Salesforce CEO Says National Guard Should Patrol San Francisco
Though Benioff's shift mirrors Silicon Valley's broader accommodation of Trump, the exchange offered a rare glimpse of just how far that repositioning can go. The question now: will other Bay Area tech CEOs follow Benioff's lead and call for federal troops in their own backyard?
There seems to be a certain paranoia among the wealthy and those in power, namely that peaceful cities are burning to the ground. Maybe they get this from their "news sources", presidential posts and speeches, but it's entirely untrue. Perhaps it's a kind of deliberate mass hysteria.
As an example, A group has set up a website to give the "ground truth" of Portland [0].
San Francisco has always had its problems, but under the control of local authorities with domain knowledge. And the same, no doubt, for every liberal city being occupied under the false pretense that it is in ruins. People go to work, schools and even zoos normally and peacefully.
You see, in this case, rampant crime, raging fires and anarchy are to be found in the mind of the beholder.
> https://isportlandburning.com/
If the goal is to show how the government is exaggerating or lying why not set up webcams around federal facilities in Portland?
Seems to me that this is just the other side of the same coin. If the government is going to be dishonest and just point to where the “fires” are and pretend like there is no place that isn’t under siege…it’s just as dishonest to pretend like there are not places in Portland that are problematic.
There are certainly parts of Portland that are dealing with protests that appear, to me, to be dangerous enough that I have no interest on being anywhere near them.
You certainly do not see those places on that website, nor any mention of them.
Everybody has a story to tell and a perspective that they want to tell it from.
I recognize this stupid game. Let me guess, there is no news story I could post here that would satisfy you, am I right?
MSNBC, CNN, local Portland TV stations? All have stories detailing the ICE protests, acknowledge that there has been violence and arrests in Portland, and are easily accessible to you via a google search. But…I know y’all know this already and it doesn’t matter to you who is reporting it, you will just obfuscate, spin, or provide some stupid reason why those specific sources or story cannot be trusted.
No thanks, I don’t need to play…but y’allhave fun storming the castle!
No, i asked for evidence that "Portland is burning to the ground" and will happily accept any evidence from any source, but you haven't provided anything resembling one, presumably because no part of Portland is burning.
I genuinely know nothing about Portland, but i know that the way Chicago is described is entirely unmoored from reality, and that none of the protestors in Chicago have been violent, so you can back up your claim or continue to look like you're making things up
Then go back and read my original comment again lol.
Protests are not war zones, nor are they "burning the city to the ground" nor are they even starting fires (and you did use the word fires).
My point is that the administration is lying about what's happening in Portland, and you don't seem to care. The things you're describing are not the same things the administration is describing.
And again, I don't know much about the protests in Portland, but Trump keeps saying the ones in Chicago are violent when they are not, so unless you can show me that Portland is different, it'll continue to assume you, like the president, are making things up
Did you also happen to notice the quotes around my use of that word? Apparently not. But now that I have pointed that out to you why do you suppose I did that? That was a sarcastic reference to the original claim.
You also attribute to me an attitude that I did not express on here. My point all along was that the propaganda goes both ways. The government exaggerates their claims and the protesters try to minimize their violence and destructive impact. I stand by that, especially now that you have mischaracterized me several times over the course of this thread. You also describe the Chicago protests as non-violent (and you claim you know about those), but that is simply not true. Just yesterday the Broadview Illinois mayor Katrina Thompson decried the violence of the protesters in her city from Saturday night, So you are contributing to that other side of the propaganda coin by minimizing in the same way the government exaggerates.
“There are too many protesters are raising their fists rather than their voices, creating chaos at the expense of the people who call Broadview home,” Thompson said in a statement. “Broadview residents lack the protestors’ privilege to return to calm, quiet neighborhoods for undisturbed rest.”
https://news.wttw.com/2025/10/13/broadview-mayor-shrinks-des...
Thompson is wrong, and saying anything to try and make things go away, which is extremely disappointing, but there's still no evidence of the protestors being violent. Nearly all charges against all protestors have been dropped in court, and the extent of "violent" charges are one count of "assault of an officer" because a geriatric air force vet allowed his arm to brush an agent.
Meanwhile ICE teargassed my block yesterday while my neighbors were doing nothing but standing on the corner filming.
I know who's being violent and it isn't protestors. Beyond that, even the ICE behavior at Broadview isn't especially extreme. The protestors are almost all senior citizens. Nobody is rioting, starting fires, assaulting officers. Do you have evidence of such in Portland? Because if you do you should show me.
Look, i asked you a simple question. "Is there evidence that parts of Portland are being burned to the ground, as the administration claims." The answer is very obviously no.
So between "the sitting president outright lying about the state of reality as an excuse to federalize the national guard and violate civil liberties" and "people who are peacefully going about their lives insisting they're simply going about their lives," I'm glad you've decided both are equally dishonest and similarly motivated.
> Thompson is wrong, and saying anything to try and make things go away, which is extremely disappointing, but there's still no evidence of the protestors being violent. Nearly all charges against all protestors have been dropped in court, and the extent of "violent" charges are one count of "assault of an officer" because a geriatric air force vet allowed his arm to brush an agent.
This is “spin” to minimize impact, just like I said. You are providing propaganda here.
> Look, i asked you a simple question. "Is there evidence that parts of Portland are being burned to the ground, as the administration claims." The answer is very obviously no.
I never made that claim, not sure why you want to keep going back to that. As I stated clearly above, I regarded those claims as an exaggeration, and even sarcastically referred to it in my comment. You choosing to apply this to me is just another example of trying to obfuscate the point of my original comment.
> I'm glad you've decided both are equally dishonest and similarly motivated.
I definitely stand by that. Yes, I think the government is being dishonest and think that has been quite obvious in here with two commenters I have interacted with—You just provided spin like I said you would (but at least you acknowledged what the Mayor actually said, points for that). You have tried to obfuscated my point, attributed opinions to me, and suggested I have said things I haven’t said. That’s dishonest. Another commenter outright lied and claimed the mayor never said what she said, despite the quote. I literally had to post the Mayor’s freaking statement on the city’s website to counter that BS they were spewing.
No, you simply have provided zero evidence of protestors being violent. You have one statement from one official accusing them of violence, and not one piece of evidence anywhere showing them actually being violent, in either Chicago or Portland.
You're doing what the president is doing: making statements entirely detached from reality without evidence.
If what you say is true you should have no problem supporting 24/7 webcams streaming direct to the internet pointing right at the areas in question. Then you can provide all the proof you need to discount the government narrative and prove yours.
I look forward to seeing those streams. Good luck!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dF9mAhcjPs
Throwing rocks isn’t violent? Since when?
Well you specifically asked for evidence of violence in Chicago and you received it. Now you try to minimize it and deflect—just like I said you would. So predictable.
The propaganda around this topic is definitely a two sided coin. Thanks for demonstrating it for all to see.
I don't think you're in a good rhetorical position to high-horse anything; to me, your horse died on the hill of "raised fist means violence" analysis of Katrina Thompson's statement about the Broadview protests.
Neither of you are going to convince each other of anything, so I'm not sure what's gained by handwavy argument and generalizations at this point. Facts have some utility, but the analysis is just tedious.
My horse is still very alive, it just walked away from your ridiculous spin. You definitely didn’t convince me I was wrong or should even give it another thought, you only further convinced me that I am right about the minimization and spin that people will put on the topic.
BTW a few comments above this one the other commenter mentioned that the mayor was “wrong”. So even they aren’t buying your spin of her comments, and they are apparently aligned with you in every other way.
You are an absolute riot. Do you actually live in this reality? Perhaps a couple of parallel worlds have their wires crossed with the nexus being this HN thread.
To summarize:
I never dunked on that mayor. I literally quoted the mayor’s exact statement. I linked directly to that statement on her government website. Obviously if you and the other commenter have exact opposite interpretations of what she said, the most accurate thing I could say is that the statement was inarticulate because it illicit opposite meanings based on the reader.
You can complain about my writing not being civil when you stop the outright (apparently intentional) lying about what I have said. I posted a statement made by the mayor. I have an interpretation of it which results in an opinion. The PBS affiliate had an interpretation of it. The other commenter had an interpretation and opinion of it. You have an interpretation and opinion of it.
Just because people don’t agree with you doesn’t mean they are lying. Just because someone is critical of a mayor that you believe is beyond criticism doesn’t mean that the mayor can’t be criticized.
anigbrowl