Re: Los Angeles Has Surrendered

On Jun 12, 2025 at 5:25:25 AM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 08:47:48 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
 

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

 On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 05:12:50 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
 wrote:
 

 On Jun 11, 2025 at 9:38:54 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:
 

 BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
 

 How weird is it that one of the main Dem criticisms of Trump on Jan6 is that
 he refused to call in the national guard to put down the insurrection
and how
 that makes him culpable for what the rioters did. But now that he *has*
 called in the national guard to put down an insurrection, those same
Dems say it's
 needlessly provocative and only makes the situation worse.

 

 Which is it? Is calling the national guard appropriate to stop a riot or
 inappropriate? Pick a lane, lefties.

 
 Washington D.C. is a federal enclave. The mayor is not the equivalent of
 a governor and does not have command of a National Guard unit. Whenever
 they need the Guard, they make the request to the president.
 
 That's not the case in California.

 
 Regardless, the Dem position was that the riot at the Capitol was serious
 enough to warrant deploying the guard. If *that* riot was serious enough,
then
 this one certainly is, so calling in the guard would be appropriate and
if the
 governor and mayor won't, then it's falls to the president to do so.

 
 1) It's very clear that what was going on in Los Angeles is hyper
 localized.

 
And the Jan6 riot wasn't? It literally was contained to one city block. You
can't get more localized than that.
 
As for L.A, don't be ridiculous. Violence has broken out from downtown to
Paramount to Compton and all the way up in Duarte.
 
Between the two, it was Jan6 that was by far the most hyper-localized and
yet that was the one for which the Dems were united in insisting that the
Guard should have been mobilized.

 
Um I know you understand the difference between random businesses
being attacked and an attack on the nation's capitol.

Yes, I know very well the Dem talking point about how the Capitol has some
unique shield around it that makes it impervious to attack. Leftists can burn
entire city blocks and attack government buildings from coast-to-coast and
that's okay, but this one building out of the millions nationwide is hands-off
because it somehow has a special divine sanctification.

I know people on the Left can't seem to grasp this, but for many (most?)
Americans, the Capitol is not a sacred site of holy democracy. It's a corrupt,
den of thieves and power-hungry imbeciles.

Thus, Jan6 became no different than any other riot in the psyche of most
voters. It wasn’t special.

However, it *is* special in that it was literally the one singular time
conservative protesters have gotten out of hand. It's the only thing the Left
can point to and say, "See, they do it, too!", so they had to construct a
narrative as to why this one instance was somehow "different" than all of
their bi-annual orgies of violence, so they came up with this notion that
while month's-long attempts to burn down a federal courthouse in Portland were
no big deal, this one government building, alone among all others, is off
limits because it has some aura of divine protection. Except, of course, when
leftists themselves storm Capitol Hill and scream and break things (as they've
done multiple times in the past, at least once *since* Jan6 occurred). Then,
for some reason, the Capitol loses its Cloak of Inviolability. Apparently it's
only sanctified when conservatives are mad and it becomes a problem.

Here's just one example:

     Apparently when a leftist mob storms the Capitol and pushes
     their way past the Capitol Police and into close proximity to
     politicians... it's stunning and brave. Democracy somehow isn't
     threatened when screaming leftists storm the seat of
     government issuing demands and threats.

     https://twitter.com/climatedefiance/status/1681881077827215360?s=46

     And those arrested won't be spending months and years in DC
     lockup awaiting decades-long prison sentences, despite being
     charged with the EXACT SAME VIOLATION as the January 6th
     yahoos.

     THE MEDIA: <yawn> But Trump!

The BLM Summer of Love riots left cities in flames from coast to coast, cost
many billions in property damage, and resulted in a dozen or so documented
deaths, with the attempted murders of many more, but leftists say that because
they weren't trying  to "overthrow the government", it's blithely dismissed as
irrelevant. They've apparently decreed that violently attacking government
buildings, lighting private property on fire, and walling off entire sections
of a major American city and guarding it with assault weapons while allowing
all manner of crime to flourish within is perfectly okay so long as they
aren't trying to "overthrow the government".

And, of course, leftists who make this argument conveniently ignore the fact
that overthrowing the "systemically racist government" is exactly what the BLM
rioters and the CHAZ denizens were calling for.

You had corporate media outlets-- CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post--
justifying the looting and property destruction. I believe it was the New York
Times that published "The Case for Looting" and justified it as a valid form
of protest.
 
You had leftist politicians all over the nation, including the entire
government of Seattle, supporting that CHAZ nonsense, where an entire section
of a major American city was taken over and its residents subjected to weeks
of lawlessness and predation, and which was only broken up when the barbarians
left their enclave and surrounded the communist mayor's home, threatening to
burn it down. Only then did they suddenly wear out their welcome and were met
with battalions of cops that tore their little fiefdom down around them.

You had 300+ straight days of violent rioting in Portland, with the local
government completely disinterested in doing anything to stop it. The leftist
mob chained the doors of a police station closed and attempted to set it on
fire-- which, had it been successful, would have been one of the grisliest
acts of mass murder in the country's history. The "mostly-peaceful" Portland
rioters also attacked the federal courthouse night after night after night in
an attempt to burn it down, pelting the Federal Protective Service police with
rocks and metal pipes and attempting to blind them by shining lasers into
their eyes. Also done with the tacit blessing of the socialists in the
Portland government. And when Trump sent in federal agents to secure the
courthouse, protect it from destruction, and enforce the law, *he* was
declared an authoritarian fascist, not just by the rioters, but by other
federal officials like Maxine Waters and Occasional-Cortex. They said the same
thing you're saying here: that sending in police to stop the arson of a
federal courthouse was "needlessly provocative" and "only angers the
protesters more". Apparently we shouldn't let police arrest criminals for
their crime because it might make the criminals angry.

In Los Angeles, the mayor at the time, Garcetti, ordered the police to stand
aside and watch as over the course of three days, a leftist mob rampaged
through the Melrose and Fairfax districts looting and burning and causing tens
of millions in damage. Then, he and his police chief took a knee and bowed
before the mob's leaders.

And against the backdrop of all *that*-- all of the government support for and
official tolerance of all manner of violent rioting and criminal activity,
those same officials suddenly acted all shocked and surprised when a group
that doesn't like *them* decided to do what they'd been witnessing on TV for
the last year and a half with no repercussions.

I don't support what those idiots did on January 6th but anyone who thinks it
wasn't the culmination of everything that had been tolerated and even cheered
on by the establishment Left up to that point has their head squarely up their
ass.

Of course people would be calling for as much enforcement as possible to
protect the
capitol.

If I was a resident of downtown (or even where I currently am as this shit
could easily spread to my neighborhood), I'm much more concerned about my own
safety and the safety of my home and my loved ones than I am about some stuffy
old building in DC.

 The reason given for not calling in the national guard was
 that there was no reason to do so, which was confirmed by the mayor,
 the governor and people on location.

 
The LAPD chief said on camera that his officers were overwhelmed and needed
help until he got a call from the mayor and was taken to the woodshed. Then
suddenly he claimed not to need help at all.

 
Did that happen before or after the national guard entered the city?

Not sure why that matters.

Also what happened to the idea that ICE gives local law enforcement a
warning that they will be operating in the city. So that they could
prepare for the likely protests.

L.A.'s sanctuary city policies happened.

I wouldn't trust Karen Bass to manage an emergency if she was last person
on earth. Through a mixture of incompetence and gross negligence she stood
by and let the city burn in January and she's standing by and allowing
criminals to run free now. Of course she said the Guard wasn't necessary.

 
I can't comment on that as I have zero idea of how capable she is.
 

As a Castro-loving revolutionary, violent leftist uprising is what she
admires. She's not complaining that ICE "didn't give her a heads-up", she's
complaining that ICE is enforcing the law at all. She doesn't believe
America should enforce its borders or even have them in the first place.
Plus she won't support anything that Trump does out of sheer reflex.
 

 It's ICE coming in without
 notifying authorities so they could be prepared, and then Trump
 sending in the federalized national guard that amped up the situation.

 
I guess we can add shawn to the list of people who bizarrely think we
shouldn't send police to enforce the law because it might upset the
criminals.

 
Don't be an idiot. You know full well that's not what I said.
Notifying local law enforcement of ICE's upcoming actions allows them
to be better prepared ahead of time instead of having to respond on
the fly to any conflicts that occur.

The Los Angeles city government and the LAPD have made it abundantly clear
they want nothing to do with ICE and refuse to work with them in any capacity
whatsoever. LAPD is forbidden from even taking their calls by the L.A. City
Council. Now they're whining that ICE won't communicate with them?

 Sending them in without any support. No food, housing or monetary support.

 
Which is exactly what would have happened on Jan6 also, had Trump done what
the Dems demanded and called in the Guard. There would have been no
logistical support in place, yet the Dems have been unshakable in their
claim that Trump's failure to mobilize the Guard made him responsible for
the mob's actions that day.

 
Though let's be clear that in that case it seems likely the National
Guard would have been deployed for at most a few days since the
majority of the people involved did not live in the area.
 

Are Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass just as responsible for *this* mob's
actions for their failure to mobilize the Guard?

 
I'm not in a position to tell if there was a need for the Guard or if
the crowd control could have been left to the local law enforcement.
Certainly the rules say Newsom gets to make the call on whether the
Guard gets called out.

No, that's only one of the rules. It's been long-established in law that the
president has the authority to nationalize the Guard to put down insurrections
and civil unrest.