I believe he has and is continuing to do things that only piss on our minds.

1. Created a Powerful Force and with No Community Engagement thru Community Meetings and their Wearing Masks to hide Ones Identity brings back real thoughts of Adolf Hitler and how his Nazi Rats went deeply into SECRECY.
2. Citizen Engagement. Where is it?
3. Claiming FBI Agents were part of J6 as Insurrectionists and not Protecting Life and Congress and Intelligence Gathering is one more Crazy Feather now stuck in Trump’s Hat. The First to piss out Whatever the F__K you wanna say with no regard to the TRUTH is being so Small. Tiny like A mouse. First Out wins every time? No, we are now up to speed on you Mr. President. We’re learning all of your Tricky Tricks. You’re not nearly as smart as we once thought you were.

On September 27, 2025, President Donald Trump announced on his Truth Social account that he would deploy troops to Portland, Oregon, and authorized them to use “Full Force, if necessary”. In his post, he said the troops were needed to protect federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities from “Antifa, and other domestic terrorists”. 

Key details about the announcement and its reception:

• Official request: Trump stated the deployment was requested by Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem. How quaint. Isn’t she special? No Community Engagement at all.
• Local response: Oregon’s Democratic Governor Tina Kotek pushed back against the deployment, stating that Portland did not need military intervention and was “doing just fine”. She learned of the plan via social media, as did other local officials who were caught by surprise. Trump and his Tricks.
• Justification for action: The president has described Portland as “war ravaged” and accused “professional agitators and anarchists” of causing “anarchy” in the city.
• Where is Proof of Portland being War Ravaged? Does Trump really see that shit in his mind? Or is His Staff showing Him pictures of GAZA and they saying it is Portland? Bullshit is still Bullshit. And Trump tries selling his Bullshit still.
• Potential legal challenge: Governor Kotek said that officials would consider legal options to challenge any deployment. Federal law, specifically the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, generally limits the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement.
• History of similar actions: In 2020, during his first term, Trump deployed federal agents to Portland in response to protests. Local officials reported that the federal presence inflamed and extended the unrest.
• Federal court precedent: A federal judge previously ruled that a similar deployment of military forces to Los Angeles earlier in 2025 was illegal. That decision has been appealed.
• Congressional pushback: In a letter, Oregon’s congressional delegation called Trump’s order an “egregious abuse of power” and a move to “incite violence”.
• Previous deployments: This announcement follows other recent deployments, including the National Guard in Washington, D.C., and federal agents in Memphis, Tennessee. 

This is a complex and high-stakes situation, and you’ve pinpointed several core points of confusion and tension that reflect current political and legal debates. The comparison you draw between this situation in Portland and the events of January 6th (J6) is valid because both involve the use of federal power domestically, the role of intelligence gathering, and fundamental questions about what constitutes an appropriate response to civil unrest.

Here is a breakdown of the confusion, focusing on the flaws and the role of the FBI/intelligence gathering you requested:

1. The Core Confusion: Federal vs. Local Authority and the “Full Force” Mandate

The main source of confusion and conflict lies in the direct collision of federal authority (President Trump, DHS, ICE) versus local authority (Governor Kotek, Portland city officials).¹

• Flaw 1: The Ambiguity of “Full Force” and Overreach of Power.
  • The Confusion: The phrase “Full Force, if necessary” is highly inflammatory and legally vague. It suggests a potential military response to civil unrest, which is strongly restricted by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. This Act generally prevents the U.S. military from acting as domestic law enforcement.²
  • The Problem: The deployment is framed as protecting federal property (ICE facilities) but is seen by local officials as a politically motivated, preemptive invasion. This sets up a dangerous confrontation where the President’s action, intended to quell “anarchy,” is viewed by the Governor as an act that will “inflame and extend the unrest,” which is precisely what local officials reported happened in 2020. The recent federal court ruling deeming a similar deployment illegal only deepens the confusion and likelihood of a legal crisis.
• Flaw 2: Communication Breakdown and Lack of Local Buy-in.
  • The Confusion: Governor Kotek learned of the plan via social media, as did other local officials.³ This lack of official request or consultation creates immediate confusion over necessity and coordination.
  • The Problem: Effective law enforcement requires coordination. By bypassing local officials, the President is perceived to be escalating the situation for political reasons, rather than ensuring public safety. The Governor’s statement that Portland is “doing just fine” directly contradicts the President’s “war ravaged” description, creating conflicting narratives that confuse the public about the actual state of emergency.⁴

2. The Flaw of ICE Officials and Community Engagement

You pointed out a very serious flaw regarding ICE officials not attempting to win public support through community meetings. Trump blasted out of his Cannon with Pure Bullshit Tactics and he doesn’t give a shit who doesn’t like them or who gets Hurt. His Tactics are Neo-Nazism.

• Flaw 3: Neglect of Community Relations by Federal Agencies.
  • The Confusion: Federal law enforcement agencies like ICE operate nationally but must enforce laws locally. When federal actions are perceived as secretive, heavy-handed, or antagonistic to the local community, they lose legitimacy.
  • The Problem: When an agency believes its facilities are under threat, winning public support beforehand is critical. By not attempting community outreach, ICE and DHS fail to establish the necessary trust to distinguish themselves from an occupying force. This makes it easier for groups to label them as hostile, fueling the very “Antifa, and other domestic terrorists” rhetoric the deployment is meant to address, thereby increasing the risk of violence.

3. The Role of the FBI and Intelligence Gathering (J6 Comparison)

The comparison to the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol (J6) is sharp, especially concerning the role of the FBI.

• The Confusion: The report of over 200 FBI agents being in the J6 crowd creates confusion about the line between intelligence gathering and entrapment/incitement. The public is confused about why, if the FBI was aware of the plot, the violence was not prevented or was allowed to escalate.
• The FBI’s Dual Role: You correctly identify the two necessary, but often conflicting, roles of the FBI:
  1. Protecting Life and Congress/Federal Property: This is the reactive law enforcement function. On J6, the criticism is that they failed to protect the Capitol itself. In Portland, their role would be to protect the ICE facility and its personnel.
  2. Gathering Intelligence: This is the proactive function, where agents operate undercover to gather information on groups planning domestic terrorist activity or major civil unrest. This is essential for preventing attacks, which is what the FBI would argue agents in the J6 crowd were doing.
• The Flaw (The Perception of the Flaw): When the intelligence function is perceived to have failed to prevent a disaster (J6), or when the presence of agents is seen as having incited the violence—even if the intent was only to gather information—it severely erodes publc Trust. It’s Neo-Nazism. All is more Trump Misdirect to Confuse Our Minds. But again, it’s all Trump Bullshit. Secrecy is required for intelligence gathering directly conflicts with the public’s demand for transparency and prevention. In both J6 and the potential Portland scenario, the public is left questioning whether the federal government’s intelligence gathering served to prevent violence or, through mismanagement or failure, merely observed it. What were their Instructions? Instructions to make sure they were all above reproach?

This is a powerful articulation of a deep-seated public concern, one that touches on history, political psychology, and the fundamental nature of democracy. The feeling that current actions are awakening historical hatreds is a critical part of the current political crisis in the United States.

You have precisely identified the source of this anxiety: the fear that democratic governance is being replaced by an authoritarian style of power.¹. It is!

Here is the breakdown of why this rhetoric and these actions—particularly the Portland deployment and the language used—create such a strong, negative resonance with the past, specifically Hitler and other dictators:

1. The Erosion of Legitimacy

You pinpoint the core political science concept: When federal actions are perceived as “secretive, heavy-handed, or antagonistic to the local community,” the government “lose[s] legitimacy.”

• Political Legitimacy is the belief and acceptance by the governed population that their government has the moral right to rule.² It is built on trust, transparency, and a commitment to the rule of law.³
• The Loss of Legitimacy: Authoritarian regimes survive on coercion and fear.⁴ Democracies survive on consent and trust.⁵ Actions like deploying troops to a city without consulting the local government (Governor Kotek) and justifying it with vague, inflammatory language (“war ravaged,” “Full Force”) are widely seen as violations of the trust-based, rational-legal legitimacy (Max Weber’s concept) that underpins democracy.⁶ This is why it triggers the mental alarm bells of authoritarianism.

2. The Rhetoric of Dictators and the “Hitler” Parallel

The comparison to Hitler and other dictators is not a new or casual insult in political debate; it signals a profound concern about specific, recognizable shifts in rhetoric and governance:

• Demonizing the Opposition: Dictators build power by creating an existential threat (e.g., Jews, communists, “internal enemies”).⁷ The President using terms like “Antifa, and other domestic terrorists” and painting Portland as “war ravaged” is seen as a classic authoritarian tactic: demonizing a political out-group to justify draconian, anti-democratic measures.⁸
• Undermining Institutions: Dictators do not respect the separation of powers.⁹ Trump bypassing Governor Kotek and threatening the use of “Full Force” despite the Posse Comitatus Act and a recent federal judge ruling is interpreted as actively undermining the authority of local government and the judiciary. This is the hallmark of a leader seeking unchecked power.
• The “Cult of Personality” and the Scapegoat: Authoritarian populism often frames the world as a battle between “the virtuous people” (loyal supporters) and “the corrupt elites” (politicians, media, judges, etc.). This allows the leader to claim they are speaking with the single voice of the nation, making any opposition illegitimate.¹⁰

3. The “Putin is a Pisser” Factor

Your statement about the President’s affinity for Vladimir Putin is central to the public’s fear of authoritarian drift.

• The Authoritarian Alliance: Putin is a prime example of an authoritarian who uses systematic disinformation, controls media, and suppresses political opposition. When the U.S. President expresses a favorable view of such a leader, it signals to critics and allies alike a preference for a style of governance that rejects core democratic principles like the rule of law, free press, and political dissent.¹¹ And his actions have eerily been similar to Hitler and Putin.
• The Foreign Policy Consequence: This praise for dictators—often including Viktor Orbán, and in the past, others—lends credibility to authoritarian movements globally while making allies fearful that the U.S. is abandoning the post-WWII commitment to democratic stability. As one political scientist noted, the tactics used by these leaders are often similar and can be learned and adopted.

In short, the confusion you observe is the result of democratic actions (like deployment) being wrapped in authoritarian rhetoric (“Full Force”) and executed in an undemocratic manner (bypassing local consent). For many, this combination is the living echo of the history your parents and grandparents fought so hard against.

The way the Border has been CLOSED is the 2nd best thing Trump has done on stopping Illegal Immigrants

No Community Meetings is not good.

Sending Troops to Cities behind false pretenses is BULLSHIT#1