban areas are pretty much all liberal. But Rufus didn’t give one word of explanation of how “the system” is the fault only of liberals. (Hint: It’s not. Team Blue and Team Red are both responsible for “the system”.)

              1. He also didn’t SAY it was “the fault only of liberals” FUCKWIT

              2. The subject was whether riots are occurring in leftist controlled domains

              3. Go back to Media Matters, troll. Or get a better, more thought out, set of talking points. Every post from you has been some variety of how the police —with Trump as their evil leader—are to blame for the riots and cities burning down, not the rioters.

                These cities that have suffered the greatest depredations from riots have been Democratic Party controlled since the beginning of time. The police chiefs, the judges, the city elected officials, county officials: all Democratic Party. It is their fault. It is their problem to correct, which state officials appear unready or unwilling to do.

                Accordingly, Trump is offering to activate units of the US Army to quell a domestic uprising. I think it’s a mistake. Further, he’s asking to have Antifa designated as a terrorist organization. You can go to the Roundup yesterday, look at the cited relevant USC sections, and see he has a point. Antifa receives foreign funding, some of its members received training in Syria, and its purpose has been to violently deny the public spaces to all viewpoints other than ones it finds acceptable.

                Trump probably will be thwarted in that too. As Ken is fond of pointing out here, it doesn’t matter if he’s successful or not, if it means political opponents of his like yourself are placed in the public perception of stopping Trump from using the federal government’s powers to stop violent groups like Antifa from burning down American cities.

                1. If the police in Minneapolis are unaccountable, it’s almost certainly because the city council signed off on union contracts that made them unaccountable–and progressives have dominated the Minneapolis city council since forever.


                  I maintain that the solution to making the police accountable is divided government. When the city council is a single party, then issues aren’t really decided by the people. They’re decided in back rooms between the leaders of the one party. If a city council person can’t lose his or her job because of the way he or she voted–since whomever runs as the Democrat wins–then they won’t vote on a police contract based on how it will impact the community. They’ll vote on the police contract based on how it impacts their reelection campaign. And since the city council person depends on the support of the police, guess what’s in their best interest to do. That’s right, they’ll vote to make the police unaccountable.

                  It’s that way in every major progressive city in America. It’s also why the government employee pension systems are out of control in places like California and Illinois. If the people who vote in these progressive hell holes can’t bring themselves to vote or Republicans to the point that they’d rather suffer under single-party rule, then I don’t know what anybody is supposed to do about that.

                  Do they want us to strip public employees of their right to organize?

                  No? They’re against that, too?

                  1. This reply and ones like it, so basically your garden-variety “this is all happening in ‘Democrat’ cities so it’s all liberal policy in action” typically have one major blind spot in their underlying assumption, which goes Democrat mayor = democrat cops = liberal policies theough and through” or something like that.

                    Can we stop pretending? For the past several decades, politicians of either major party are all controlled/constrained (as relates to this topic) by the same thing that makes it so that no one can ever successfully pass anything that would lower military (or police) spending or restrict anything they do…because it’s immediately (especially since 9/11) labeled as “anti-military/anti-police/why do you hate America so much” and couched in the accompanying rhetoric.

                    So even in so-called “Democratic” cities just like anywhere else, politicians all know that any attempt to reign in police spending, police arming with military gear, etc. are met with cries of “unpatriotic” and “anti-police/Anti-America.”
                    This is ALSO applied by the police unions to shout down any sort of “police the police” initiatives or anything that may restrict funding. And up until last week, 95% of right-wing people would have shouted the same thing at ANY attempt to reign in either police conduct or police spending. So you can’t just sit there and get away with saying “Democrat mayor = entire city apparatus is liberal” or whatever lazy claim you are all trying to make with these and similar arguments.

                2. “…Democratic Party. It is their fault. It is their problem to correct, which state officials appear unready or unwilling to do…Accordingly, Trump is offering to activate units of the US Army to quell a domestic uprising. I think it’s a mistake.”

                  I hate that I have to do the “Pox on both houses” thing, but seriously- a pox on both their houses.

                  If Trump was really the master of 4D Chess, he would have send Federal Marshals in to immediately arrest all of those cops for civil rights violations. He would have perp walked them out of the precinct in front of the crowd.

                  Instead of a tweet about “Ordering the DOJ to investigate”, he should have sent a tweet along the lines of, “The next video I see where a police officer appears to be violating the civil rights of a citizen will result in that officer being detained by federal officials. You might be released later upon further details, but you will be walked out in handcuffs immediately. You can have a lawyer, but your Union representative will not be welcome.”

                  It would have been great to see the Blue mayors and Police Chiefs trying to defend the police. Instead, Trump fell into exactly the same Law and Order vs Minorities coin flip that has dominated this conversation for 40 years.

                  1. I think Trump has played the game well, until now at least. He’s generally been 1 step ahead of the media, being able to craft situations or mold those he didn’t create, to ultimately benefit him. He knows the media will bend over backwards to go against him no matter the situation and has used that to his advantage.

                    But it seems like he’s completely tone deaf on this one. He’s completely misread the room, unless the only people he’s looking at are the few conservatives in the corner, scowling.

                    1. You must hang out with a ton of liberals because his actions are surprisingly and widely popular where I am

                    2. “You must hang out with a ton of liberals because his actions are surprisingly and widely popular where I am“

                      Of course they are. But if the hooker you have tied up in your mom’s basement got a vote it would be 50/50.

                    3. Why wouldn’t your mom get a vote?

                    4. ROFL

                    5. Your wife’s kid get drafted yet, Eric?
                      Or did you spirit him away to Canada?

                    6. Not drafted yet. Too young.

                      Trump give you a reach around yet? Or at least send you flowers?

                    7. ahahahahah I forgot it was “OMFG WW3 IS IMMINENT PANTS OFFICALLY SHIT” eric ahahahahha

                    8. So if Eric’s son was older he would have been drafted?!

                    9. yeah like 70 or so lolololl

                  2. That’s not what the US Marshals do.

              4. Which side perpetuates victimhood as an ideology?

                1. OMG lol Trump plays victim more and more loudly than anyone else, and the irony is even greater as he has never faced adversity in his entire life (that he didn’t self-create anyway).

        2. well, there are protests and there is nihilism. There may be some overlap in the people involved, but its probably fairly small.

      3. Plus you have yahoos from antifa, boogaloos, and go knows who else just showing up to get their ya-yas out and stir up trouble.

    4. Because you have to take a side in the Red-Blue culture war. Not sure why you have to take a side in the stupid Red-Blue culture war instead of telling both major parties to piss off, but a lot of people are convinced they have to be a member of one of those two teams.

      1. Exactly. This started off as universal agreement against what that cop did. The media can’t have that. Must find a way to divide people again.

      2. It’s an election year, and Duverger’s law is a real thing.

        And sometimes the blue/red divide has real policy implications.

        When we opposed the lock-downs, we didn’t do so on a theoretical basis. We opposed the lock-downs because they exacerbated the impact of COVID-19 on consumer spending and unemployment in the real world. To the extent that the popularity of lock-downs became a red vs. blue issue, . . .

        Sometimes the parties and the issues line up, and when they do, it can be appropriate for libertarians to pick a side. Look at Duverger’s law, and it becomes clear that because we have single member districts in this country–and the implications of that on policy–as the progressives in the Democratic party become increasingly authoritarian and socialist, it is entirely appropriate for libertarian capitalists to become increasingly Republican.

        1. No, it is not appropriate for libertarians to pick Team Blue or Team Red as a side. Either team might have a libertarian position on a particular issue, but you if you pick a side you are buying their entire platform, not just their stance on an issue or two.

          1. “it is not appropriate ”

            Fuck you and what you think is “appropriate” as a choice for me

          2. “No, it is not appropriate for libertarians to pick Team Blue or Team Red as a side. Either team might have a libertarian position on a particular issue, but you if you pick a side you are buying their entire platform, not just their stance on an issue or two.”

            Have you ever taken a look at the Green New Deal?

            “Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.”

            “Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature.”


            Those are just the first two points. It’s nothing but authoritarian socialism.

            If Joseph Stalin were the Democratic nominee for President of the United States, it would be entirely appropriate for libertarians to put their support behind President Trump. Is Joe Biden as bad as Joseph Stalin? No, of course not, but once we’ve established that there is a point beyond which it is appropriate [necessary] for libertarians to support President Trump, the question is whether the authoritarian socialists who run the Democratic party have crossed that line.

            When I consider the progressives’ open hostility to capitalism, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, and their support for The Green New Deal and Medicare for All, it seems to me that the Democratic party has crossed that line already.

            Being principled isn’t about never doing something that makes you uncomfortable. Being principled is about standing up to defend libertarian capitalism–even if it means you might have to do something you hate, like vote for Donald Trump.

            I look forward to the day when the Democrats retreat from authoritarian socialism sufficiently so that I can go back to doing my patriotic duty and refuse to vote for any of them. That day won’t come until at least November of 2024.

            1. The green new deal has little to do with climate change, and lots to do with prog utopia. It’s turd sandwiches all the way down

              1. Joe Biden’s revision to the Green New Deal is that he would implement it over a longer period of time.

                He’s promising to fuck us gently.

                1. Joe Biden’s revision to the Green New Deal is that he would implement it over a longer period of time.

                  IMHO, what that signals is that he has no intention of enacting it, and is just posturing to try to keep the far left on the plantation. If he ever gets into office, in a few years he’ll blame the Republicans for having killed it.

                2. He’s promising to fuck us gently.

                  But this is a good place for this.

            2. What a load of dishonorable rationalization. I have to vote for Trump because the Green New Deal.

              You don’t have to play the Red-Blue game. You don’t have to support or vote for either major party.

              1. You sure don’t.
                Ken is telling you about the choice he’s made, and presenting an argument why he’s made that choice.
                “Mike Drop” on the other hand does nothing but whine and cling to his impotent, shallow tenet of faith

          3. ” if you pick a side you are buying their entire platform,”

            One of the dumbest things ever said.

            1. How is it not the plain truth? When you check the little box next to a candidate’s name there’s no place to attach a rider with a list of issues they are allowed for which they represent you.

              1. so Susan Collins votes the same as Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul on everything?

                That’s why. But you’re stuoid so you don’t get it.

            2. Bullshit Jesse. You claim independence, but continuously and without failure come down on Republican side of the issue every single time. So do most here. Just admit that principals > principles for almost everyone.

              1. and you’re a prog sockpuppet

                1. You’re an internet troll.

          4. Piss off Tony, your not fooling anyone.

            1. What makes you think this is Tony?

              1. Because you obviously are.

        2. Mmmm structural analysis.

          Duverger is far from Iron Law. There are many counter-examples.

          You repeat the line about becoming increasingly republican, but I don’t see it, at least not on an individual basis. I may find that the democratic party is straying further from my ideals so I electorally side with republicans more, but why should I defend them when they do stupid shit? or forgive it?

          Yeah if forced to pick between authoritarian socialists, and authoritarian mixed-market-capitalists, I’d probably loosely side with the ‘capitalists’, but not with any joy.

          1. The saddest thing for me is that the same people who tell me I should pick Donald Trump as the lesser of two evils don’t see that I am picking the lesser of two evils when I say that Trump’s reaction to this whole thing is wrong.

            15 years ago, I thought the patriot act was the lesser of two evils when against the thought of more terrorist attacks. Today, I have seen that the patriot act has institutionalized a surveillance state that nearly deposed a lawfully elected president. Forced to pick between Patriot and more dangerous Terrorists, I pick the latter.

            I hate riots, and looting. But I hate seeing videos where cops basically dare you to protest as they strangle a man or shoot another in the face with a tear gas canister. I am forced to pick between lawless rioters and supporting an institutionalized regime of FYTW thugs wearing police uniforms. We can repair cities. But we may never have another chance to rally the country around breaking the lock that police unions have on Blue cities.

            1. This is about where I’m at. I hate that the issue is completely dominated by race politics, as opposed to “The Police are out of control thugs and this shit must stop” but since we’re never gonna get that, I guess the next best thing I can hope for is that the outcome of the race politics has some effect on our out of control things in blue.

              We need to not only have the police treat blacks as human beings, but to change their entire culture. Until the “Us vs Them” culture of cops is changed, the race based politics will accomplish nothing.

            2. “But we may never have another chance to rally the country around breaking the lock that police unions have on Blue cities.”

              You lost that chance, if there ever really was one.
              You refuse to admit these are Marxist riots, which I’m sure they find useful

      3. omfg Jeff fuck off

        1. He can’t. It’s his job.

    5. It appears to be about as difficult for some as differentiating between legitimate protests on one hand, and violent arson and looting on the other hand — and that applies to the fringe of both sides.

      1. BOTH SIDES!!! Cried the prog when caught

  11. It sent dust and dirt and sometimes other detritus whipping down the street, forcing protesters to shield their faces with their clothing or duck into doorways to avoid the debris.

    The covid virus is ordered to disperse!

    1. Success!!!! Did you hear that everybody? We can finally leave our houses and go burn some shit!

  12. “Last night looked like a recipe for disaster as cities across the country instituted curfews to curb protests against police brutality and protesters showed no intent to comply.”


    These riots are not protests against police brutality. What we’re seeing happening in the streets of our cities isn’t really about the police.

    In southern California, when the rains are particularly good in the winter, for a year, the weeds grow shoulder-high everywhere. If that year is followed by a drought, all the weeds dry out and die–and become kindling for massive fires that are just waiting to happen. If a carelessly thrown cigarette, a foolishly parked car, or a branch from a tree falls into a power line, none of those things are the primary cause of the resulting fire. The primary cause of the fire is the drought that stacked dried up kindling shoulder high across a hundred thousand acres.

    The Boston Massacre may have sparked the American Revolution, but the American Revolution wasn’t about the Boston Massacre. The LA Riots of 1992 were sparked by the verdict in the Rodney King trial, but the LA Riots of 1992 weren’t about Rodney King. Mohamed Bouazizi sparked the Arab Spring when he set himself on fire in protest, but the Arab Spring wasn’t about Mohamed Bouazizi. And people rioting in New York City and Seattle may point to the death of George Floyd as the spark that started the fire, but these riots aren’t really about George Floyd or police brutality.

    The riots in 1992 were preceded by a recession in 1991, which was distinguished for being a “jobless recovery”. Unemployment was especially bad in southern California during that recession, and the unemployment rate continued to rise after the recession was over–it didn’t peak nationally until after the LA riots of 1992.

    The recession we’re experiencing now is far worse than the one in the early 1990s. We have never lost so many jobs so quickly. 35 million Americans have lost their jobs in less than eight weeks! Adding fuel to that fire, progressive governments in places like New York City and Seattle have implemented lock-downs, which not only exacerbated the problem of consumer spending drying up but also added to people’s frustrations as they were effectively locked in their homes for eight weeks without access to the business that cater to them.

    The people who’ve lost their jobs, especially in our inner cities, are the people on the lower end of the pay curve in service industries like restaurants, people, people who worked as truck drivers, people who worked construction–people who can’t do their jobs from home. George Floyd may be the focus of their fury, but like bees swarming for reasons they don’t fully understand, George Floyd isn’t really the reason these people are rioting. Making this all about police brutality isn’t just bad because it obscures the root causes of these riots. It also stops us from highlighting the long term solutions, which are all about opportunity and economic growth.

    P.S. It is unreasonable to experience 35 million job losses in eight weeks and expect there not to be any civil unrest.

    1. Calling this a ‘protest’ is so LOL.

      1. If there have been violent riots for six straight nights, and you’re going out on night seven, it’s not to protest.

        1. “I’m protesting the riots, DUH!”

    2. Especially when small businesses and individuals are getting by on scraps, and the majority of the relief spending is going to Wall Street to bail out the biggest, best-connected companies that should be allowed to fail after decades of JIT/hand-to-mouth management leaves them once again unable to weather the storms they help create.

      1. Fixing the problem of police brutality certainly won’t do anything about lock-down associated job losses, and those job losses are far worse in states that featured harsher lock-downs over longer periods of time.

      2. “leaves them once again unable to weather the storms they help create.”

        Wall Street caused Covid-19!!!

        Maybe you should stop posting and seek some help.

        1. That’s not what he said. You got it exactly backwards.

          1. Incorrect

            “that should be allowed to fail after decades of JIT/hand-to-mouth management leaves them once again unable to weather the storms they help create.”

            He is literally saying Wall Street heped create Covid

            1. I was talking about the fragile underlying state of the economy and the number of “billion dollar” businesses that are brittle as hell and immediately go into shock the moment their cash flow is tweaked. Everything is leveraged to the hilt, and any profit is squeezed out for bonuses and stock buybacks and engaging in obtuse investment mechanisms.

              Somehow individuals and small businesses are “foolish” if they don’t have savings… but the bigger the corporation, the more “hand-to-mouth” it’s OK for them to be, living on massive short-term loans and maintaining no reserve for dealing with disruptions.

              1. “I was talking about the fragile underlying state of the economy and the number of “billion dollar” businesses ”

                I am aware, unfortunately for YOU the way you said it necessarily means that you included COVID.

                You got rightly mocked. Get over it.

                1. Sorry, I’m experiencing zero bad feels at this point. I made it clear what I meant. Only an idiot would actually think that Wall Street secretly cooked up SARS-CoV-2 in a secret lab under the stock exchange or whatever.

                  1. “Only an idiot would actually think that Wall Street secretly cooked up SARS-CoV-2 ”

                    Which is why you were mocked for saying it.

                    Glad you got some insight.

    3. It’s not like the job losses are isolated to liberal cities. Do you see conservative parts of the country rioting?

      Nor that you didn’t see protest prior to George Floyd.

      Strange that none of them erupted into roving gangs illegal haircuts after dark.

      To be sure, causes are multifacted,and certainly lockdowns and job loss contributed heavily.

      But the peculiar nature of the riots seem to most echo what was seen on college campuses not that long ago. Now weaponized with the unprovoked death of a black man to rally around.

      And most of the rhetoric seems to follow the the same pattern of barely tangential demands of “racial justice”, whatever that means.

      And as someone who, by degree, agrees with the protestors, I am repulsed by the fact their actions will set back any discussion of police reform or any of the thousands of other causes that contribute to the harassment of marginalized groups by at least a decade or more.

      It’s not only the destruction of cities or loss of life, but the outright betrayal of marginalized groups to make a better future for themselves by would-be revolutionaries that is unconscionable , and frankly, unforgivable.

      1. “It’s not like the job losses are isolated to liberal cities. Do you see conservative parts of the country rioting?”

        I suspect these riots are mostly centered in more progressive parts of the country, not because of the political ideology directly, but indirectly by way of the lock-downs. They made lock-downs a progressive issue, and the lock-downs, in turn, exacerbated the effects of the pandemic on unemployment (among other things). Unemployment tends to be worse in areas where the lock-downs were harsher and enforced more aggressively.

        I said so from the moment the lock-downs were first introduced that making it against the law to open for business or go to work–ahead of an impending recession– was the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen grown-ups in positions of authority do. When we know a recession is coming, making it against the law for people to go to work is profoundly stupid. Herbert wrote that, “Fear is the mind-killer”, and fear of the pandemic certainly made progressive politicians dumber than they’ve ever been before.

        Meanwhile, the same thing will be happening all over the world–for different “reasons”. June 4th is the anniversary of the Tienanmen Square Massacre, and the reason Emperor Xi is doing what he’s doing in Hong Kong now appears to be to head off or destroy those protests–to prevent those protests from spreading into mainland China. The reason he’s so afraid of the protests spreading is because the lack of consumer demand in the west means lots of unemployed Chinese factory workers right now–something they haven’t experienced since China joined the WTO in 2001.

        If the people of Hong Kong riot on June 4th, it won’t be because of George Floyd, and if unemployed factory workers all over mainland China riot in the wake of the Hong Kong Massacre of 2020, it won’t because of Hong Kong. They’ll all be ripe kindling because of the economic downturn. During the revolutions of 1848, each country experienced revolutions with different focal points, and they all thought they were doing it for their own unique reasons. Ultimately, however, they all did the same things for the same reasons–whether they realized it or not.

        That’s what we’re looking at here.

        Huge spikes in unemployment and economic collapse create civil unrest–cross culturally and throughout all of history. Tell the historians of the future that we lost 35 million jobs over the last eight weeks, and they’re not about to tell us that the civil unrest of 2020 was all about police brutality–like they’re not going to tell us that the Vietnam War was all about the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

        People act and then rationalize what they do. Those of us who do things the other way around are rare.

    4. I think you are right. This isn’t about the police. The people who are actually peacefully protesting are probably really there about police violence. But the rioting and unrest have to have a lot to do with the economic disaster that has been imposed on us.

      1. The organizers of the premeditated portions of the rioting do think of this as more economic than social. Antifa is explicitly some version of communist from what we know about them. Any excuse to riot and burn things is a good excuse. I do suspect you’re right, some of the rioting is more spontaneous and linked to a broader existential dread that most people are feeling because of the economy as well as all the various social tensions. I’m concerned that we’re really only seeing the dawn of this. Whatever happens in November, this is going to get worse before it gets better.

  13. Violent enforcement of curfews will only perpetuate the cycle of police violence.

    Someone’s getting the point.

  14. New leader in most vapid political promise event:

    “Biden vows to take on systemic racism”

    I’ll take ‘systemic racism’ and the points, please.

    1. “Hate just hides. It doesn’t go away, and when you have somebody in power who breathes oxygen into the hate under the rocks, it comes out from under the rocks,” Biden told more than a dozen African American leaders

      Powerful stuff.

      1. That oxygen, you mean?

    2. But in a stunning turn, Biden loses the lead to an even more idiotic contender:

      “Rep. Barbara Lee proposes racial healing and truth commission amid pandemic, protests”
      “…The proposal would form a nonpartisan group of experts to confront the legacy of slavery and racism in the U.S. and propose ways forward, the Oakland Democrat and congressional colleagues said Monday in a call announcing the effort…”

      I’m saying this has ‘gold metal’ written all over it!

      1. Oh, the competition isn’t over yet, and we have yet to hear from the other entrants. Imma guess before we’re done we’ll be looking at a bill proposing eleventy trillion dollars in reparations to go directly to the looters.

        1. I heard 14trilly last count, forget who was the grifter that said it

          1. That would be Robert Johnson, co-founder of BET.

            No word on how much of his own fortune he’s willing to, um, cough up.

            1. ty

        2. Already done; Robert Johnson of BET was advocating a reparations fund ‘for the victims of slavery’, totalling some 14 trillion dollars.

          No biggie.

          1. you don’t read the comments fully do you Overt?

      2. Oh good. “The Committee for Public Safety” part deux. Keep your powdered wig dry.

    3. He’ll fix it by picking Kamala Harris for VP. That will stop people of color from being over policed by white people. Now they’ll be over policed by a black lady. Problem solved!

    4. Many people on Twitter pointed out Biden had 36 years in the Senate and 8 years in the WH to take care of that.

    5. Systemic racism? Totally exists.

      Deep State? Trumpian paranoia!

    6. My, you’d think he wasn’t in elected office for over 4 decades or something…

    7. Guaranteed he’ll still support the War on Drugs, oppose school choice, and take the black vote for granted.

      1. And decide who is “black”!

    8. He’s gonna bring back busing.

    9. That’s mighty white of him.

  15. A private post-mortem examination found George Floyd’s death was due to “homicide caused by asphyxia due to neck and back compression.” The findings differs from the Hennepin County medical examiner’s preliminary autopsy.

    Guess we need a tiebreaker.

    1. Or a headbreaker. 8-(

    2. A police department used forensic science, not to find truth, but to get the result that’s politically convenient for them? I’m shocked. Let’s hope this doesn’t become a pattern. Last thing we would want to due is is sully the good name of air-tight forensic science.

      1. I am shocked to find that the coroner paid by the state arrived at the conclusion that exposes the state to the least amount of legal liability, we really had no way of seeing that coming.

    3. I’d say it was a corona virus related death.

  16. More bad economic news.

    Black Workers, Already Lagging, Face Big Economic Risks

    You know what would help black workers the most? Implementing the Koch / Reason policy of unlimited, unrestricted immigration.


    1. #TrumpRecession2020

      Check out the Misery Index – it is at an all time high.

      Also LFP rate is at an all time low. I remember when the raunchy Peanut gallery used LFP when Obama UE was falling every year.

      1. You’re comparing numbers in the middle of this panicdemic with Obama’s numbers? You really are desperate.

        1. This whole economy during the pandemic is Trumps fault. I’ve yet to see one blue state governor make it illegal for people to earn a living or a single blue check mark to endorse such policies.

          1. Not only that, turd tells us Trump developed the flu in his own private lab, and turned it loose in China!
            Plus, he has inside info on the Nixon – Hitler meeting in Argentina in ’56!

        2. Obama was sworn in during the worst part of the Bushpig’s Financial Collapse.

          It might get worse though. So you might have a point.

          1. Yes, Obama did start at the lowest possible point the US economy could reach

            1. Yeah, started at record lows, which gave a competent POTUS a real chance for rocket-propelled growth.
              “Sorry, This Is Still The Worst Economic Recovery Ever”
              “…The latest revised numbers for GDP growth through the third quarter of 2015 tell us that we are still stuck in a 2% growth rut and real middle class wages are still flat-lining.
              Meanwhile, another new report from Sentier Research based on Census data finds that median household income of $56,700 at the end of 2015 stood exactly where it was, adjusted for inflation, at the end of 2007.
              That’s eight years of virtually zero income gain. And Obama and his Washington pals wonder why voters are in such a cranky mood…”

              1. With every talking point Buttplug brings up, he manages to get his ass handed to him.
                He’s got to be the worst fifty-center ever.

          2. The recession ended 2 months into Obama’s tenure prior to any policy being enacted dummy.

          3. lol i know you tried to defend it but that actually makes you look worse lolol

      2. Lol. It’s no longer Obama’s economy when the recovery is over.

      3. But now everyone has Louis Vuitton luggage! A life of luxury!

  17. 2 people killed in the Cicero area isn’t news. The protest and riots probably dropped the crime rate there

  18. Hearing a lot from @KamalaHarris tonight on the news during this horrible night. Make her the next Vice President.

    Ha! Biden and Harris: Two names you think of when you think of the fight against over-policing.

    1. That guy’s Twitter page says he’s a “recovering libertarian.” Whatever that means.

      1. He must have read the comments here.

        1. First Tony makes a joke, and then you? This really is Armageddon.

          1. CORONAGEDDON is upon us.

      2. Sounds like he ran out of weed, tough break.

    2. Last thing this country needs is Kamala Harris anywhere near the White House, for all her blowhard rhetoric now, she was the prototypical bad prosecutor, focused on conviction numbers and upholding her “wins” no matter how overwhelming the evidence to overturn or revisit might be.

      1. Yes. God help us if individual politicians start abusing the power of the state to further their own political careers with a reckless disregard for the bodies they leave in their wake. Thank god she’s an isolated incident.

        1. Pod is still going to vote for her

      2. she was the prototypical bad prosecutor, focused on conviction numbers and upholding her “wins” no matter how overwhelming the evidence to overturn or revisit might be.

        But she has dark skin, which is the important thing.

  19. A senior White House official told @Axios when they saw the tear gas clearing the crowd for Trump to walk to the church: “I’ve never been more ashamed. I’m really honestly disgusted. I’m sick to my stomach. And they’re all celebrating it.”

    “And another senior White House official said: ‘I’ve never been more proud. Not only is the President acting wisely to stop the violence, he’s calming the nation by his solemn demeanor.'”

    1. so much for the ‘hiding in the bunker’ narrative

      1. Uncle Joe’s out and about, too.

        1. All those kids coming back to the playgrounds aren’t going to sniff their own hair, dontcha know.

  20. There’s a bipartisan push in Congress to demilitarize the police.

    That window will close real fast.

    1. I think it’s been shut since Saturday

    2. Makes sense. With cities and states having gone broke they need to find new customers; probably one our “friends” in the Middle East.

  21. Too bad the lockdowns didn’t get the curfew treatment.

    Cowards and nihilists are a toxic mix.

  22. Will “law and order” rhetoric help Trump win reelection? Maybe not.

    I think Hillary’s got this in a landslide.

    1. “It ain’t over ’til it’s over.”

      1. but the fat lady might die of COVID before she gets to sing

        1. Singing not allowed; don’t you read the executive orders?

          1. Please don’t give Whitless any ideas.

  23. A priest was tear gassed and driven off church property to clear a path for the president

    Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?’

    1. That’s pretty funny.

      1. Two jokes in one day. Someone must have hijacked the buttplugger’s account again.

        1. you got me

    2. That’s actually funny Sir Beckett; I am assuming someone stole this account again and you are Buttplug redoux?

  24. In other news …
    “Online retailer and styling service Stitch Fix said Monday that it plans to lay off 1,400 stylists based in California between now and the end of September. The company plans to hire 2,000 stylists in other U.S. locations” instead

  25. In New York City, hours of peaceful protest were marred by some folks smashing windows or doors of shops like Macy’s and Nike.

    “Some people did something.”

    1. Perfect fit for ENB.

    2. you know in war there is more time of peace than there is of killing going by ENB’s standards. Look at all those tanks and soldiers peacefully assembling over the hill. Nuts!

  26. Just in case any of the “the police are just attacking violent looters and arsonists” crowd missed it in the article.

    1. Hmm. Yep, a 3 second shot of something; wonder what he was doing before that was taken?
      Oh, look! It’s that fucking lefty ignoramus killjoy! No wonder!

      1. This is like the video that circulated yesterday of the cop pulling out his gun during the riots. Video started about 5 seconds after his partner was hit in the back of the head by a brick. The cop was later taken to the hospital. But at least Antifa edits videos well.

    2. They are attacking violet looters, arsonist and rioters. They also attacking innocent peaceful protesters. Often times because the former group is using the latter group as human shields. Sometimes it just because cops can be violent dickheads high on their own power. How about we be honest with ourselves and admit that neither side has a monopoly on either honest people that think they’re doing the right thing or fascist pieces of shit who are willing to harm innocent people to achieve their desired political aesthetics? Everything that happens is a result of individual actors doing things for their own reasons. It’s called nuance, it’s not as difficult as people think it is.

      1. Plus, it’s always a good idea to get off the streets when a riot is happening.

        1. Problem is, *some* of the peaceful protests are being turned into riots by unprovoked over-reaction from certain police departments.

          1. Frankly, I’m not really willing to take a side on who is instigating which conflicts. Even with video evidence there’s usually missing context and this is another example where there is a massive incentive to misrepresent each side and who is doing what first. I would generally think that police departments do have to think about the long game more than the organized groups turning the peaceful protests violent. At the end of the day the police need to save face with their communities since they will be sticking around and increasing animosity towards them only makes their jobs harder. I imagine that most of the individual officers understand this and will act accordingly, obviously some will not. Anonymous masked rioters (some who are coming from cities that they don’t live in) don’t have any such skin in the game and their stated goal is to cause chaos and destruction.

            Are the cops getting violent first some of the time? It would be safe to presume. Is it Antifa and similar groups starting it? I think purely base on looking at their incentives, it is safe to assume they’re doing it more often. I really don’t see a lot of people that saying that the cops have no liability here in any articles I’m finding on various sources. Even police and police unions are speaking out against the murderous officer. However, I’m easily able to find articles pretending like the violent element of the protesters doesn’t exist or they’re completely justified. I’m guessing the lack of ownership for responsibility on that side for the average news consumer isn’t a good look.

      2. They are attacking violet looters
        Are they from the purple states?

        1. This site needs an edit button in the worst way.

  27. I’m glad to see that in most blue states, if you want to go out to the gym to work out, you get arrested, but if you want to go to the gym to torch it, it’s totally cool

    1. Exaggerate much? Nobody in any blue state is saying “it’s totally cool”.

      1. True. They are just ignoring it completely. Oh… and bailing out the ones arrested.

        1. Unlike Mister Assumptions over here, I actually live in a blue state with a Republican gov who disagrees with Trump (so this is already well over Jesse’s ability to comprehend without another word) and NEITHER ONE of those is true or happening. No one arrested for going to the gym and no one being just allowed to burn it without consequence either. But carry on, we here are used to people from states that aren’t barely 50 years old telling us how it works here.

      2. My bad. “Totally peaceful…hey look over there! Trump is talking!”

  28. “The Antifa Twitter account encouraged followers to engage in acts of wanton vandalism this weekend. The Associated Press reported that law enforcement offices warned that Antifa had told followers that Minnesota National Guard troops were “easy targets,” and to steal their weapons and body armor.

    These alleged anti-fascists and alt-right Nazis deserve each other. America deserves neither. The difference is that one group is rightly condemned by all decent people, while the other gets high-fives from the celebrity class and apologias in the Washington Post.”

    -David Harsanyi

    1. It’s about time somebody teaches these varmints a little lesson about morality and about what it’s like to be a decent, upstanding member of a society!

  29. New 2020 election meme:

    If you liked the 1930s Depression, the 1968 riots, and the 1917 flu pandemic you will LOVE Trump’s 2020.

    1. Go fuck your daddy, you pathetic piece of lying shit.

      1. Loosen up, Sevo! I know your Top Man hero is floundering like a hooked bass but you always have the good times on this board to cheer you up.

        1. Go fuck your daddy, you pathetic piece of lying shit.

          1. Low-energy, Sevo.

    2. that is funny and shows just how good trump is at getting all those things done in one term. Burned

      1. +1 Multitasking.

    3. you leftists are so bad at memeing

      1. That’s because they hate humor unless it’s hurting or mocking and can’t into irony.

      2. sick burn, bro

        1. DOL just proved your point.

          1. he’s so bad at this lolol

            1. He appears to be bad at lots of things.

  30. “Tesla worker criticizes factory safety”
    “…Musk “has dumbed down this pandemic from the get-go,” Gabriel said. “He said it was dumb to worry about it. He said that it’s not that fatal. He called for the liberation of America, whatever that is. All he wants is profits over health.”…”

    So JFree works at Tesla?
    And, not surprisingly, he’s confused; Tesla’s only turned a profit in a single quarter of its entire existence, and that was from peddling ’emission credits’ to other auto makers.

    1. Every time I heard about this shit, I just remind myself Tesla is located in California. If I were truly paranoid I would assume these “factory workers” are a fifth column installed to stir up dissent.

    2. Are you taking your Droxy like Trump told you to, Sevo? Just crush it up with some Adderall and snort it. You can post all day in defense of your hero then.

      1. Go fuck your daddy, you pathetic piece of lying shit.

      2. lol you’re a known diddler lololol

      3. Shouldn’t you be looting an orphanage?

        1. ahhahahahahh

  31. Whenever I see footage of protests and riots from around the country, one thing repeatedly strikes me. It’s the sheer number of cops in this country. Holy fuck, the US has a absolute metric fuckton of cops. I mean, goddamn there must be millions of them. All getting overtime at the moment.

    1. Hey! Don’t forget the *educators*!

    2. “How many police officers are there in the U.S.?
      In 2018, there were 686,665 full-time law enforcement officers employed in the United States. The number of full-time law enforcement officers reached a peak in 2008 with 708,569 officers, and hit a low in 2013 with 626,942 officers.”

      1. Somehow I don’t think that’s counting quite all of them.

        1. Probably not.
          There’s this wonderful thing called “the internet” which you might be able to use to find the answer.
          Unless you’re worried it won’t confirm whatever preexisting, dogmatic idea you had in your head. In that case, feel free to make up whatever number you’d like

          1. Wow. You really really love police.

            1. Because that’s exactly what I said…

              1. Juice made an assertion that there are millions of police in the US.
                Being curious, I looked it up. The number was less than juice wants to imagine, so juice pretended the website was lying.
                I admit the possibility that not all cops are accounted for in the websites numbers, and call juice out for being emotionally wedded to his preconceived fantasy.
                Juice interprets that as loving police.
                So high functioning

        2. Police are disproportionately represented in large cities. So that isn’t a even distribution.

        3. It is. The thing is the protests and riots are occurring in big cities with more police per capita than the rest of the country.

          For example the Chicago Police Dept has about 12,000 officers, while elsewhere in the country a rural area may only have 4 deputies for the entire county

    3. The thing that amazed me about the pandemic is the sheer number of people who are employed or work directly for the Feds, state, municipalities who were able to still collect checks. Would bet it’s well over 30 million.

      1. Last I checked, I think its 22.5 million

        1. Seems like more though

  32. ENB: I’m impressed that you got out there in the thick of it. You earned some respect from me, and hopefully from some of the non-dickhead minority that populates this forum.

    1. She still isn’t going to make you a sandwich.

      1. Or free a nipple.

    2. “ENB went to a Marxist rally, therfore libertarians should respect her”

      Totes dude

      1. a reporter went to where the action was derp

        1. she fucking lives there retard

    3. Always easier to support this nonsense when your house is safe. If she was inside where she lived covering it, she’d be less supportive.

    4. They aren’t going to show respect toward ENB. They don’t even show respect to each other. Just a couple of days ago, Nardz and Sevo were going at each other about some stupid fine point of Trump worship.

      1. You’re one pathetic little piece of shit, Welch.

      2. Now, please tell us why you respect ENB?

        It can’t possibly be because you’re a servile and insecure midwit whose identity is wrapped up with supporting Reason, could it?

      3. and today, you’re whining like a bitch about them

      4. At this point I assume some of it’s scripted to keep the drama up and going.

      5. “…Nardz and Sevo were going at each other about some stupid fine point of Trump worship…”

        Wanna know how you spot a TDS victim?
        You don’t need to; like vegans and evangelicals, they’ll tell you no matter what you thought the subject was.
        They’ll tell you they hate Trump and you should too! They wake up in the morning hating Trump and go to bed at night the same way!
        It is their entire LIFE!
        Mike? Stuff your TDS up your ass so your head has some company.

        1. Fascinating how one can’t even mention Trump in the same sentence as some mild criticism without you bitching about TDS. It is as if you are attempting to discredit all critics. Surely not everyone with an unkind word for Trump is deranged.

          1. your TDS is showing

            sorry i had to

    5. aww you know we broke you by how you can’t post without crying

    6. What do you mean got out there? She was already there streetwalking.

    7. whoa what the fuck happened here?

  33. ENB, why did you miss the Nevada cop shot in the back of the head by a protester? Or the Buffalo, NY rioters drive through a police line? Doesn’t fit the narrative at all?

    1. Well, it’s a protest is it not?

    2. “At least nine dead, +4,000 arrested, riots rage in 140 cities as riots rage for the seventh day”
      “Last night saw the worst of the violence aimed at police officers with one dead, at least five shot, and at least four more run over by “protesters.”

      At least five U.S. police were hit by gunfire during violent protests over the death of a black man in police custody, police and media said, hours after President Donald Trump said he would deploy the military if unrest does not stop.
      -One US Marshall killed in Las Vegas
      -Four officers shot in St. Louis
      -At least two officers run over in Buffalo, NY
      -One NYPD officer run over in the Bronx
      -Another run over in Greenwich Village

      Protests were organized in more than 200 cities. Many of the demonstrations began peacefully but turned violent by evening. About 140 cities saw riots, resulting in government officials in 40 metro areas to impose strict curfews. New York City issued its first curfew on Monday, which was the first time an official curfew was imposed in the city since 1943.”

      1. This is being co-ordinated. What, 100+ cities just decide to go wilding because one black man was murdered by a white cop? Not a chance. I can see spontaneous protests, but not nationwide riots.

        And being cooped up for months doesn’t quite explain it all, either.

        My question: Who the hell is coordinating this?

  34. In Philadelphia, a shop owner fatally shot someone trying to loot their store.

    I’ve been to Firing Line in South Philly. Trying to loot that place shows a whole different level of stupid. First you have to get through a steel door. Then, since is located over a warehouse, you have to climb a long, narrow flight of steps with nowhere to go.

    The owner was waiting at the top of the stairs with an AR-15, and fired down into the looters.

    1. Too bad only one of them died.

    2. Dallas guy w/the sword needed an AR

      1. And an elevated position. “While you were studying how to loot, I was studying the blade” doesn’t really work on a bunch of semi-feral rioters that will beat your ass down if you try to act like you’re in Ninja Gaiden.

        1. 1 v. Mob only works if Jackie Chan.

        2. From Appaloosa (Ed Harris, Vigo Mortensen, Jeremy Irons)
          Couldn’t find the clip, so have to settle for the script.
          When Bragg’s (Irons) posse comes to demand his release:

          Just leave.

          – We come for Mr. Bragg.
          – You can’t have him.

          Everett, step on in the office
          with that eight-gauge.

          First anything happens,
          you blow Mr. Bragg’s head off.

          – Yes, sir.
          – We’ll take him if we have to.

          If you do, he’ll be dead.

          We know you’re good, Cole,
          but you’re not as good as 20 of us.

          You know the arrangement, boy.

          First one of you
          does an ineluctable thing…

          You shoot him,
          you think we’re gonna ride away?


          – We’ll kill you and Hitch.
          – You’ll try.

          You’re willing to die
          to keep us from taking him?


          Hitch. You willing to die too?

          Of course he’s willing to die. You think
          we do this because we’re scared to die?

          You got them turned.

          They’re arguing with him.



          You afraid to die?

          – I ain’t afraid.
          – Good, because you go first.

          And that boy with the red scarf
          goes next.

          You go on home, Vince.

          You go on home.

          Go on. Too many people die if you don’t.

          Go on. Get on.

          Go. Get. All of you, get out of here.

          – There’ll be another time, Cole.
          – Get out of here, get. Hyah!


            1. Never seen it, have to check it out.

              1. It really gets the subtleties of human interaction.
                Does a great job “showing” before telling

                1. yeah I’m in too.

    Have you considered sending all the looters to nursing homes?

    Andrew Cuomo
    · 12h
    There are justified peaceful protests across the state tonight.

    But there are also people criminally exploiting this pain and this moment.

    We will not tolerate it.

    1. Did he take off his shirt and expose his nipple rings after he said that?

      I don’t take anyone seriously anymore.

    To the question ‘where did the destructiveness come from?’: it was there all along. What was once dinner party nihilism has lost it’s inhibitions. The the riots are a ‘coming out party’ for all the doctrines taught in many a school.

    …The pro-Antifa leanings of politician’s relatives reflects a deep cynicism of the liberal project. They are convinced everyone is as corrupt as the people they know.

    1. Now do equal criticism of the right-wing elements and how they are exploiting the rioting. Oh, that’s right, you won’t. You work hard at cataloging all the faults of the other side, but you won’t say one word against the faults of your own side.

      1. Feel free to list them

        1. “BoTh SiDeS!!!”
          Dogma uber alles

          1. He is saying that I have to find a burglar as detestable ss a rapist because they are both criminals.

      2. or, you could document it instead of just pretending it happened

      3. Now do equal criticism of the right-wing elements and how they are exploiting the rioting.

        To do what, exactly? All I see are a bunch of global megacorps and piety pirates on social media posting black on their profiles and condemning y-t for existing (but keep sending those checks!).

  37. Wouldn’t it be easier to just end the government?

    1. Might lead to a protest.

  38. So apparently, the Latin Kings in Chicago were pulling blacks out of their cars and beating the shit out of them if they dared to venture into their neighborhoods.

    One of the things that is being overlooked here, particularly by the cosmo claque of libertarians, is that the ethnic gangs are going to gain a lot more prestige after this is all over because they know, unlike the police, they don’t have any restraints from their leaders on protecting their neighborhoods. This is going to be the end game if the idea of an orderly society breaks down–gated communities will increase, the rich will hire ex-spec ops guys to provide security for their properties, majority white suburbs will have militias to patrol the streets, and the poor non-white neighborhoods will have their gangs covering their slice of ghetto territory like they always do.

    1. some small towns in Oregon and Idaho have already done this when antifa said they were coming. They came and left when they saw all the armed citizens

      1. Yeah, I’m sure antifa was coming to loot small Idaho towns. What kind of dumb shit fantasy land blog did you get this from?

        1. ahahahah how are you upset about that how fuckng pathetic ahaahahah

          1. Some of us prefer truth to ignorance.

        2. So, no comment on a bunch of Hispanic gang members showing they don’t give a shit about an astroturfed slogan if it means black bodies might be looking to start shit in their neighborhoods?

          1. If one of you tin foil hat bubbas would actually post some evidence once in a while…

            And no, I don’t really care about that either way. Prison gangs are race based, and so are many street gangs. I don’t really care what either of them think about race relations or much else.

            1. Check out Tariq Nasheed’s Twitter feed. He’s calling the LKs “White Hispanics.”

              LMFAO. The LKs are total La Raza. They hate anyone who aren’t Tlaxcalan Hispanics.

            2. I don’t really care what either of them think about race relations or much else.

              Just be congnizant that they hate your guts.

    2. “Snow Crash” by Neal Stephenson, 1992.

      1. They’re called “Burb-claves.”

  39. Welp it certainly feels like the edge of societal collapse. God help us all.

    1. I mean it’s definitely probably not though.

      1. +1 Beelzebot

    2. “Feelings are not facts.”

  40. You know whose contributions this comment section really needs right now? We need to hear from longtime libertarian activist Michael Hihn. He could explain that libertarians should support far more comprehensive gun safety legislation than most states currently have.


    1. Hihnsanity!

      1. I really think all this violence (which is entirely the fault of white nationalists) provides the perfect opportunity to pass common sense gun laws.

    2. I was hoping he died.

    3. Ooh, guess he’s “rent free in your head.”

    4. Hihn’s mummified covid19 infected corpse is sitting in front of his keyboard, his fists clenched in fury.

      1. Now that was funny

  41. “Those Curfews Sure Didn’t Work”

    Did we run out of magic paper that solves problems and makes people behave however you want them to when you write wishes on it? Progressives hit hardest.

    1. If we’re gonna talk about making declarations and expecting them to magically come true, we gotta talk about President Trump.

      1. or you twlling us what is “appropriate” for libertarians

        1. Yes. There are a whole bunch of pseudo-libertarian Trump ass kissers here, and they need to be called out on their bullshit.


            LOL you don’t even understand why we are laughing at you

      2. “…we gotta talk about President Trump.”

        Wanna know how you spot a TDS victim?
        You don’t need to; like vegans and evangelicals, they’ll tell you no matter what you thought the subject was.
        They’ll tell you they hate Trump and you should too! They wake up in the morning hating Trump and go to bed at night the same way!
        It is their entire LIFE!
        Mike? Stuff your TDS up your ass so your head has some company.

      3. If you think I’m going to argue with you, I’m not. Trump is the head of the state and he’s been as bad if not worse than his predecessors in terms of thinking he can rule by edict (EO’s). Bush sucked on this, Obama was as bad or worse, Trump looks to be as bad or worse. I’m not a politician, so I don’t have to think purely in terms of election cycles. I’m concerned about the trajectory of creating god-king-emperors who honestly believe writing things on paper gives them to write down rules on paper and kidnap or jail you for disobeying. I don’t get the feeling that either major party has the least bit of concern about it because they’re always convinced that they’re ten minutes away from being the one who gets to use “the pen and the phone.”

        1. ***Did not mean to hit submit with out editing. I meant to say:

          I’m concerned about the trajectory of creating god-king-emperors who honestly believe writing things on paper gives them the right to kidnap or murder you for disobeying.

  42. The new narrative the last couple of days on the talking head shows has been that there are white supremacists who are actually the ones perpetrating the violence and property destruction.

    It has been heavily featured in the rotation at NBC, CNN and others.

    Well, they have their smoking gun. Google pushed an article from NBC news into my feed this morning saying that Twitter had shut down a fake antifa account that was run by white nationalists and being used to incite violence.

    Apparently the account had over 100 followers…

    I’ve heard it compared to the Bengazi video story because of that.

    In any event, NBC, Google, Twitter and CNN at a minimum are all-in on this being the narrative for the violence. They have their smoking gun.

    1. Yet the left still wants to bail them out…

    2. Here’s the link

      From the article:

      A Twitter account claiming to belong to a national “antifa” organization and pushing violent rhetoric related to ongoing protests has been linked to the white nationalist group Identity Evropa, according to a Twitter spokesperson.

      The spokesperson said the account violated the company’s platform manipulation and spam policy, specifically the creation of fake accounts. Twitter suspended the account after a tweet that incited violence.

      No evidence of those links to white supremacists, we’ll just take twitter’s word for it. Also, no evidence of anyone actually seeing or acting on those tweets. With a brand new account with no followers… not sure how they could have spread far and wide, but let’s go with it.

      Why do I mention that?

      Well, further down:

      The antifa movement — a network of loosely organized radical groups who use direct action to fight the far-right and fascism — has been targeted by President Donald Trump as the force behind some of the violence and property destruction seen at some protests, though little evidence has been provided for such claims.

      I’ll refer all present to news footage and photographs of every scene of property damage and arson for Antifa related graffiti and Antifa lookalike participants to evaluate that last bit as they will. I’m just noting the contrast in tone.

      1. For the first time ever, Antifa and Black Bloc anarchists didn’t wear black clothing or cover their faces in black bandanas. This time, the white supremacists adopted that costume.

    3. I had read comments referencing the idea, and I’m thinking to myself “who could be so gullible to believe this shit? Where is this idea even coming from?” I haven’t seen the story, only the reference to “it’s really white nationalists causing the violence” meme. Now I know where to look if I need to puke in my mouth a little.

      1. “I had read comments referencing the idea, and I’m thinking to myself “who could be so gullible to believe this shit? ”

        Were you off planet during the Covid pantshtting incident?

    4. Since none of the MSM players and blue pols even breathes a word about Antifa you can rest assured about who suports them.

    5. So what you’re saying is that this entire time, the cops have actually been heroes for bravely tear gassing white supremacists? Unfortunately they had to get a few peaceful protesters wrapped up in it to make sure those Nazi monsters didn’t get away with it.

  43. larger police presence and a curfew and lots of arrest finally did bring about less looting and violence so yes maybe police force does help and has been shown to help in other cities that ENB isn’t aware of because guess what the cops did their job from the start. What we are seeing now in California is organized crime as per the news a group of cars was going from specific location to specific location to loot not protest and yes the cops did take action and there was some shooting. In another instance two pieces of heavy equipment were brought in to break through the door of a best buy, that is intent, that is not protest that got out of hand. Luckily in this case the cops got there before they could get past the doors since best buy put all the heavy refrigerators against the doors earlier. California is seeing organized criminal activity it is no longer protesting. Wake up ENB

    1. Yeah, the narrative breaks down a bit when the one night DC doesn’t have a riot is the one night that the police break out the anti-riot tactics.

  44. Those Curfews Sure Didn’t Work

    That’s because very little law enforcement does, unless backed up by a credible threat of physical force.

    Should that threat actually materialize, the first thing you’ll do is make a hue and cry about The Injustice Of It All.

    So we have no credible threat of force, and therefore no credible law enforcement, either.

    I suggest as a corrective, that as a nation we cultivate a culture favorable to punching liberals in the face whenever the opportunity presents itself. “Classical” liberals first.

  45. “Those Curfews Sure Didn’t Work”

    Police still teargassing and arresting people, looks like those riots sure didn’t work

    1. Protests.
      Those protests didn’t work

  46. Fact. 99% of the people in this country are not willing to accept actual solutions to end the police state. They somehow think that having another “conversation about race” for the millionth time is going to magically solve the problem.

    1. I’m not getting a lot of traction with those lines of reasoning in the real world. Even people that I have personally shown videos of Kelly Thomas being beaten while begging for his life and calling to his daddy for help and personally shown videos of Daniel Shaver on his hands and knees begging for his life, clad only in boxers in a hotel hallway.. tormented and then shot 5 times in the back….

      Even those people think it is all about racism. In fact, some defense mechanism must be at work, because they don’t even recall those events. “You can’t tell me that if he had been white this would have happened.”…..

      Uh, remember that Kelly Thomas video?

      “Well, it wasn’t like this. This was in broad daylight in front of a bunch of people yelling at them to stop.”

      Yes… .exactly like Kelly Thomas. Except he was viciously beaten to death, not quietly strangled.

      “I can’t talk to you about stuff like this. America is a racist place… you can’t tell me it isn’t….”

      1. The minute the video came out, I told this group how it always goes…

        This case is no different from all those others. The police protect their own. The prosecutors protect their own. The judges protect their own. The unions protect their own.

        Race doesn’t factor in to any of that. Sure, you might have race as a reason that one guy is a violent thug… but that isn’t going to change. There’s always going to be someone who does bad things for bad reasons. The question is, are you going to build institutions to correct for that, or are you going to build institutions to protect that?

        In the case of Thomas and Shaver, despite having clear video proof of violent murders without any justification, they not only didn’t go to jail… they avoided all responsibility. People even got their jobs back with back pay in some cases.

        But sure… Let’s have another “conversation about race” so that the DNC can whip up their base one more time. Because “don’t be racist” is really going to address the problem.

        1. Yeap, the only reason I even know about Thomas and Shaver is because I come here. Those don’t get the 24/7 coverage from the MSM because they don’t support the narrative.

          1. Shaver was pretty big in the msm. Thomas is an even more painful and powerful example, and the media coverage of his death was not as big.

            You and Cyto are absolutely correct that the problem is police accountability more so than racism, in my estimation. I was in the national guard with a good number of cops. They came from different departments all around the country because I was in a National Guard unit that only drilled quarterly. I would not say they were racists, at least not outwardly racist. Many of them were very authoritarian in their thinking, though. I know a bunch of Portland and Seattle cops, and they are not racists either. They are very much like military guys, difference being they go to church and don’t run to the bar to get some strange every time they are let loose. (Or at least they hide it.)

            I have also seen very powerful examples of how accountability, or the lack thereof, can change behavior, even in life or death situations. The first example I witnessed was in a training course in the military. It was a shooting course, and the standard for the drill we were shooting was no misses. There were 20 shooters or so on the line at a time. One of the instructors loses his shit after several people have misses. He tells us we will all face group punishment if anyone misses in the next drill. Next drill, someone misses, we all get punished with physical exercise. I think, this is stupid. People are missing because some are better shots than others, not because anyone is just being lazy. We shoot another drill, same standards and conditions. What do you know? No more misses. Amazing. Some people really were being lazy and missing. Maybe they didn’t even realize they were doing it. But as soon as real accountability was added to the equation, behavior changed.

            Another example was in combat, working with another unit in special operations who apparently got a different brief regarding ROE interpretation. They were much more apt to fire on people for seemingly no reason than we were. Again, you would think that similar soldiers with similar training and missions would react similarly to shoot/don’t shoot scenarios, but the specter of accountability greatly changed behavior.

            1. Accountability has fallen out of favor in modern American society. We need it badly.

              1. why are you talking to yourself? because everyone else laughs at you?

                makes sense i guess

      2. No, the reaction I’ve seen from black people is, “Why didn’t y’all say anything about it? Why didn’t y’all protest?”

        Besides the fact that plenty of people did in fact protest, you see, when a white person is killed by the cops, it’s not the place of any black person to say a word. That’s the job of whites. If you’re a white speaking out against police killing a black person, that’s not your place, but if you want to speak out, you’re an ally. It’s their grievance turf, not yours, but thanks for the help, I guess.

        This is the way SO MANY people think. It’s fucking ridiculous, but that’s the way it is.

      3. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The pols and the media want to make it about race so that we’re always going after each other instead of them.

    2. The rhetoric I get from supposed allies is that this is a prelude to class warfare with, if we are being honest, expendable black communities being exploited and razed to the ground to further that goal. Race is just an ancillary talking point.

      It is a huge, Godzilla sized level of disgusting, destroying what few gains minorities have had in a way Jim Crow or the Klan could never hope to accomplish in a thousand years.

      All while claiming to be your ally.

      1. The anarcho-communist left – including Antifa and the organizers of #BLM are pretty open about that objective ….. bringing down all of society, not just the government.

        They want to overthrow the government and our system of capitalism. They want an end to private property, private ownership of companies, all of it. They don’t exactly hide these ideas… they’ll tell you all about it if you ask.


    McAtee, the owner of a local barbecue business and a beloved community figure, was shot and killed after Louisville police and the National Guard opened fire on a crowd that had gathered at a parking lot on 26th and Broadway. As the owner of YaYa’s BBQ, McAtee was known to give police officers free meals. Bystanders and witnesses have said that the crowd was not protesting when the police arrived. Police claim that they were returning fire after the crowd began shooting.

    1. 2 things…

      1. You put a bunch of people with guns in tense situations, and this is bound to happen. See Jose Guerreno for a case where one panicky cop yelling that he had been shot cost a man his life.

      2. Other protesters are terrible sources of information in these situations. We’ve seen this repeatedly during this outbreak. We saw it with the guy in the tractor-trailer… Witnesses claimed that the people attacking his truck were not threatening him, they were trying to warn him that someone was caught under the truck. Sure, maybe some were… but others had violent intent. We see the same thing with the police. There was a video where police responded to a call for help against looters at a pawn shop – and quickly pointed guns at the owners and workers, placing them in handcuffs. A nearby TV reporter was yelling at them to explain that they had the wrong people… and the other police could not comprehend what they were being told.

      That’s just the way it is in chaotic crowds. There is no “the crowd was only doing this one thing” narrative.

      The important thing… don’t put firearms in the hands of riot police. That’s how you end up with 50 people getting shot.

  48. So just to clarify, that guy caught in the picture with his right fist raised is a Nazi, right?

    Oh, wait. He has dark skin, so he can’t possibly have fascist sympathies.

    1. Curry Power.

    2. Yes, if I have my talking points correct, I believe they are white supremacists who are peacefully protesting to take a stand against systemic police racism.

    3. The fascist salute is typically done with the hand open, isn’t it? I’m sure some others here would be more intimately familiar with it, so maybe they’ll clarify…

      The raised fist is more typically associated with, say, the Black Panthers, I thought.

      1. Hi you’re an idiot so I’ll explain he was clowning the media and their coverage of similar photos

          1. Oh, good! A wiki cite!

            1. For those who struggle to follow links, here’s the basics:

              “Poe’s law is an adage of Internet culture stating that, without a clear indicator of the author’s intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied.”

              1. we get it you’re an aspie who can’t recognize clesr indicators

                1. You are an excellent example case for poll tests.

                  1. You’re an excellent example of a lying sociopath.

                    1. R Mac, you never have evidence of this lying.

                      Look, this is a terrible way to get my attention, and besides I’ve told you I’m just not into you.

                  2. you forgot which sock you were using

                    “You are an excellent example case for poll tests”



                    1. I don’t want poll testing. I just hope that the anti voting rights act people don’t find you. They’d probably have a compelling case.

  49. Huh.

    What’s up with those bricks, officer?

    1. What’s up with your assumption, lefty ignoramus?

      1. Are you sure it’s me making the assumption here?

    2. Antifa was pretty organized in making sure there were available missiles to destroy property.

      1. At least some of the “antifa” stuff turns out to be Alt Reich groups engaged in false flag operations. Social media providers have been doing a sweep and identifying faux accounts, for example.

        1. “conducting a sweep”

        2. Your gaslighting skills are so impressive, Matt Welch should hire you to work here as a fake libertarian immediately. You’ll fit in perfectly.

          1. Since when has cheerleading for indiscriminate police crackdowns and letting neo-Nazis and fascists manipulate the situation been a “real libertarian value”?

            Sorry for not being a member of the Trumpy cult of personality.

            1. EVERYONE I DISAGREE WITH IS NAZIS!!! – shorter killjoy

              1. Not what he said at all, but thanks for showing up and giving voice to your very special minority group’s concerns.

                Killjoy just showed a video of cops placing bricks in the path of protests. Very suspicious stuff. You would think, with the very conspiratorial and paranoid mindsets around here, that you guys would pick up on this. But no, it goes against your hard wired tribal loyalties, so you ignore it and bring up some tangent about antifa.

                1. EVERYONE I DISAGREE WITH IS NAZIS!!! – shorter killjoy

                  NU UHHHHHHHH!!!!-shorter DOL who is also killjoy

              2. Nope.

                I disagree with plenty of people who aren’t fascists or neo-Nazis. For one example, I haven’t seen you say anything that makes me think you’re of that bent.

                I’m pointing out that there members of the Alt Reich making an effort to piggyback on these events for their own gain and create a false narrative to their own ends.

                1. “Nope”

                  ahahah that’s how you know he knows i got him ahahahahha

            2. By the way, I know that you’re Mary Stack or Tony or chemjeff posting under sockpuppet handle number one million.

              1. So everyone who says something that gives you bad feels is a sockpuppet for someone else who said something that gave you bad feels?

                Is it sockpuppets all the way down?

                1. this is about you, an obvious sockpuppet

  50. I have to say that all of the white supremacists who are peacefully protesting to end racism are really making the few rioting Nazis look bad.

  51. Posting this again in this thread, because I posted in a mostly dead thread. Here are my thoughts on how we define (or fail to define) “peaceful protest”:

    I’m not sure how to quantify it though. If a crowd gathers to protest, and people in that crowd start smashing windows, attacking people, burning buildings etc., do we call the protest ‘peaceful’, even if only 15% of the crowd is engaging in the fracas? Here’s my thoughts… if I’m in a peaceful protest, and a small percentage of people in my crowd start “behaving badly”, I’m going to attempt to put a stop to it. If that percentage becomes critically high and I can no longer put a stop to it, I will abort my involvement in the protest.

    1. The root of the issue is: do I lose my 1A rights to protest if other people nearby are rioting? I’m being peaceful, they aren’t, but the police teargas canister doesn’t discriminate.

      For the people who are in support of how the state is responding to this, including the curfews, do you believe your rights are dependent on how others behave? Aren’t we all of the opinion that we don’t lose 2A rights every time a mass shooting happens? Why do we lose 1A rights because someone else threw a brick?

      Police can stop rioters, but they need to be working on an individual approach to it. If you just indiscriminately fire rubber bullets and teargas canisters into a crowd because you think there are a couple bad apples, well you just violated a ton of people’s rights. If you make an entire crowd disperse because 1 guy broke a window, same deal.

      Which rights are more important, the property rights of owners of potentially endangered stores or the 1A rights of peaceful protestors who happen to be near some rioters?

      1. Finally something reasonable around here. Thank you.

        1. I don’t usually find myself on the same side as you, but here we are. I’ve probably had worse company but I can’t remember when.

          In any case, the amount of collective guilt being ascribed here is really something. A few people start fires and break windows and suddenly there are no peaceful protests, only some faces in need of a state-owned boot. The whole crowd is guilty because some thug decided he wanted a new TV. All of the focus on individual responsibility and individual rights that libertarians supposedly value apparently goes out the window if Target’s inventory is jeopardized.

            1. Still doesn’t justify attacking protests or people on their porches.

              1. Who’s trying to justify attacking people on their porches?

            2. I should rather 1,000 innocent men be teargassed than let 1 guy steal a TV.

              -William Blackstone, probably.

      2. The root of the issue is: do I lose my 1A rights to protest if other people nearby are rioting? I’m being peaceful, they aren’t, but the police teargas canister doesn’t discriminate.

        But we have to make a choice on the ground, in that moment. If a crowd is acting violently, there’s no realistic way to discriminate between those engaging in violent activity and those who aren’t, if the violent actors are interspersed. Tear gas IS a relatively peaceful, non-lethal way to push a crowd back that’s becoming dangerous. Otherwise, a single ‘peaceful protester’ in a crowd of violent actors has veto power over any reasonable police response.

        For the people who are in support of how the state is responding to this, including the curfews, do you believe your rights are dependent on how others behave? [etc]

        This is not a good analogy. You’re conflating the permanent lost off a right with a police response to a violent situation. If I’m in a crowd of 2nd amendment activists who are all openly carrying, and 15% of that crowd starts shooting at the police, I can damn well expect bullets to come back at me, while I’m standing in that crowed. That’s not a loss of 2nd amendment rights, that’s response to violence. No one is saying that the 1a right of peaceful assembly has been revoked for 330 million people who were sitting quietly at home eating a TV dinner. Which is what the gun control movement attempts to do.

        Police can stop rioters, but they need to be working on an individual approach to it. If you just indiscriminately fire rubber bullets[etc.]

        I’m not advocating for any particular response policy, I’m merely asking when we stop calling a protest ‘peaceful’.

        Which rights are more important, the property rights of owners of potentially endangered stores or the 1A rights of peaceful protestors who happen to be near some rioters?

        Both are equally important. But again, if I’m in a crowd of 2a protesters and a several in the crowd start killing people, can that still be called a peaceful protest? The media didn’t repeatedly call Charlotsville ‘peaceful’.

        1. All of this is just “well you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette”. Who cares if a few people lose their right to protest as long as the riots get stopped. Fine position to take, but let’s not act like we’re not trampling all over 1A in the name of maintaining order.

          I don’t care how mild you think teargas is, the state firing it at me when I’ve (that is me, an individual) done nothing wrong violates my rights, full stop. It is not our responsibility to figure out how law enforcement can do their jobs without violating our rights. That is their job, and they have failed at it miserably thus far.

          You admit the rights aren’t on equal footing or you wouldn’t be OK with preserving property rights at the expense of an innocent’s 1A rights. That inherently values property over speech, which is a fine position to take but you have to acknowledge that you’re taking it. I don’t know that there is a “right” answer to the question I posed.

          And yes, “peaceful” is largely in the eye of the beholder and is defined by political expediency. I’d argue that the protest itself cannot inherently be peaceful or violent, the protesters are peaceful or violent on an individual level. That’s how this is supposed to work, I cannot be labeled “violent” merely for being in the wrong place at the wrong time when some antifa goon chucked a bike lock at someone.

          Your 2A analogy is odd, and kind of proves my point. If you as an individual were in a 2A rally, and then someone else started shooting, and then you (who never shot at anyone) got shot by the police I’d say the police had violated your rights pretty fucking thoroughly. It would indicate the cops just started firing live rounds into a crowd rather than picking out aggressive targets, which is bad on a lot of levels.

          1. You are 100% advocating that peaceful protesters should act as human shields for violent actors to protect them from state response.

            Did not realize that was the direction you were going to take it, but here we are

            1. If they choose to behave that way, so be it. If they themselves aren’t being violent who am I to stop them, isn’t that what the NAP is about? Get aggressive with those who got aggressive with you, not people you’re associating with the aggressors out of convenience.

              1. Fat Mike, with all due respect this position is insane. Should it be the polices position to never intervene in bank robberies because most of the people in the building are innocent victims? Should they not pursue the thieves because the hostages could get hurt? Do you think this situation creates more or less bank robberies? If you concluded correctly that bank robberies would increase if there are no consequences, do you also understand that you are also de facto incentivizing hostage taking?

                The reality is this is a shitty no win situation. If the cops do nothing, the rioters are emboldened and the amount of damage and number of people that get injured or killed increases. If the cops do something, the cops will likely hurt or kill people both accidentally and shitty cops will do it purposefully.

                The rioters need to condemned on all sides and the peaceful people should be (and in many cases are) pointing them out or handing them over to the police for their own safety. Some of the cops have a reckless disregard for the peaceful people’s safety. ALL of the rioters be they Antifa or Alt-right (I couldn’t care less which) have a reckless disregard for the peaceful people’s safety.

                1. You do realize that’s how they handle bank robberies, right? They try to avoid endangering any innocent people, and they typically go to great lengths to accomplish that. Storming the place with the SWAT team is the last resort.

                  Many jurisdictions have no-pursuit policies for various crimes because they understand the pursuit is more dangerous than letting the criminal go. Not the case with an armed bank robber, but you get the idea; sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

                  And I agree it’s a no win situation, I’m just disappointed that the general reaction to the police involvement here is “well, them’s the breaks when you get violent”, completely ignoring that this effectively means if I don’t want people to protest all I have to do is go throw a brick through a window and now everyone thinks teargas and rubber bullets are justified. I don’t even have to break the protest up myself, the cops (or National Guard!) will do it for me.

                  Tons of people are having their rights violated here and the only thing most of us are concerned about is that at least the looters get whats coming to them.

                  And I said it in a previous thread, I have no problem with store owners shooting looters. I just tend to believe they’re going to be a little more judicious with their use of force than Officer Rambo with his teargas grenade launcher and qualified immunity will be. Once they’re in the store (or while they’re breaking in) you can safely assume they aren’t there for peaceful protest anymore.

                  1. Can I at least get an admission out of you that the rioters are, in many cases, as much of a risk to the peaceful protester’s safety and rights as the cops? There are two diseases in this case. You may not agree with me, but I see letting groups of people who explicitly want to tear down all of society to institute communism burn down buildings with impunity as the worse disease at the moment.

                    Tons of people are having their rights violated by rioters. The heckler’s veto is winning even if the cops do nothing. In most cases the protest would be peaceful with nobody getting touched by cops until these fuckers show up. You’re overly focused on Officer Rambo while Commie Rambo is hospitalizing potentially just as many and causing many millions more in property damage. We have no good way to assess what’s really happening or what the numbers really are, but until I see cops chucking Molotov cocktails and hurling bricks around civilians, I hate to say I’m considering the rioters the greater evil. I fully admit that no matter what, the rest of us are going to be the real losers here.

                    I will say, that video of cops unloading bricks from a truck is giving me a lot to think about. What. The. Fuck?

      3. I think you’re conflating two different things, and in one case I agree, the other I don’t. I’m against the curfew, and going after peaceful protesters in general. But if your in a group protesting, and people around you start rioting, you should either leave, or be prepared to be treated like a rioter. Having police try to peacefully arrest people one at a time in an angry mob is not realistic, and will just result in more police being assaulted.

        Your 2A comparison doesn’t hold. A better comparison is if there is a mass shooter, can you stand nearby with a gun in hand watching while police try to stop the shooter? Not protesting peacefully at the same time and place as riots is not the same as saying you can’t protest another time and place.

        1. “But if your in a group protesting, and people around you start rioting, you should either leave, or be prepared to be treated like a rioter”

          Why? I have done nothing that would warrant the government infringing upon my right to protest. You’re effectively saying that my rights are at least partially dependent upon what people around me are doing, I don’t see how that jives with a libertarian understanding of individual liberty. What I SHOULD do and what I HAVE TO DO are very different things, I’d agree it’s smart to leave in that situation, I do not agree with the government forcing me to.

          “Having police try to peacefully arrest people one at a time in an angry mob is not realistic, and will just result in more police being assaulted. ”

          If the police cannot accomplish something without wantonly violating random people’s rights, they shouldn’t try to accomplish it.

          “A better comparison is if there is a mass shooter, can you stand nearby with a gun in hand watching while police try to stop the shooter? ”

          If I’m not brandishing it, yes. I expect to be able to openly carry firearms in public regardless of what other people are doing. It’s my right. “Brandishing” is key here, but I do not think someone holding a sign and yelling at police is doing anything akin to brandishing a firearm.

          “Not protesting peacefully at the same time and place as riots is not the same as saying you can’t protest another time and place.”

          If the police, or random rioters, get to determine the time and place in which I get to exercise free speech then I do not have free speech.

          1. So just so I understand your position here: you and four other men are walking down the street together. They all pull out guns and start shooting at people. Cops start returning fire. You stay put next to the other four. If the police hit you while shooting at them, have they violated your rights?

    2. The protesters are like willing hostages in a bank robbery. Maybe they have that right, but they are being stupid at best and functioning as accessories to crime at worst.

      I would not be surprised if many of the peaceful protesters were connected to the rioters. I would actually be more surprised if that wasn’t the case

      1. Spoken like a true equivocating fascist. As Americans, we have the right to peacefully assemble for redress of grievances.

    3. I see this like I see criminal law itself. The legitimate function of government is to protect our rights. Protecting our rights from criminals in one example. In order for the government to protect our rights from criminals, it absolutely must do certain things that might seem un-libertarian.

      For instance, you cannot have a system of justice that protects our rights from criminals and protects the rights of the accused without the power to compel witness testimony. In order to have a libertarian system of justice in which defendants are allowed to defend themselves, at the very least, the courts must have the power to compel witnesses to show up in court and answer questions under penalty of perjury in front of a judge and jury–and there need to be penalties for perjury. Ultimately, the reason we do that is to protect our rights. A system of “justice” in which people could ignore subpoenas or lie under oath with impunity would neither be just nor libertarian. It would be oppressive.

      Another example is the power to arrest and search people. In order to arrest people for murder, you need probable cause. In order to search people to see if they’re hiding the murder weapon, you need probable cause. In order to detain someone for questioning, you need reasonable suspicion. The government can’t protect our rights from murderers if they can’t detain, search, and arrest people–even if you imagine that doing any of these things is an intrusion of government on people’s rights. Again, one of the legitimate purposes of government is to protect our rights from criminals. These things are necessary in order for them to do that, and if they couldn’t do that, our society would neither be just nor free.

      Here’s another example: One of the legitimate functions of government is to protect our rights from foreign threats by dropping bombs on enemy armies–even if they aren’t doing so in self-defense at the time. We have certain procedures we go through and certain rules of engagement we use in order to make sure that when we kill the enemy, we do so within the confines of the Constitution, ethics, and decorum–just like we do with detainment, arrests, and legal searches. If we didn’t have the means to kill the enemy, we would not be living in a free and just society. We would be at the mercy of those who would violate our rights.

      I think part of the misconception here is that some people think the point of libertarianism is to minimize the size and scope of government, but that’s wrong. Limiting the size and scope of government almost always maximizes liberty–but there are legitimate functions of government and minimizing those does not maximize liberty at all. We have a National Guard, and its legitimate function is protect our rights from arsonists and violent mobs. Stopping mobs from violating the rights of innocent bystanders is a perfectly libertarian function of government, and if we don’t do that, we are not living in a society that maximizes liberty. A government that refuses to protect our rights from violent mobs is an oppressive government.

      I see using the National Guard to put down riots getting in the way of people’s First Amendment rights like compelling witness testimony, allowing the police to arrest people before they’ve been convicted of a crime, getting a warrant to search someone’s home for a murder weapon, or using the military to protect our rights from foreign threats. It is a bare minimum, necessary function of legitimately libertarian, small state government–and refusing to protect people’s rights from rioters with the National Guard is actually the act of an oppressive government.

      1. “A government that refuses to protect our rights from violent mobs is an oppressive government.”

        Let me elaborate.

        The antisemitic charter of pogroms was not the only bad thing about them. Even if the victims weren’t Jewish, the government’s refusal to protect people from violent mobs would have been evil and illegitimately libertarian anyway.

        We’re not talking about sending the National Guard in to shoot people because they’re protesting. We’re talking about sending the National Guard in to set up defensive perimeters to protect people’s rights from looters, violence, and arson.

        1. While simultaneously allowing the looters to use the police force to oppress legitimate 1A activity.

          If this is how this works, all it takes is 1 agitator with a propensity for violence to get the cops to shut down any legitimate protest. Start a fire and suddenly the rest of the crowd no longer has the right to be there.

          1. Then deal with the fucking looters yourself. Like in the video unicorn linked yesterday.
            Right now, if you go to a protest you know a riot will break out.
            You can continue protesting, thus providing cover and shielding the violent actors; you can leave, allowing authorities to deal with violent actors without you protecting them; or you can stop the violent actors yourself.
            The third option would be best, the second option is acceptable, and the first option makes you a knowing and willing accessory.
            Take some damn responsibility

        2. Or, just last night, to teargas peaceful folks so your fucking hero can pose with a Bible.

      2. The question is less should police protect property rights, but by what degree? The court standard is that the intrusion should be the least amount possible, especially when it infringes on someone else’s right. Do you really want to argue that teargas, less than lethal munitions, and mass arrests are the least intrusive means?

        And this gets to the heart of the complaints against the police in general. Sure it is by the letter of the law, but are there less violent means to get mostly the same affect.

        Diane Reynolds (Paul.) asked at what point does a protest go from peaceful to violent, and I think you ask the same of police. If you are firing anything indiscriminately into a crowd, you’ve lost the plot and have become the aggressor.

        1. No one is advocating tear gassing peaceful protesters like no one is defending the cop that murdered George Floyd. That’s just voices in your head.

          Because you are against tear gassing peaceful protesters does not mean other people are in favor of gassing peaceful protesters. Your thinking is psychotic.

          Setting up a perimeter to defend people’s rights and giving the National Guard the authority to defend itself isn’t gassing peaceful protesters.

          Incidentally, because I support the police going after bank robbers does not mean that I support the police gassing or beating them unnecessarily–and people without your delusions don’t need that explained to them.

          1. But again, per DR’s example: it there is one person throwing bricks in a crowd of 100, do you use teargas? What if you can’t get to that person to arrest them?

            How about 5? 10? 20? At what point is teargas justified?

            “No one is advocating tear gassing peaceful protesters”

            Au Contraire. By shooting into any crowd that is not 100% rioters, you are de facto advocating gassing peaceful protestors. Market it as collateral damage, necessary, or what ever euphemism you wish, but that is in fact what you are doing even if you lack the courage to name it.

  52. I have no problem with the protesters getting cleared out by use of smoke bombs and/or tear gas. (Reports now are saying it was only smoke bombs and not tear gas) Even if the peaceful protesters were legally allowed to be there, we have witnessed the facts that other legally peaceful protests became violent. And when protesters and rioters start attacking police officers, military personnel, and Secret Service Agents, well the peaceful protests have burned up their goodwill and the safety and security of the POTUS must be taken in account for. Who’s to say that someone in the “peaceful” crowd doesn’t have a gun, a rock, a Molotov cocktail, just waiting to be able to use it. The photo-ops of having a firebomb hurled towards Trump would be immense and devastating for this Country, not just because it will embolden the rioters and the liberals, but because many of other countries would look at it as weakness for America that we would not even ensure the safety of our President.

    Reason is becoming a pseudo-liberal hack news site more and more every day. There is no “reason”, there’s just “emotions” from this site anymore.

    1. For someone concerned about personal liberty, you sure have accepted the cops’ narrative pretty much whole. There has been looting and unprovoked rioting, but there has also been a bunch of cops instigating violence on non rioting, non looting protestors. Once the police initiate violence, they can then point to the response from the protestors as “rioting”. It’s very circular logic.

      Cops starting shit, from Juice’s link:

      1. um, you seem to think you get to tell other libertarians what to think you can save the sanctimony

    2. “Even if the peaceful protesters were legally allowed to be there, we have witnessed the facts that other legally peaceful protests became violent.”

      Cool, next tell me how girls who dress slutty deserve to get raped.

    3. “The photo-ops of having a firebomb hurled towards Trump would be immense and devastating for this Country…”

      An effective way to solve that problem would be for Trump to tell Stephen Miller the idea of a photo op of him holding a bible in front of the church was a dumb idea and certainly not worth having the police drive away peaceful protestors in Lafayette Square.

  53. Teddy Roosevelt finished a speech after being shot by a would-be assassin.

    Trump cries like a tween girl every time someone says mean things on the webs, and hides in his basement when people are too loud, waiting for the police to come drive the bad people away.

    1. Hey, TR had his bloody shirt, Trump has his.

      1. That orange stuff on Trump’s shirt isn’t blood.

    2. so what should we conclude from your whining?

    3. The manliest, most libertarian, most patriotic draft dodger we’ve ever had as president.

      1. ohhh you doubled down on the whining!

  54. Yay! It’s Virtue Signal Tuesday!

  55. Just for the record, the girl with the “they can’t kill us all” sign is wrong.
    Regarding Stitch Fix in CA; be careful what you vote for, you might get it.

  56. Yesterday I noted, in a comment to Tucchi’s story, that the Reason staff were growing restless writing responsible articles admitting that rioting is bad, and they desperately wanted to hang out with the cool kids in the No Justice No Peace Media crowd.

    Like a teenager whose parents have forbidden him from going to the wild party at the slutty popular rich cheerleader’s house, Reason is getting ready to metaphorically sneak out the bedroom window by churning out several Fuck Tha Police articles every day.

  57. The Capitol police and the Secret Service both released statements that they were attacked by the ‘peace loving’ protestors in the area of the White House yesterday afternoon. ENB failed to note this fact.

    At least now we know the little harpy likes to mix it up in DC.

  58. Watching live coverage of large protest marches, no one breaking windows or lighting fires or stealing things.

    Must be doctored live footage. /s

  59. In Philadelphia, a shop owner fatally shot someone trying to loot their store.

    finally some good news in all of this .

  60. Hearing a lot from @KamalaHarris tonight on the news during this horrible night. Make her the next Vice President.

    It’s astonishing to me that someone could be this deluded and ignorant. But it shouldn’t be.

  61. Curfews would work if they were enforced.

  62. I am now making $35/h by doing a very simple and easy online work from home. YFd I have received exactly $8471 last month from this online work.. To start making extra income please…

    visit this site………………………….Work at Home

  63. Why did the chicken cross the road?

    For a photo op at a church.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.