LA Riots 2025

[scombrid]

Koolaid laced with Ivermectin? Ivermectin is a pretty effective neurotoxin. Maybe that’s the problem with these people lately.

 

[Swammerdami]

What political opponents is Trump planning on arresting?

That the Democrats began arresting and convicting political opposition is exactly why Musk said he would spend millions to help Trump. It is exactly why he bought Twitter too.

Down deep, Musk really was never a big Trump fan and he always voted left before the reprehensible conduct of Democrats forced his hand. I'm not very proud of Trump anymore but what the Democrats did was an order of magnitude worse for our Democracy IMHO. They basically forced Musk to become involved with politics.

Wow!! I've not yet totally given up on you, @RVonse . Why not watch this short documentary on some of the latest stupidities of Trump's cabinets and offer your intelligent comments?

PS: I've reddened three counterfactual phrases in your quotation above. Can you defend them?

 

[Patooka]

If Trump starts arresting political opposition, the game's over.

Like when the Dems had Trump arrested for "election racketeering"? Remember that?

What political opponents is Trump planning on arresting?

That the Democrats began arresting and convicting political opposition is exactly why Musk said he would spend millions to help Trump. It is exactly why he bought Twitter too.

Down deep, Musk really was never a big Trump fan and he always voted left before the reprehensible conduct of Democrats forced his hand. I'm not very proud of Trump anymore but what the Democrats did was an order of magnitude worse for our Democracy IMHO. They basically forced Musk to become involved with politics.

Trump apologists using the, "Baby, look at what you made me do to you", is the least surprising and most on brand part of this whole fascistic bullshit. I'd ask you to provide some meaningful evidence to the crap you just spewed but I'm done watching your fringe lunatic youtube meanderings.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Christ. I've been very critical of the Dems, but this loyalty to Trump by some in this forum is shocking. I don't understand how any person with even minimal critical faculties can lay the blame at the feet of centrists and leftists.

What a fucking disgrace.

 

[bilby]

Democrats basically murdered ~300K ukrainians

Only if by "basically", you mean "didn't".

Or if by "Democrats", you mean "Mad Vlad Putin".

You really did

I am not now, nor have I ever been, in any way affiliated with the US Democratic Party. I have never voted for them, supported them, lobbied for them, or even met anyone canvassing for them.

So who the fuck is the "you" who you claim "really did"?
Again, "You" means anti-Trump crowd.

Your blind hatred of the guy is so big that you disregard common decency and basic rationality.
You literally ready to risk WW3 in order to get rid of him.

 

[Jarhyn]

Christ. I've been very critical of the Dems, but this loyalty to Trump by some in this forum is shocking. I don't understand how any person with even minimal critical faculties can lay the blame at the feet of centrists and leftists.

What a fucking disgrace.

Leftists, sure, but the "centrists" who are dead set on compromising with the opposition rather than the leftists can get the call outs they deserve because they too are disgraceful.

Even in the face of an otherwise-valid message, the left and center should reprocess the idea to a leftist version that indicates the conservative version was a malware.

We should never be in agreement with the conservatives even when we have "facially" identical goals because as we have seen, even when the goal is "to protect kids" the conservative position has historically been "to protect (their sexual access to) kids".

When it has been about "protecting women" they mean "protecting (vestiges of their power over) women"

Why are we letting them set the tone for ANY issue, even their own?

 

[ZiprHead]

Christ. I've been very critical of the Dems, but this loyalty to Trump by some in this forum is shocking. I don't understand how any person with even minimal critical faculties can lay the blame at the feet of centrists and leftists.

What a fucking disgrace.

Centrists who keep trying to compromise with Trumpers then get kicked in the teeth by them?

 

[RVonse]

If Trump starts arresting political opposition, the game's over.

Like when the Dems had Trump arrested for "election racketeering"? Remember that?

What political opponents is Trump planning on arresting?

That the Democrats began arresting and convicting political opposition is exactly why Musk said he would spend millions to help Trump. It is exactly why he bought Twitter too.

Down deep, Musk really was never a big Trump fan and he always voted left before the reprehensible conduct of Democrats forced his hand. I'm not very proud of Trump anymore but what the Democrats did was an order of magnitude worse for our Democracy IMHO. They basically forced Musk to become involved with politics.

What the Fucking Fuck???? In what alternate reality did the Democrats do ANYTHING remotely comparable to the crimes and treasons now being committed every day by Trump and his team of fascists???

1.) The extreme use of lawfare - Lawfare refers to the strategic use of legal systems and processes to achieve a desired outcome, often in a conflict or political arena, that would otherwise be achieved through military or other forms of force. It involves employing legal frameworks, including international law, national laws, and judicial processes, to undermine, weaken, or even defeat an adversary. Look at all the fake impeachments and investigations. Look at the biased legal treatment of the Jan 6 criminals. Look at the complete biased kangaroo court show of the Trump trials.

2.) The re-opening of the southern border. During the first days of Bidens term he removed everything about the security of the border that Trump had done right. I believe those first executive actions of Biden did more than any other to help Trump get elected again because the public in general did not favor open borders. Yes people like yourself and Axulus can accuse Trump for not following due process while fixing problems Biden caused. But the real fault for all of this lies right at the feet of the Democrats who allowed these people to enter in the first place. People like Gavin Newsom who would rather sit back and let their state be completely defeated by invaders.

I can well remember many X posts by Musk watching in real time all the hoards of illegals crossing the border and the real fear he had with this issue. Musk already had his rocket launches in Texas so it was easy for him to make visits to this border. And there is nothing that motivates a billionaire more than fear. Spending a million dollars a day to help Trump is nothing for a billionaire who is in fear. And you can dismiss all this because you were not fearful of the border crises like Musk and others were (and still are).

 

[Patooka]

1.) The extreme use of lawfare - Lawfare refers to the strategic use of legal systems and processes to achieve a desired outcome, often in a conflict or political arena, that would otherwise be achieved through military or other forms of force. It involves employing legal frameworks, including international law, national laws, and judicial processes, to undermine, weaken, or even defeat an adversary. Look at all the fake impeachments and investigations. Look at the biased legal treatment of the Jan 6 criminals. Look at the complete biased kangaroo court show of the Trump trials.

2.) The re-opening of the southern border. During the first days of Bidens term he removed everything about the security of the border that Trump had done right. I believe those first executive actions of Biden did more than any other to help Trump get elected again because the public in general did not favor open borders. Yes people like yourself and Axulus can accuse Trump for not following due process while fixing problems Biden caused. But the real fault for all of this lies right at the feet of the Democrats who allowed these people to enter in the first place. People like Gavin Newsom who would rather sit back and let their state be completely defeated by invaders.

I can well remember many X posts by Musk watching in real time all the hoards of illegals crossing the border and the real fear he had with this issue. Musk already had his rocket launches in Texas so it was easy for him to make visits to this border. And there is nothing that motivates a billionaire more than fear. Spending a million dollars a day to help Trump is nothing for a billionaire who is in fear. And you can dismiss all this because you were not fearful of the border crises like Musk and others were (and still are).

None of this bullshit actually happened. Otherwise you would have provided names, dates and descriptions.

Democrats never used lawfare. Trump is a vile corrupt piece of shit who in a fair world would be in jail. Garland spent fucking years following procedure. I'm curious if you can even name which of the things Trump was charged that you believe he was innocent of doing. Also, what impeachments were fake and why? And remember, names, dates and how please.

Then please do the same with regards to your bullshit claim about the US ever having open borders throughout its history.

 

[Swammerdami]

Christ. I've been very critical of the Dems, but this loyalty to Trump by some in this forum is shocking. I don't understand how any person with even minimal critical faculties can lay the blame at the feet of centrists and leftists.

What a fucking disgrace.

I think I agree with this post. Yet this post and some of the sub-debates leave me confused. Who here is loyal to Trump? We have two hard-core MAGATs who post regularly, and about two others who might be Trump supporters. But these are obviously not the Infidels who've been "blaming" centrists.

Democratic Senators have been resisting: None of them voted to confirm Pete Hegseth; none voted to confirm Kash Patel; none voted to confirm Tulsi Gabbard; none voted to confirm RFK, Jr.; none voted to confirm Linda McMahan; none on the floor voted for Howard Lutnick; Fetterman was the only Democratic Senator to vote for Pam Bondi. Obviously no Democrat in House or Senate will vote for the "Big Beautiful Bill." (Given this unanimity among rational-thinking Senators, the near-unanimity the opposite way among the deplorable Senators is very disheartening.)

Yes, there are a few left-wing posters here who seem embittered that the Democratic Party embraces moderates: In their view, Ralph Nader was forced to run as a Green in 2000 because the Blues shunned him; eight years later the Blues shunned Bernie and ran Hillary the "war criminal"(?!); and all this shunning led to Democratic apathy and the fascist take-over. But these eccentrics do NOT have "loyalty to Trump."

 

[barbos]

2.) The re-opening of the southern border.

To be fair, I think Trump invented or perfected that shit when he cancelled everything he could from Obama administration, regardless of the consequences.

 

[barbos]

Democrats never used lawfare. Trump is a vile corrupt piece of shit who in a fair world would be in jail.

What about his friends who knew he was a piece of shit but continued to do business with that criminal piece of shit?
And democrats did try to use lawfare, there can't be any doubt about that.

 

[bilby]

To be fair,

Why start now??

 

[Jarhyn]

Ralph Nader was forced to run as a Green in 2000 because the Blues shunned him; eight years later the Blues shunned Bernie and ran Hillary the "war criminal"(?!)

Why do you have to fucking lie? It's got to be a lie at this point because this is not anyone's position here; at best it's an admission that you think these things did weaken the party.

Rather it is that no matter what Nader did WRT the Dems, if the dems supported green policies to the extent the greens represent everyone on the left, the Green party couldn't spoil because people would know they are a spoiler conspiracy kook party, WRT the Nader thing.

With respect to Hillary v Bernie, if Hillary had just held the debates, and even scheduled them during primetime, her platform would have been forced leftward, and she wouldn't have reeked of weakness and corruption and she would instead have won the election.

Note how you even framed that, that "the Dems ran Hillary" rather than the Dems running a *primary* in which Hillary won.

That's the problem here, because the Dems didn't run a serious primary and that made people feel like Hillary was being shoved down a lot of throats, against anyone's desire for policy.

 

[barbos]

To be fair,

Why start now??

I am always fair.

 

[unapologetic]

What the hell is ....
Never mind what that is. 'Don't feed the troll'.
I've been censured before for calling him a Russian troll.
But introducing off topic conspircy theories into every thread is a sure sign of a troll.

 

[Swammerdami]

Political tactics follow their own rules, and often go beyond the limits of legality and/or morality. Many of the best Presidents were racists. FDR -- one of the greatest U.S. Presidents -- was frequently accused of authoritarianism. "Cheating" by JFK, Nixon, the Bushes and others was rampant. And so on, and so forth. Sometimes civilization barely muddles along. But sometimes great Pyramids are built, canals connect oceans, and Man lands on the Moon. Politics can be a curse ... or a blessing.

Whatever the flaws of politics, reversion to pure popular rule is NOT a panacea. That's how Brexit was inflicted on a once-great Island. That's how a callow and semi-literate psychotic narcissist was inflicted on what was once the greatest nation on the planet.


Last Monday Jarhyn wrote this:

Whereas if the Dems had been a party that gave Nader a fair shake in their primary and had invited him to primary with the Dems, then he never would have been on the national ticket to spoil in the first place.

I paraphrased this yesterday as

[Some leftists seem to claim that] Ralph Nader was forced to run as a Green in 2000 because the Blues shunned him; eight years later the Blues shunned Bernie and ran Hillary the "war criminal"(?!)

Is this a fair paraphrase? I assume Jarhyn's complaint/response was about Nader. The inane lie that Hillary was a war criminal seems almost universal among the far-left Sanderista set.

Why do you have to fucking lie? It's got to be a lie at this point because this is not anyone's position here; at best it's an admission that you think these things did weaken the party.

I do resent being called a liar. I tried to summarize your scattered opinions just to have a target for teachings, but it's certainly possible I misunderstood your intents.

As I've said before, I would prefer to read your posts if you strove for CLARITY rather than INVECTIVE and HYPERBOLE.

It's easiest to understand the intent of a post when it has an introduction which focuses on the intended topic. For example, the first paragraph in this post has "Politics can be a curse ... or a blessing." Perfection, whatever that is, is beyond reach. But we should at least be able to distinguish the routine misdemeanors of politics from the gross felonies and treasons of America's present rulers.

 

[Jarhyn]

? I assume Jarhyn's complaint/response was about Nader

No, it's not, and the fact is every time some jackass has been dumb enough to bring up Nader I point out that THEY were the ones who brought it up, that it is stupid, and nobody is seriously saying this has anything to do with him, and at best THAT shit show is vaguely related to the *trend* of Democrats empowering spoilers through exclusion of more progressive elements.

Let me be very clear: the lie you keep repeating is that I care about Nader at all. Did Politesse bring up Nader? Because I didn't. [BThe only people bringing up Nader is you and Jimmy and the lot.[/B] my only engagement with that has been repeated expressions of vague confusion as to why.

The question you really need to ask yourself is why spoilers, who traditionally express more "progressive" concerns, are effective in preventing dem victories... And how Dems could blunt the effectiveness of standalone progressive concerns from chipping away support for their candidates..

The inane lie that Hillary was a war criminal seems almost universal among the far-left Sanderista set.

And if you keep willfully misinterpreting the majority of the valid criticisms of Hillary, looking past the repeated, much more realistic reason of she fucking rigged a primary she was going to win anyway, I will continue saying you are willfully misrepresenting my views; I don't know how much clearer I can make the impact of the unfair play. she practically begged for spoiler candidates to take the wind out of her sails through this action.

How many times do I have to say that you cannot engender confidence in your ability to win if you have to play politics like that, nor can you engender the spirit necessary to make people believe in you as a fair executive?

The "war criminal" shit only gets legs when people feel like they were denied any other choice, even in principle

 

[unapologetic]

Many of the best Presidents were racists. FDR -- one of the greatest U.S. Presidents -- was frequently accused of authoritarianism. "Cheating" by JFK, Nixon, the Bushes and others was rampant. And so on, and so forth.

That is the 'reasoning' MAGAots use to excuse Rump, and swallow his fabricated accusations against others.

 

[Swammerdami]

? I assume Jarhyn's complaint/response was about Nader

No, it's not, and the fact is every time some jackass has been dumb enough to bring up Nader I point out that THEY were the ones who brought it up, that it is stupid, and nobody is seriously saying this has anything to do with him, and at best THAT shit show is vaguely related to the *trend* of Democrats empowering spoilers through exclusion of more progressive elements.

Should I apologize for being a jackass? Not just a "jackass" but one who is "dumb" and "stupid"? Or should I report your insult to the Mods?
Even if you think the insult is justified, do you feel like it contributes to the debate?
Do such insults improve my appetite to bother with your teachings?

We saw this from you:

Whereas if the Dems had been a party that gave Nader a fair shake in their primary and had invited him to primary with the Dems, then he never would have been on the national ticket to spoil in the first place.

Now I did invest a few minutes just now to Search for ALL the recent mentions of "Nader." It started as a discussion between Politesse and Jimmy that involved neither you nor me. Nine or ten days ago both you and I injected comments on "Nader" into their discussion. But I respond post-by-post, and the post quoted in Red above is BY YOU.

Perhaps you think I should spend an hour researching ALL your posts before daring to respond to you.
Still, I'd prefer if you could find a way to complain without declaring me to be a liar.

The question you really need to ask yourself is why spoilers, who traditionally express more "progressive" concerns, are effective in preventing dem victories... And how Dems could blunt the effectiveness of standalone progressive concerns from chipping away support for their candidates..

But now you're in effect invoking the Nader example! Make up your mind! Is it off-limits or not?

You're wrong about your political point, but I won't explain why in this thread. This thread is about proper posting etiquette, and focuses on unjustified accusations of lying.

The inane lie that Hillary was a war criminal seems almost universal among the far-left Sanderista set.

And if you keep willfully misinterpreting the majority of the valid criticisms of Hillary, looking past the repeated, much more realistic reason of she fucking rigged a primary she was going to win anyway, I will continue saying you are willfully misrepresenting my views; I don't know how much clearer I can make the impact of the unfair play. she practically begged for spoiler candidates to take the wind out of her sails through this action.

How many times do I have to say that you cannot engender confidence in your ability to win if you have to play politics like that, nor can you engender the spirit necessary to make people believe in you as a fair executive?

The "war criminal" shit only gets legs when people feel like they were denied any other choice, even in principle

Do the Democrats have a problem of internal disputation? You betcha! A famous commentator summarized this almost one century ago:

I am not a member of any organized political party — I am a Democrat.

Does the rabid intra-party infighting lead to Democrats losing elections? Quite possibly!

But YOU, sir, with your abusive whines and whinges in ALL-CAPS are a very good example of that exact problem. Instead of directing your furor against the fascists, you spend your energy insulting some of us who hate the post-modern GOP far more than you do.