Breakdown In Civil Order

[Jayjay]

Understood. But that can be used as an average of what your plan would cost. $50k (on average) times 330M = $16.5T. Every single year.

true if you gave 50k to every living human in the country, but that's already two factors which don't enter into it.
firstly there's the question of age, you don't need to give every baby money. secondly there's the point about '50k' just being a number of equivalence, since more places in the US than not would require less money.

so 209M times let's say 35k = 7.3 trillion, off a GDP of about 21 trillion.

The GDP is basically an estimate representing the monetary value of all goods and services produced and imported to a country. An universal income, on the other hand, would be actual money handed over to people by the government. It's not "off a GDP", it's off the government budget. It's apples and oranges, and although in some cases it makes sense to have a "ratio of apples to oranges" as a meaningful metric, it depends on the context.

So, if the ratio of the cost of UBI is one or two thirds (low and high estimates) of the country's GDP, what does it mean? One way to look at it would be to ask what it would mean for 100% of the GDP to be spread evenly across every adult person. Everybody would get the same amount of everything, and the only reward of any work you do would be exactly 1 per 209 millionth of whatever it is that you happen to produce, which is for vast majority of things you can produce practically nothing. Want to grow your own food? Set up a farm that produces 200 million potatoes, and you can eat just one potato yourself. Clearly that would be an unworkable, unless you have some source of production that's independent of any human effort.

If only one third of the economy worked this way, that would mean basically that one third of everything you produce is diluted to the point of non-existence.

That's a big fraction of the total budget. And it ignores that there is no reason for people say making $40k to quit their jobs to make $50k for doing nothing. One way around that would be to make it universal, but then it would cost $16.5T.

broadly speaking from a moral standpoint i have no problem with spending 2/3rd of the GDP on human welfare, but i don't see the point of having GDP in the first place if not for that.
the issue is how much the GDP would drop, and we have nothing but speculation for that.

You don't "spend" GDP on anything. It's a number that tells how much you've spent already. And arguably, 100% of it is already used on human welfare, even if unevenly distributed. But at least you acknowledge that the GDP would drop radically if incentives for producing much of it were removed.

Sounds like a utopia to me. In reality, people rarely rob and steal for basic necessities.

i'm guessing that by "basic necessities" you're using a much stricter definition than i do, and that difference in definition causes a rather huge gap in context.
i'd put drugs, shoes, phones, and bling under "basic necessities" with no hesitation, because despite them not being required to maintain biological function they are culturally and existentially necessary in order to maintain mental stability.

I think there is an inconsistency with your extended definition of "necessities" on one hand, and considering wanting more than that as being motivated by greed on the other. Is "bling" a basic necessity, or is it motivated by greed? If you give everyone enough money for fancy shoes or gold chains or whatever counts as bling now, there would always be more expensive bling to be attained. At which point does it stop being a necessity, and become greed?

[citation needed]

US GDP: 21 trillion, give or take a trillion.
US federal budget: 4.5 trillion, give or take a trillion
US state budgets: 3.2 trillion, give or take a half trillion
US consumer spending: 13 trillion, give or take
US institutional savings total: 9ish trillion, fluctuates a lot per year
US private savings total: estimated around 5 trillion.

so total created vs. government spending and consumer spending and you have about a trillion left over, and another 10-16 trillion in savings.
this doesn't even count money sitting in funds and investments, this is just the loose change left over after basic outputs.
i would say that 11-17 trillion dollars not in use easily falls under the category of "trillions and trillions"

But savings are not something you can use to finance UBI. You can spend the savings once, and then they are gone. The UBI we're talking about would be something that's paid out annually. By appropriating the funds allegedly sitting in bank accounts (though in reality, they are not; the banks loan them forward) you could have UBI for one year, and maybe a couple of months for next year. Not continuously for 40 years.

And yes, sure, many people will work. Those that have fulfilling jobs. But what about people doing unpleasant or simply boring, menial jobs. How many of them would stay if they don't have to?

i would expect and hope that few if any of them would, because those jobs are not fit for human beings - and certainly not with the current system in place where those are low paying jobs that the desperate are forced into at the threat of being homeless.

But many of those jobs are necessary for society to function, like sanitation or changing diapers for the elderly. And even those jobs that aren't, usually exist somewhere in the value chain for things that people want or need, which would become more expensive if people would need to be paid exorbitant amounts to do them, which in turn would increase the dollar amount of what the UBI should be. The equilibrium point would shift radically. You might get $50k in your bank account every year, but the Nike shoes or drugs of your choice would also cost way more.

I disagree with your notion that people would continue to work even if they don't have to. Even those who want something to do, would work less hours, and be less productive because they would focus on things that give them satisfaction and meaning, rather than what other people want.

I support UBI not because I think that it won't discourage some people from working, but because I think that automation will make more and more people incapable of carrying their own weight in society.

It's a reference to how your plan is much more extensive that serious proposals for UBI. For example, Andrew Yang proposed $1k/month, which is $12k/a, a far cry from $50k.

yes well that's what happens in a country full of at best center-right politicians - you get shitty half assed proposals for social change.

Even Andrew Yang's proposal is too ambitious. I think the appropriate level for UBI is the poverty level of a two-person household, divided by two. Why? Because the poverty level is already based on an estimate of what a person needs to survive, and I think living alone is a luxury for most people.

 

[bilby]

In much of this debate I must agree with Derec's views. While the most desperate crimes (mugging, liquor store robberies) are committed by poor people, there are also many affluent criminals who continue to steal no matter how rich they get. In fact, when measured by dollars stolen rather than violence, crime is a rich man's game. UBI, if based on cash as most proposals are — stupidly, in my opinion — would open new opportunities for crime. Recall that Hundreds of Billions of covid stimulus money for individuals was stolen by (mostly foreign-based) fraudsters.

And many leftists do seem to think that money grows on trees. To provide poor Americans with a trillion dollars in new spending power, some group has to give up a trillion dollars. (In Andrew Yang's stupid proposal, much of the money was recouped by canceling programs like Disability or Unemployment insurance). If the UBI is NOT means-tested the amount of money involved becomes staggering.

Let me repeat my proposal one more time. It solves many of the problems of other UBI proposals. I feel like a voice in the wilderness! I don't really expect hundreds of important policy makers to listen to me, but I'm honestly surprised that none has come up with the same good ideas. Let me try to convince a handful of TFT'ers.

Healthcare, childcare, and 12 years of quality education would all be provided free, payed for by government. The government would also guarantee access to housing and food. There would be no means-testing, but the well-off would not take advantage of the free soup-kitchen food, nor the cheap housing. There might be a small cash stipend, but less than Yang's $12,000 per adult and certainly much less than the $50,000 mentioned up-thread (was that per adult or per household?). Other non-cash parts of the safety net might include subsidized public transport, internet access, job training.

Low-wage employment would be subsidized by rebating the first $2000 of annual payroll tax. (Again, no need for means-testing: Every earner would get the rebate.)

This approach avoids many of the problems of cash payments. Scope for fraud is reduced. Means-testing is avoided. By not providing large sums of cash we ensure that the funding would go for necessities rather than wasted on lottery tickets, recreational drugs or luxuries. Items like free health-care or housing ensure that "To each according to his needs" is followed, unlike a one-size-fits-all $12,000 per person approach. Is this a case of "Big Brother knows best how to spend YOUR money"? People would still be free to get hired, earn cash, and spend it as they wished. (And, yes, it is clear that many Americans do NOT know how best to spend their money.)

The program I outline would be MUCH less expensive than some left-wing proposals. It would be paid for by restoring earlier tax rates on corporations, the rich, and estates; and with a carbon/gasoline tax. We might want a smallish wealth tax on the very rich, but as an alternate minimum to their ordinary income tax.

Anybody here agree?

With the exception of your mention of Payroll Tax (which wasn't a thing), you have very accurately described, as your proposal, the situation in which I grew up - England in the pre-Thatcher years.

It wasn't considered unaffordable then; And the developed world is massively wealthier now.

But Thatcher and Reagan decided that we needed more money to go to the rich. So that all stopped happening, and now it's seen as a radical (but probably unaffordable) idea.

Because not fucking over the poor is Communism. Or at the very least, Socialism.

Which is synonymous with being un-American, and probably evil.

 

[Jayjay]

In much of this debate I must agree with Derec's views. While the most desperate crimes (mugging, liquor store robberies) are committed by poor people, there are also many affluent criminals who continue to steal no matter how rich they get. In fact, when measured by dollars stolen rather than violence, crime is a rich man's game. UBI, if based on cash as most proposals are — stupidly, in my opinion — would open new opportunities for crime. Recall that Hundreds of Billions of covid stimulus money for individuals was stolen by (mostly foreign-based) fraudsters.

I would say that it's due to one-time nature of the covid stimulus. If it was a regular thing, people would learn the fraudsters tricks. Most people, anyway. As for regular muggings and extortion, you're right. There could be gangs who will start sending their thugs to people's homes and businesses to collect "protection money" because they know you get your UBI every month and thus can afford to pay.

But it's not just criminals who would do this...

Let me repeat my proposal one more time. It solves many of the problems of other UBI proposals. I feel like a voice in the wilderness! I don't really expect hundreds of important policy makers to listen to me, but I'm honestly surprised that none has come up with the same good ideas. Let me try to convince a handful of TFT'ers.

Healthcare, childcare, and 12 years of quality education would all be provided free, payed for by government. The government would also guarantee access to housing and food. There would be no means-testing, but the well-off would not take advantage of the free soup-kitchen food, nor the cheap housing. There might be a small cash stipend, but less than Yang's $12,000 per adult and certainly much less than the $50,000 mentioned up-thread (was that per adult or per household?). Other non-cash parts of the safety net might include subsidized public transport, internet access, job training.

The assertion that well-off wouldn't take advantage of this is not true. Landlords would raise rents to match. Cost of subsidized goods and services would be slightly higher. This problem would exist for anything produced by open markets, because even though the end product might not be cash, there would be money exchanging hands at some point and that makes it possible to profit. Things like public transport would not be so much affected though. And who benefits from increased prices of, say, housing? Investors.

Coming from a country where the government pays 1/3rd of all rents, I can tell that this is a real problem. Whenever there is free money being handed out, there will be takers.

Low-wage employment would be subsidized by rebating the first $2000 of annual payroll tax. (Again, no need for means-testing: Every earner would get the rebate.)

This is just good old-fashioned tax progression that could be implemented with or without the rest of the model.

 

[Swammerdami]

The assertion that well-off wouldn't take advantage of this is not true. Landlords would raise rents to match. Cost of subsidized goods and services would be slightly higher. This problem would exist for anything produced by open markets, because even though the end product might not be cash, there would be money exchanging hands at some point and that makes it possible to profit. Things like public transport would not be so much affected though. And who benefits from increased prices of, say, housing? Investors.

Coming from a country where the government pays 1/3rd of all rents, I can tell that this is a real problem. Whenever there is free money being handed out, there will be takers.

There will be profiteers in any scheme. A goal is to minimize that. I do not know the details of my housing program, but rent control is already a thing and, worse-comes-to-worst, the housing could always be government-built and -operated.

Anyway, it's all just a dream. Government policy is not set for the benefit of ordinary people. As evidence look no further than the housing crisis of 2009 when Obama was President, and a moratorium on evictions should have been imposed but wasn't. Already-rich speculators made untold billions from buying foreclosed properties while banks' record-keeping was so bad there were several cases of foreclosing on the wrong properties!

The priority in 2009 was to "save the banks", but bank solvency was easily ensured: The banks could have been forced — using existing federal power — to issue more capital stock, with the government as buyer of last resort. Why wasn't this done? Because the real goal was not to keep the banks solvent but to keep their major shareholders rich.

 

[Jayjay]

The assertion that well-off wouldn't take advantage of this is not true. Landlords would raise rents to match. Cost of subsidized goods and services would be slightly higher. This problem would exist for anything produced by open markets, because even though the end product might not be cash, there would be money exchanging hands at some point and that makes it possible to profit. Things like public transport would not be so much affected though. And who benefits from increased prices of, say, housing? Investors.

Coming from a country where the government pays 1/3rd of all rents, I can tell that this is a real problem. Whenever there is free money being handed out, there will be takers.

There will be profiteers in any scheme. A goal is to minimize that. I do not know the details of my housing program, but rent control is already a thing and, worse-comes-to-worst, the housing could always be government-built and -operated.

Rent controls lead to artificial scarcity and (illegal) subletting economy. It's been tried in e.g. Germany or Sweden, and the results are not that good in my opinion: those who manage to get a rent-controlled apartment, possibly after decades of waiting, might not actually be poor anymore, but they can't be evicted.

Government-built housing is actually one of the best solutions. But that's communism!

Personally, I think that just giving people money and letting them choose how much of it to spend to housing as opposed to other necessities is the most efficient way. People value different things, and one-size-fits-all solution of the government trying to figure out how big an apartment you should live in is sub-optimal.

 

[Emily Lake]

You've got 50 hens and a fox. Everyone agrees that having an enclosed coop is really good for the hens. Why on earth would anyone "hit the brakes" on putting all of the animals in the coop?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I fail to see how my view that multiple solutions are needed is "conservative" or in any way "enemy of the good".

Yup, the bad one make homeless shelters dangerous places. It's not a problem, it's two problems that need different solutions.

I'd throw in a third problem being with the administration. The people put in charge of whatever idea you throw out there are sure as fire going to screw it all up.

Well, yeah. That's also a problem.

 

[Emily Lake]

Healthcare, childcare, and 12 years of quality education would all be provided free, payed for by government. The government would also guarantee access to housing and food.

The intent is good, but I think it needs more fleshing out. The risk in this case is not so much from "free riders" in the system, as it is from profiteers on the supply side.

If the government pays for and guarantees those services, the government must also control the cost of those services. That means for example, that either the government sets the prices for medical procedures or all doctors and nurses etc. are salaried employees of the government. Same thing for child care and schools.

Hypothetically, primary and secondary education is already a public good... but as it is currently provided it has some serious flaws. Most public schools are funded by property taxes collected from the same area in which the school resides. This ends up meaning that schools in lower income areas are poorly funded, and schools in wealthier areas are well funded. This produces then, differences in educational opportunity by location.

I generally think that defining basic services as common goods and provided for via taxation is a good idea - better than UBI in addressing some core disadvantages. But there needs to be more than just government funding. There also needs to be sufficient and objective oversight to ensure the quality and the cost-effectiveness of those endeavors. And I think that's where things fall down. The US government isn't particularly good at managing its spending.

 

[Swammerdami]

Emily Lake and Jayjay raise valid points against my proposal. Housing is the most questionable part of my proposal; perhaps I'll discard that.

As for government control of healthcare, I stand by that part of the proposal. Many developed countries have successful single-payer systems. Better government involvement would do much to reduce the cost of American healthcare, hugely greater than that of other countries. For starters, hundreds of thousands of people are employed by the insurance industry to deny care. They should all be laid off! (The huge shareholder value in companies like UHC or Aetna that would disappear if healthcare were managed rationally is the "elephant in the room" nobody talks about. All proposals seem to put those shareholders and employees first rather than the patients.)

For the free childcare, perhaps parents would be expected to serve on duty once a week. But I do NOT feel obligated to flesh out all the details of my proposal. This is NOT an area of expertise for me; I'm just trying to turn policy-makers into smarter approaches. (Let's face it: At present U.S. society wastes significant resources on useless higher education and medical red-tape. And the left-wing plan is to INCREASE such wastage?)

The government's Veteran's Administration Health program is very efficient and respected by its patients — troubles there are largely an exaggerated GOP myth — so the government HAS run health programs successfully. As a way to turn toward a "government option" slowly, I propose that VA Health be gradually expanded, with employers and individuals having the option to buy insurance from them, as capacity permits.

But, yes, a central part of my proposal is that the government should step in and provide necessities for the defenseless, especially children, rather than just providing cash. As evidence that this is a good idea, just consider Lotteries!

IIRC, 5% of total spending by the low-income group is on lottery tickets! (Obviously some in that group spend much more than 5%.) Even those who "get lucky" and win often don't prosper —many are soon bankrupt; many regret winning! I remember a sad statistic when California first adopted its Lottery. Total sales at the big stores in San Jose's impoverished East-side stayed about the same; but lottery tickets were now a large percentage of their sales, while sales of groceries went down by the same amount.


ETA: Oops! I just noticed thread title "Breakdown in Civil Order." This whole discussion is a derail, and I'm probably the culprit. I hope someone reports this for a thread split!

 

[Jarhyn]

The assertion that well-off wouldn't take advantage of this is not true. Landlords would raise rents to match. Cost of subsidized goods and services would be slightly higher. This problem would exist for anything produced by open markets, because even though the end product might not be cash, there would be money exchanging hands at some point and that makes it possible to profit. Things like public transport would not be so much affected though. And who benefits from increased prices of, say, housing? Investors.

Coming from a country where the government pays 1/3rd of all rents, I can tell that this is a real problem. Whenever there is free money being handed out, there will be takers.

There will be profiteers in any scheme. A goal is to minimize that. I do not know the details of my housing program, but rent control is already a thing and, worse-comes-to-worst, the housing could always be government-built and -operated.

Rent controls lead to artificial scarcity and (illegal) subletting economy. It's been tried in e.g. Germany or Sweden, and the results are not that good in my opinion: those who manage to get a rent-controlled apartment, possibly after decades of waiting, might not actually be poor anymore, but they can't be evicted.

Government-built housing is actually one of the best solutions. But that's communism!

Personally, I think that just giving people money and letting them choose how much of it to spend to housing as opposed to other necessities is the most efficient way. People value different things, and one-size-fits-all solution of the government trying to figure out how big an apartment you should live in is sub-optimal.

I think residency requirements and noxious taxation on non-owner-occupied dwellings that create steep profit barriers to rent seeking are likely better ways to resolve the issue.

The issue is profit seeking surrounding resources with inelastic demand curves, and in this case an inelastic SUPPLY curve.

At some point you just have to make it so that people are critically limited in how much land they can leverage on which they are not living. If at most one rich person can profit from one or two properties, and their own taxes to do so are steep, people will decide at some point it's just not worth it to seek rent. Add in enough adverse possession laws to make it difficult to be an absentee landlord without losing your whole investments to squatters and I expect the problem will resolve itself over time with regards to land barony and rent seeking.

If owning a second property is too much trouble, people simply won't do it. Then we can perhaps do some tax foreclosures on all those held properties, and have some state run housing.

 

[Jayjay]

Rent controls lead to artificial scarcity and (illegal) subletting economy. It's been tried in e.g. Germany or Sweden, and the results are not that good in my opinion: those who manage to get a rent-controlled apartment, possibly after decades of waiting, might not actually be poor anymore, but they can't be evicted.

Government-built housing is actually one of the best solutions. But that's communism!

Personally, I think that just giving people money and letting them choose how much of it to spend to housing as opposed to other necessities is the most efficient way. People value different things, and one-size-fits-all solution of the government trying to figure out how big an apartment you should live in is sub-optimal.

I think residency requirements and noxious taxation on non-owner-occupied dwellings that create steep profit barriers to rent seeking are likely better ways to resolve the issue.

The issue is profit seeking surrounding resources with inelastic demand curves, and in this case an inelastic SUPPLY curve.

At some point you just have to make it so that people are critically limited in how much land they can leverage on which they are not living. If at most one rich person can profit from one or two properties, and their own taxes to do so are steep, people will decide at some point it's just not worth it to seek rent. Add in enough adverse possession laws to make it difficult to be an absentee landlord without losing your whole investments to squatters and I expect the problem will resolve itself over time with regards to land barony and rent seeking.

If owning a second property is too much trouble, people simply won't do it. Then we can perhaps do some tax foreclosures on all those held properties, and have some state run housing.

Who says that owning a second property, or profiting from real estate is a bad thing? That's not the problem at hand. The problem was how to provide for the poorest segment of society so they don't have to resort to crime to sustain themselves, and property owners being able to increase their rates for lowest rents to match whatever the government is paying out is just showing how difficult it is to earmark benefits to a particular use. My skepticism isn't towards the inefficiency or unelasticity of the housing market, it's towards the alleged low cost of providing non-means-tested (or even means-tested, like it is in Finland) free housing for everyone.

Setting up barrier for rent seeing and trying to make it harder to make profit will hamper the entire market and ultimately lead to less housing being available, and increasing the divide between those who are wealthy enough to own their own homes, and those who have to rent. Furthermore it'd reduce mobility because people have a harder time switching to a less expensive apartment or move to a different location to seek better employment. The cure being worse than the disease in this case.

Compare this with providing free public transport for everyone: that wouldn't be nearly as big a problem, because public transport is by nature usually a government-operated monopoly that wouldn't increase rates if the government, i.e. itself, started giving out bus tickets for free or at subsidized prices. But if you gave everyone free transport, without the public part, then you'd have people who'd demand that their $100k Teslas and Humvees are maximally subsidized, which would of course bankrupt any government giving out such benefits. I think the housing market is closer to private vehicle market than public transport market in this case.

I stand by my solution: a modest UBI, and letting people choose by themselves how to spend it. For densely populated areas, this can be supplanted with government-built an/or government-operated housing for the poor.

EDITED TO ADD: By government-operated, I don't mean rent controlled, at least not in the usual sense. I mean that there would be a government owned company that would rent apartments, but with rents conditionally depending on income. So a poor person or family who moves in, pays less than the market rate. If they happen to get jobs, they wouldn't be kicked out, but their subsidies would vanish and then it'd be just like living in a regular apartment (unless their financial situation worsens again). When or if they move, they next tenant would again be chosen from the low-income bracket, but at any given time, the government would be a player also in regular market-rate housing business. This would probably not be very well received by their privately owned competitors.

 

[ZiprHead]

‘Open season on media’: journalists increasingly targeted at Los Angeles protests

Los Angeles has seen volatile protests almost every weekend this summer over trans rights, political opposition to masks and vaccines, and the recall of the Democratic governor. At least seven journalists have been physically assaulted while covering these rallies, six of them by rightwing demonstrators.

Attacks on the press are just one part of escalating rightwing street violence in the city, which has included multiple stabbings, people being sprayed in the face with bear Mace, an assault on a breast cancer patient outside a clinic, and repeated physical brawls with leftwing protesters in the streets. In another sign of growing tensions, protesters rallying against vaccine mandates showed up at the homes of two Los Angeles city council members on Sunday.

Several Los Angeles journalists said the violence was like nothing they had seen before, and that some of the attacks had taken place with police officers standing nearby.

The Los Angeles police department and the Los Angeles county sheriff’s department did not respond to requests for comment about whether there had been any arrests so far in any of the incidents, even as some of the journalists have publicly identified the people they believe attacked them and at least three have made official police reports.

Hundreds clash in Portland as Proud Boys rally descends into violence

A rightwing protest in Portland on Sunday has culminated in a gunfight, when antifascist demonstrators returned fire at a man who shot at them with a handgun in a downtown street.

The firefight took place in downtown Portland, Oregon, soon after 6pm. As antifascists followed a man at a distance whom they were trying to eject from the area, he took cover behind a solar-powered trashcan, produced a handgun and opened fire. He fired at least two shots before an antifascist returned fire with their own handgun. At least seven shots were fired.

Portland police bureau confirmed that a man had been arrested over the shooting but did not have any information on any injuries.

The incident came after a day of protest descended into running clashes involving hundreds of protesters and counterprotesters.

Earlier that afternoon, in the city’s suburban east, Proud Boys discharged rounds from airsoft guns, while antifascists threw firework munitions, and both sides exchanged clouds of choking Mace and countless blows in a chaotic running street battle that lasted the better part of an hour.

 

[ZiprHead]

3 Vancouver schools placed on lockdown after Proud Boys try to enter during masks protest

Vancouver Public Schools officials confirmed on Friday that the Skyview High School, Alki Middle School and Chinook Elementary were put in lockdown after members of the far-right Proud Boys tried to gain access to school grounds, according to witnesses.

Pat Nuzzo, communications director for the district, called the lockdown’s a “safety precaution.”

“This is related to yesterday’s protest against Washington state’s requirement for staff and students to wear masks or face coverings in schools and on buses,” Nuzzo wrote to OPB.

Patriot Prayer, a far-right group led by Southwest Washington’s Joey Gibson, and other far-right activists made posts online incorrectly claiming that a student at the school who did not want to wear a mask would face arrest if they entered school grounds.

Parents of other students at Skyview joined the anti-mask protest, holding signs and calling for the student to be given a medical exemption to mask requirements. Nearby, teachers and students held signs supporting masks.

One video posted online showed a group of people outside the school chanting “U-S-A.” Several people in the crowd were wearing black and yellow clothing of the Proud Boys, a far-right group best known for their participation in the Jan. 6 insurrection and for inciting violence during protests against anti-fascists.

 

[Derec]

Hundreds clash in Portland as Proud Boys rally descends into violence

Pox on both their houses. But it figures that lefty Grauniad pretends that only right wing violence is a problem and excuses left-wing violence. The bigger problem is that the pro-Antifa DA Mike Schmidt is doing the same.

91% of Portland protest arrests not being prosecuted

Meanwhile, demonstrators have embraced the lack of prosecutions as a win.
"If (the police) want to arrest 50 people a night, then, OK, that's what they're going to do," Braxton with Black Unity PDX told KOIN 6 News in December. "Their jail is too small. They don't have room for that many people and the DA isn't prosecuting anymore. So we won that, too."

These fauxgressive DAs like Schmidt, Garcson, Boudin, Foxx etc. are one of the chief causes of the breakdown of civil order in major US cities.

 

[Derec]

Antifa or similar left-wing anarchist outfit threatening to burn down more police precincts.

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/crimethinc/status/1433910534575955971?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1433910537289666561%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es2_[/TWEET]

 

[prideandfall]

Antifa or similar left-wing anarchist outfit threatening to burn down more police precincts.

and?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hundreds clash in Portland as Proud Boys rally descends into violence

Pox on both their houses. But it figures that lefty Grauniad pretends that only right wing violence is a problem and excuses left-wing violence. The bigger problem is that the pro-Antifa DA Mike Schmidt is doing the same.

91% of Portland protest arrests not being prosecuted

Meanwhile, demonstrators have embraced the lack of prosecutions as a win.
"If (the police) want to arrest 50 people a night, then, OK, that's what they're going to do," Braxton with Black Unity PDX told KOIN 6 News in December. "Their jail is too small. They don't have room for that many people and the DA isn't prosecuting anymore. So we won that, too."

These fauxgressive DAs like Schmidt, Garcson, Boudin, Foxx etc. are one of the chief causes of the breakdown of civil order in major US cities.

The police arrest people who weren't actually doing wrong.

 

[Jarhyn]

Pox on both their houses. But it figures that lefty Grauniad pretends that only right wing violence is a problem and excuses left-wing violence. The bigger problem is that the pro-Antifa DA Mike Schmidt is doing the same.

91% of Portland protest arrests not being prosecuted



These fauxgressive DAs like Schmidt, Garcson, Boudin, Foxx etc. are one of the chief causes of the breakdown of civil order in major US cities.

The police arrest people who weren't actually doing wrong.

So, here Derec is arguing that failure to prosecute a crime doesn't make the arrested less of a criminal. Who wants to do the honors and dredge up all the times Derec has indicated that not being charged in college rape cases indicates nothing was done wrong?

Either the protestors are as worthy of protection by Derec as all those college rapists, or all those college rapists not prosecuted are just as filthy as the protestors who were let off "easy", given Derec's rhetoric.

As for myself, I find the lack of prosecution in credible cases AND the existence of arrests in unprosecutable cases equally dissatisfying.

 

[Angry Floof]

Further breakdown in civil order:

Far right groups praise Taliban takeover of Afghanistan

They want to do the same thing here.

Several concerning trends have emerged in recent weeks on online platforms commonly used by anti-government, White supremacist and other domestic violent extremist groups, including "framing the activities of the Taliban as a success," and a model for those who believe in the need for a civil war in the US, the head of the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Intelligence and Analysis, John Cohen, said on a call Friday with local and state law enforcement, obtained by CNN.

 

[Keith&Co.]

They want to do the same thing here.

They have long wanted to do the same thing here. Seeing religious extremists take over a country, from our military, with almost no resistance, well, probably needed a cigarette after tgat.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As for myself, I find the lack of prosecution in credible cases AND the existence of arrests in unprosecutable cases equally dissatisfying.

Exactly. Prosecute the actual crimes. It's just with the protests that the arrests don't match up with the crimes well at all. (And there's also the problem that barring cameras or the like getting a conviction will be hard--the police do not have a good track record of arresting the actual miscreants at protests, what are the chances that at least 1 of the 12 will not trust the police testimony?)