Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Or they are weighing the risk/benefit of sending armed agents of the state to put down assemblies of people expressing their anger and frustration at social ills differently than you are. It's not simply a question of stopping the rioting. It's a question of what those confrontations look like. As an example, by all accounts, the presence of federal agents in Portland made things worse, not better.

The National Guard was sent to Kent State. How is that remembered?

so, you're implying the mayor of Portland handled the situation properly?

would you support that scenario in your city or town or county? 

Badge just said that in Kenosha the governor has done what you wanted. Not when you thought he should have, but he did it. That's not consistent with, "they would prefer to watch things burn."

 

they watched a car lot burn

Badge just said that in Kenosha the governor has done what you wanted. Not when you thought he should have, but he did it. That's not consistent with, "they would prefer to watch things burn."

I won't likely run for office, but my wife will. She has had to deal with civil unrest and protests in our city. Unsurprisingly, the action this city took (and we're a small city, even compared to Kenosha) was criticized from the left and the right, so I guess she got it correct.

This isn't an all or nothing proposition. Particularly in a country in which the Constitution strongly protects the right to protest, the government's response needs to be calculated.

He didn't want to do it. He had no choice but to succumb to the intense pressure being placed upon him.

Badge just said that in Kenosha the governor has done what you wanted. Not when you thought he should have, but he did it. That's not consistent with, "they would prefer to watch things burn."

I won't likely run for office, but my wife will. She has had to deal with civil unrest and protests in our city. Unsurprisingly, the action this city took (and we're a small city, even compared to Kenosha) was criticized from the left and the right, so I guess she got it correct.

This isn't an all or nothing proposition. Particularly in a country in which the Constitution strongly protects the right to protest, the government's response needs to be calculated.

first of all protesting has nothing to do with this
in fact I dont think its the protesters doing most of the rioting

yes the governor finally did his job after several people died

to me its simple if you protest peacefully then your rights should be protected but if you destroy property you give up your protected right to protest

so, you're implying the mayor of Portland handled the situation properly?

would you support that scenario in your city or town or county?

I don't know. I do know that the feds show of force and wide-spread arrests made things worse. 

There was a pretty good piece this morning, I think, in the Washington Post about the escalating confrontations at protests. Counter protesting and the violence between those groups is becoming a larger danger. That's a problem. One of the things causing that is both sides escalating their name calling and justifying the righteousness of their response. BLM protesters are not domestic terrorists, and suggesting that ordinary citizens have a patriotic duty to engage in armed confrontation is irresponsible, and is making things worse. 

Generally speaking, denying, intimidating, or openly trying to crush a protest movement doesn't reduce the anger of that movement. However, rioting and property damage aren't ok. Mayors, police departments, and governors make decisions all the time about how to address assemblies to (1) prevent rioting and property damage, and (2) not make things worse. Miscalulating--as it seems happened in Kenosha--doesn't show bad faith. Mayors, police departments, and governors all over the country have made those same calculations, and in most cases there hasn't been violence and property damage. And just because there has been some, in places like Portland and Kenosha, doesn't mean that a heavier government hand would have resulted in a better outcome. As we saw in Portland, a heavier government hand resulted in a worse outcome. In Kenosha, it appears that more was better. I don't think anyone is happy with how that has gone.

While we are suspending rights, could Kenosha declare a gun free zone and arrest anyone with a gun?

While we are suspending rights, could Kenosha declare a gun free zone and arrest anyone with a gun?

what rights have been suspended