Re: Los Angeles Has Surrendered

On 6/10/2025 7:56 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

On 6/10/2025 6:26 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

6/9/2025 6:47 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

6/9/2025 8:36 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

6/9/2025 5:33 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

 

Encouraged by the mayor and city council, over the weekend, violent
leftist protesters took to the streets and attacked police and
federal agents while they were in the performance of making legal
and constitutional arrests. This, of course, is the very definition
of insurrection under the U.S. Code but none of our legacy media came
anywhere close to using that term to describe it.  Insurrection is a
crime they apparently believe only conservatives can commit. . . .

 

Over Governor Newsom's objections, Trump federalized and
deployed the California national guard. Newsom said army troops
were unnecessary but police have been using anti-riot tactics,
so what's the difference. The violent protests have continued
for three days. News reports say that national guard troops have
been deployed to protect federal property. If that's all they are
being used for, I don't see how that usurps federalism. Newsom
is going to court this morning anyway.

 

Police declared all of downtown Los Angeles "an unlawful
assembly area".  Why didn't they just declare a straight-forward
curfew? What does that mean for a building owner trying to get
security guards deployed?

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/06/08/national-guard-los-angeles-protests-live-updates/84103374007/

 

Reports I had read indicated there were all of 100 protesters.

 

That was Friday. Numerous other people began protesting over the next
several days.

 

In part because of the overboard heavy handed Trump response.

 

Oh, I agree. Trump and the protestors are two sides of the same coin,
thriving in chaos.

 

I have to disagree with that.  I admit there are _some_, a small
fraction, who were protesting violently but until Trump sent in military
forces the great majority were protesting peacefully.

 

I am at a loss as to what you think the disagreement is.

 

The way you phrased it seemed to imply that all the protesters were
"thriving in chaos", that's all.

 In context, D.T., in context. This thread wasn't about an exercise of
First Amendment rights. In future, I'll try to remember to refer to the
criminals as criminals and not protestors.

Its alright, I just happen to prefer my Violent Agreement to have a bit less Violent in it.  :P
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky dirty old man.