Finally, Trump is getting his riots. He has wanted this so much. And just where he wants them most, in pinko liberal California with an annoying governor.

He was so angry that last time during the BLM riots his people, starting from the Defence Secretary, didn't go along on what he wanted. Now it's different. Hegseth is eagerly promising Marines, the regular armed forces, to be deployed.

Oh, Trump really loves to hear that.

Half a century ago, Lewis Powell decided how future generations have to be.

The Launch of the Long Game
^{— Linda Stamato · Inside Higher Ed · May 9, 2023}

Seems to be enacted by Trump + team now.

Marines, the regular armed forces, to be deployed. — ssu

Just inching things closer into a proper authoritarian regime. I guess no one cares? :chin:

I guess no one cares? — Christoffer

If I'm being honest, no I don't think they do. Maybe if Trump starts to abuse his authority further but we're not there yet and the culture war is enough of a distraction currently to get people to accept what's going on.

For normal Americans, rioters flying foreign flags and burning American ones is not a cause to rally around.

Oh, this is what basically Trump and the MAGA voters have drooled about for a long time: having riot police and the army cracking down on immigrant protesters waving Mexican flags (even if there's a couple of Stars & Stripes flags there, doesn't matter). They are genuinely happy about it, perhaps some even enthusiastic.

This hides the fact that actually Trump administration, this one and the earlier one, has had difficulties in sending back as much illegal immigrants as other administrations because of the simple fact that illegal immigrants simply won't try to come to the US when Trump is in charge. Just as tourists are now avoiding the ugly police state that TACO's US is now. And Canadians for obvious reasons because of Trump's absolutely disgusting behavior towards Canada.

Maybe if Trump starts to abuse his authority further but we're not there yet and the culture war is enough of a distraction currently to get people to accept what's going on. — Mr Bee

There's a long way still to go with the Trump administration.

Do note that Democrats are still viewed as "normal Americans". So just let the effects of the tariffs take their effect on the economy. Perhaps there's more "Liberation Days" still ahead. Who knows about all that winning...

The micromanagement of the universities is indeed breathtaking.

Now I get it, when there's an institution, as we also have, as something like the "Ministry of Education", it is sure that schools and universities and especially the principals, rectors and deans that they have, do have their work time filled with applying to the standards and the instructions from the "ministry". Because what else would a "ministry" or a "department" do other than give standards and instructions? Yet this is normal bureaucracy.

Yet this goes indeed deeper, because there's a genuine hostility against the educational institutions. The common right-wing understanding goes that educational system and the academy has been overtaken by the Marxists, hence you have to fight these institutions. They are basically bad and don't do their job well. One should have noticed even here in the PF the threads about how this happened.

So what's the answer? All that you see the Trump administration doing now. Micromanagement of the curriculum and all the ugly stuff you are seeing now how especially universities are harassed by the Trump administration.

As one commenter put it: it's like going after a fly with a bazooka. Firing that bazooka (especially in a closed area with a lot of people) will surely bring far more devastation than killing a fly. If it's killed, btw.

Do note that Democrats are still viewed as "normal Americans". So just let the effects of the tariffs take their effect on the economy. Perhaps there's more "Liberation Days" still ahead. Who knows about all that winning... — ssu

Anyone who cheers on rioters flying foreign flags and burning the flags of their host country is not a "normal American." If they were, that's the end of our country. Past civil rights movements at least clothed themselves in the dress and mannerisms of America; this modern one doesn't even bother.

They are not rioters, they are demonstrating in protest to bands of anonymous vigilante groups abducting people without due process, in their communities, directed from the White House. But you know that don’t you.

Anyone who cheers on rioters flying foreign flags and burning the flags of their host country is not a "normal American." If they were, that's the end of our country. — BitconnectCarlos

The fact that you're concerned more about flag burning over what the government is doing will have more to do with why the country is gonna end.

A government must be able to enforce something as basic as immigration policy.

And there are better ways of doing so than sending in the Marines to deal with flag burners.

"Protestors" are throwing molotov cocktails at law enforcement.

So that warrants sending in the US military?

For normal Americans, rioters flying foreign flags and burning American ones is not a cause to rally around. — BitconnectCarlos

True, but a president salivating over the prospect of sending in the troops to an American city is much more disturbing. I've lived in L.A. County most of my life. I've seen bad rioting first hand. What's going on now is nothing like that. We don't need marines here.

Do you agree with me here that Trump is chomping at the bit to send the troops in and look like a tough guy?

Ad hom. Focus on the action, not the character of the person initiating it. I'm seeing streets full of burning cars and absolute lawlessness in LA, but if you'd rather focus on Trump's motivations, go right ahead.

Ad hom. Focus on the action, not the character of the person initiating it. I'm seeing streets full of burning cars and absolute lawlessness in LA, but if you'd rather focus on Trump's motivations, go right ahead. — BitconnectCarlos

Are you saying it's an ad hom to consider a president's motivation for a particular action??? Let me give you an example: say you have a corrupt cabinet member. A president firing him for corruption is good. A president firing him because he's a Jew is bad. Right? So, the action can be the same, but the motivation is HUGELY important. Yes?

Oh, and you think the city of L.A. has descended into "absolute lawlessness"?

Former DOGE engineer says federal waste and fraud were 'relatively nonexistent'
^{— Lauren Hodges, Patrick Jarenwattananon, Juana Summers · npr · Jun 5, 2025}

I haven't heard of any fraud cases raised yet.
Was DOGE a waster? :D

Oh, and you think the city of L.A. has descended into "absolute lawlessness"? — RogueAI

Parts of it.

Are you saying it's an ad hom to consider a president's motivation for a particular action??? — RogueAI

Yes. Ad homs aren't wrong per se, but you're engaging in classic ad hom:

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are usually fallacious. Often currently this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Let me give you an example: say you have a corrupt cabinet member. A president firing him for corruption is good. A president firing him because he's a Jew is bad. Right? So, the action can be the same, but the motivation is HUGELY important. Yes?

Well, is the cabinet member corrupt or not? This is a one-to-one scenario rather than a mass event. I prefer a good action done with impure motives to a bad action with pure motives, especially on a mass scale.

Yes. Ad homs aren't wrong per se, but you're engaging in classic ad hom:

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are usually fallacious. Often currently this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not attacking Trump's argument, I'm questioning WHY he's doing what he's doing. This is not a fallacy. In criminal law, is the motive of the accused important? Yes. Did John kill Bob because he was legitimately scared for his life or because Bob was sleeping with his wife? That matters a lot, right? If John was legitimately afraid, he doesn't go to jail. If John was bent on revenge, he goes to prison for a long time.

"Well, is the cabinet member corrupt or not? This is a one-to-one scenario rather than a mass event. I prefer a good action done with impure motives to a bad action with pure motives, especially on a mass scale."

Yes, the cabinet member is corrupt, but that's irrelevant to the hypothetical. A president firing a corrupt cabinet member because of perceived corruption (even if the president is wrong), is totally understandable, right? If the President truly believes Bob is corrupt, he should fire him. But if the cabinet member is corrupt and the President fires him because he's Jewish, we have a HUGE problem on our hands, don't we? The intention is everything.

I don't want to press on with my points until we've reached agreement on this central issue: President Trump's motives in sending the marines to L.A. is very important. Agreed?

Do you agree with me here that Trump is chomping at the bit to send the troops in and look like a tough guy? — RogueAI

I think that’s exactly what’s happening. Urged on by Stephen Miller.

Right, could it be any more obvious? Trump's bromance with Musk has blown up in his face and here's a useful distraction and a way to make him look like a tough guy. After all these years, Trump is like a pane of glass to people with half a brain.

But like Orwell said in 1984 about Goldstein: "Always there were fresh dupes waiting to be seduced by him."

Trump's bromance with Musk has blown up in his face and here's a useful distraction and a way to make him look like a tough guy. — RogueAI

Honestly I think feuding with the world's richest man would be good for him politically, putting aside the fact that he gave him DOGE (which his supporters are willing to do anyways).That being said, nothing beats the classics like going after immigrants I guess.

I don't want to press on with my points until we've reached agreement on this central issue: President Trump's motives in sending the marines to L.A. is very important. Agreed? — RogueAI

Imagine if the topic were tax reform, and one of us kept bringing up the perceived impure motives of one of the parties.

We could do it. I'm not saying it's wrong in and of itself.

However, our discussion wouldn't touch on the bill's actual effects. The side with the impure motives could have had an excellent proposal, but we wouldn't know because we spent all our time impugning their motives.

Certain Congressmen are saying that billionaire Neville Singham is funding these riots. We could also examine his motives.

In criminal law, is the motive of the accused important?

Yes, but we're talking policy, not individual vs individual.

Imagine if the topic were tax reform, and one of us kept bringing up the perceived impure motives of one of the parties.

We could do it. I'm not saying it's wrong in and of itself. — BitconnectCarlos

Ok, let's imagine it's tax reform and the President's children stand to benefit enormously from the president's tax proposal, as well as the president's biggest campaign donors. The president also has a new cypto named after him and the people who have bought the most TrumpCoin just so happen to also benefit enormously from the new tax reform bill's crypto regulations.

Even if you agree with the bill, are you trying to tell me you wouldn't care about all these conflicts of interest?

What are you trying to argue here? Let's say we both agree sending in the national guard and marines are necessary. Let's also say that a leaked copy of a Trump meeting gets released where we hear the President say, "This is just what I need! Now I can get the media to ignore my failed Musk bromance. I hope there's a bloodbath so the story has legs. Muhahahaha!"

If that happened, do you think we would be talking about the policy or the individual?

Right, could it be any more obvious? Trump's bromance with Musk has blown up in his face and here's a useful distraction and a way to make him look like a tough guy — RogueAI

He likes the idea of killing rioters. I don't think he cares about Musk.

Oh, I think he cares about his Big Beautiful Bill passing and being called a pedophile. Trump's a narcissist. Musk is inflicting narcissitic injury. Trump can't help but care deeply and plot his revenge. Musk must pay for his disloyalty.

Ok. I don't see any of that, but I don't pay close attention.

What are you trying to argue here? Let's say we both agree sending in the national guard and marines are necessary. Let's also say that a leaked copy of a Trump meeting gets released where we hear the President say, "This is just what I need! Now I can get the media to ignore my failed Musk bromance. I hope there's a bloodbath so the story has legs. Muhahahaha!" — RogueAI

That would be much better than the opposite, i.e., Trump not acting due to some "pure" motive (whatever that means), and the LA faces destruction by criminal elements. I'll take good actions, iffy motives over the opposite, any day regarding policy.

If that happened, do you think we would be talking about the policy or the individual? I've seen you argue effectively in the Israel thread. You're a better thinker than this. — RogueAI

We can talk about either, but they're different topics. Sometimes discussions about Israel do get inundated by people obsessing over Benjamin Netanyahu or Arafat and ignoring the bigger picture.

I withdraw that last comment. I'm going to edit it out. I don't want to be insulting.