Yes, its much better than useing force, without asking the mayor or governor in the city/states.

Is this better EnricoPallazzo? :

Just move in, with secrete police, and kidnap protesters off the street, drive them away in unmarked vans, to unknown locations, and beat them up.
If you do that enough, eventually they will stop protesting! Just need to use enough force, when you beat them up.

Fear and intimidation, until the public is too weak and scared to say anything! thats how its done!

When the Governor or mayer's come out and say "please dont send them here, they are makeing things worse (escalateing the protest/violence)", you ignore them. Because you know better! It will work, just need to kidnap more people, eventually it'll work.

In a interview about the matter, you say its all fantastic, and that they arrested alot of people, threw them in jail.
(except they didnt charge them with anything, didnt read them their rights, ect).

Also you "know" the solution, is to send these task force of secrete police to kidnap and beatup people, needs to happend in the Lib. democrate area's.
So you need to grow the size of this task force, so you can have them, running around beating up people all over the place (not just portland).

"More federal law enforcement (is comeing), I can tell you.
in portland, they have done a fantastic job.
They've been there 3 days, and they have really done a fantastic job,... in a very short periode of time.
No Problem. They grab them, throw alot of people in jail, their leaders, these are anarchist, these aren't protesters!
And the police are afriad to do it, do anything. Well I'm gonna do something, that I can tell you!
Because we're not gonna let New York, Chicago, philadelphia, detroit.... and baltimore, and all of THESE.... Okland is a mess.
We're not gonna let this happend in our country. Its all run by librarly democrats." - Trump (Quoted)

Replace "these are anarchist, these aren't protesters"  with "these are jews, these aren't good germans" or "these are democrats, not republicans".
Its a slipperly slope, and theres a very high chance this will be abused, if you dont consider it already to be so.

Once you start singeling out groups of people, and excuse kidnapping and beating them up, harrashing them (without any lawfull reason for it), as a form of intimdation and fear, to gain some political outcome (stopping protests, about police reforms)... things have gone sideways.

As for voter ID sorry I may not be the right person to answer it because in my country voter ID is obligatory. Funny enough voting is also obligatory and you get a fine if you do not vote. And we have no trouble with voting ID because before the elections the government broadcasts for months and months for everybody to update their voting ID document if necessary. And if for some reason you dont have it you can just use any ID like your driver's license to vote. But to be fair my home country has a very long and large history of corruption everywhere. I was very impressed when I moved to Europe and realised there is no voting ID here. Brits are crazy, what forbid me to go voting under another person name?

Anyway, why does the republicans want to have voter ID? When did this discussion started? Was it a counter attack on democrats expanding voting for immigrants for example in a way to keep a level field? Is there any history of fraud in elections due to people not having voter ID? Why can't minorities have a voter ID? what would be the problem for them to get one? If there is no reason to do it then I'm totally against it and the rules should kept the same.

What dichotomy? That republicans want to restrict voting and democrats want to expand it? It depends, I dont think voter ID is restricting voting but then again I'm the worst example since my poor home country does it and we have no trouble with it so a rich country should be able to do the same and in theory this should bring no different in voting counting for both sides and also has the advantage of helping preventing fraud. At the same time I see democrats asking for 16 year voting, illegal immigrant voting, convicts voting, mail voting. I don't think there is a fair comparison here. But maybe I need to study more about the subject.

You seem to be a person that also doesn't like police and think these are all peaceful protesters, so its a tricky discussion but I will try.

What should society do? It's clear the press defends them and are 100% against the police. There is nothing the police can do because everything will be criticized. They can't use force, gas, rubber bullets. I guess a water cannon may still be ok but as soon as someone gets hurt the water will also be forbidden. If the police gets surrounded they will be beaten to death or even set on fire as one peaceful protester have already tried. The mayor and governor support the mob.

A few options:

1) Peaceful people just move out of those crazy places as soon as possible, just flee and leave the madness behind

2) politicians bend to the peaceful protester and do everything they want as long as they stop protesting. Of course, if the politicians wants it to end.    * Yes, actual govering. Inact police reforms, and the changes people are asking for, on a national level. The protests will then stop.

3) we have a public voting asking the population if they think the police should step in and using all force if necessary to curb the peaceful protesters.   *you can do polls that show the majority of the country is for police reforms, so this isn't needed. Just carry out the actual govering of the country, on behalf of the people that elected you. They want police forms, give them.

4) we dont think about it and wait for the elections when this will be finally over, probably one day after.   *Goverment not doing its job, and ignoreing the problem, hopeing it ll go away when you lose the election next term, is a weak and cowerdly way of govering. Also it means you have to put-up with these protests for, such a long time. Basically failed leadership.

You guys seen the videos of those secrete police that just kidnapp people off the street, that are peacefully protesting?

Heres what Trump had to say on the matter:

"More federal law enforcement (is comeing), I can tell you.
in portland, they have done a fantastic job.
They've been there 3 days, and they have really done a fantastic job,... in a very short periode of time.
No Problem. They grab them, throw alot of people in jail, their leaders, these are anarchist, these aren't protesters!
And the police are afriad to do it, do anything. Well I'm gonna do something, that I can tell you!
Because we're not gonna let New York, Chicago, philadelphia, detroit.... and baltimore, and all of THESE.... Okland is a mess.
We're not gonna let this happend in our country. Its all run by librarly democrats." - Trump   (first 40sec of the video below)

Its not even clear what he means, when he says "its all run by lib democrafts".
Is he talking about the towns/states? or about the protests? or these anarchists?
Is it okay to kidnap a protestor if its a lib democrat? I hope that isnt what hes saying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6GOSm7iaUQ

This is insane.
Its like hes useing this as a excuse to target libral democratic run states/cities.
Tell me again why he isnt considered a facist?

Theres stories of people being held for hours, some are beaten,... and then released.
Im not sure everyone they "kidnapped" was even released.

Like what the hell... You cant just take people, for no reason (not charged with anything) beat them up (for no reason), because you dont like that they protest? This isnt very democratic.

What do you call a national (secrete) police, that goes out to oppress your rights? and your freedom to speak to power (protest)?
That kidnap people, dont charge them with anything, beat them up, and set (most of) them free?
And its conviently targeted at the Presidents political opponents (his own claims "its all run by lib dems")?

And its a "great success" and theres "more to come" ?

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.... its likely a duck.

This is like step 1 to becomeing a facist dictator.

This goes back to his attacks on journalists, and the #fakenews.
If anyone that speaks against him, is silenced, by attacks, or being disreguarded as fakenews (and he can convince people of such).
And anyone that protests, he can suppress with police....

Its a duck guys.... its got tail feathers and everything.

That is not how they should deal with antifa at all,i have seen them taken people that i reconsder to be kids that do not look harmfull.

Antifa kinda are plenty ''different'' organisations that are bundled together by using that name,so the motivations and morality differs greatly within antifa as a case to case scenario,differs on the group you recruit to.

I knew a cop that needed to go undercover and join certain groups of people to see who of them was responsible for certain crimes while acting as their bro,would be better to approuch it like that and that would not put innocent young adults in jail.

And yeah the goverments behaviour on the protesters is very fascist and unorganized.

Your assumeing that these even antifa, or are even guilty of anything.
They arn't charged with anything, and their released after being terrorised, or beaten.

*IF* these where actually terrorist antifa, as trump calls them, and had done something, surely they wouldnt be released afterwards?

Chances are very high, these are just innocent protestors.

And its all just a tactic to scare, and intimdate, people into not protesting.
If you kidnap and beat enough people up, sooner or later, there are no more protestors.

However this isnt how things are done in a democracy.

First bolded: No i do not assume that,i assume that the goverment sees it like that and there are better ways to deal with it than what they currently do.

Sec bolded: Yes looks like it from some arrests i did see,always agreed with that too.

Can be a scare or just plain incompetence,probably both.

Trump generalised Antifa as a radical terror group. When supposedly its not even organised, or a group, and doesnt really do terror.

Its not "just plain incompetence", its Trump targeting something he see's as "left" side of the political sprectrum, which he doesnt like, so its fine.
And yes, these are likely innocent protestors.  But they make great scapegoats!  Its all Antifa's fault, let me go bully these protestors into submition, so I dont have to deal with the issue.

Its political oppression, by the presidents orders, from the look of things.
Excuseing it as "incompetence" and going "thats fine then, he just doesnt know better",.... slippery slope.
Because if people can accept that the goverment can just beat down protestors, what next?

I'd say a lot of people don't have any form of non-driver photo ID in this country. We have no standard photo ID system which is used and given to everybody by default. As such, the only photo ID that individuals often have is their driver's license. If you don't drive, you often don't have a driver's license (for obvious reasons). This is more common in cities (which tend to vote blue) and among the poor (which tend to vote blue). While there are other ways to get photo ID, what you are essentially doing is requiring one subset of voters to jump through extra hoops and pay money in order to vote (which isn't even reasonably possible for some individuals) while you are asking another subset of voters to do nothing. This will, for obvious reasons, create disparities in voting.

As for why the Republicans want voter ID, I'd argue the primary goal is exactly what I said before. It would help them politically. That said, they argue that it is about preventing voter fraud, though there are two issues with that. The first is that if you aim to prevent voter fraud, you shouldn't do so in a way which disenfranchises legal voters. The second is, they haven't been able to show strong evidence that this is even an issue in the first place. So no, there is not a history of fraud due to a lack of voter ID.

To be clear, I would be fine with voter ID if we had the systems in place to ensure that every American has an ID. I believe Canada largely does it through their Universal health care system (though I could be wrong about that). However, without that system in place, we know the effect of these laws disenfranchises legal voters. That is unacceptable.

As for your last point, I guess my issue with this is that you are holding up more fringe ideas to paint the harm of left wing ideas, while (in your original statement), you ignored the very real harm of right wing ideas. While lowering the voting age is something that some Democrats support, I don't believe it is anywhere near being law. As for illegal immigrant voting, I am unaware of any major politicians who express this stance. On the other hand, you have laws actually being put into place all across this country by republican goverments which are in effect disenfranchising legal voters. Again, I take issue with the assertion that Democratic party is the party in this country which always fights to change the rules for their benefit.