Interesting discussion.

I am Canadian, and I often wonder about the role of the US two-party system in the 'culture wars'?

So, voters can have legitimate concerns about immigration - they are myriad.

And they can be appalled by the cruel bullying that is enabled by Trump's bull in a china shop routine. The Garcia case, the separation of young children from parents, the willingness to disregard laws and norms.

But the two-party system, and the past decade of social media/smart phone tech enabled tribalism, appears to make it dangerous / difficult to break from party orthodoxy, preventing people from improving their own 'tribe's' position, while it making it more important to despise the other tribe.

I think it is pretty fair to argue that wildly increasing immigration numbers while reducing safeguards and screening processes smacks of a technocratic, neoliberal solution to the aging Baby Boomer demographic and their associated entitlements.

Clearly, a post-liberal world order, in which the globe is increasingly navigable, when the external pressures that forced people to adapt to cultures they have immigrated to have diminished, there are conflicts emerging around a new kind of immigrant, one with much less connection, in the aggregate, to their new country.

So these are 'new' problems. Grooming gangs and blasphemy laws in the UK. Foreign influence in protests against Israel. People like our recently departed Justin Trudeau implying that any opposition to immigration is 'racist'.

Foreign interference - Canada's relationship with India is strained, because it appears the Indian government had links to assassins that killed a Sikh nationalist who had moved to Canada in the 90s.

India credibly accused Canada of providing haven for parties with ties to terrorists, Canada credibly accused India of aiding in the murder of a Canadian citizen. I see no clear answers in scenarios such as these.

I used to be a progressive, and now am a conscientious objector. I am sympathetic to newcomers, having taught high school ESL for a decade early in my teaching career, having lived in Tokyo myself for four years.

I think those who are in favor of humane immigration policy need to call out their own 'tribe', to fight the groupthink impulse, or we will continue to get these wild reactionary swings from one extreme to the other.

As for the riots and the protests, bad actors have always operated within the safety of the crowd, the mob, the protest. It just seems to me that the percentage of bad actors is increasing as it becomes easier to define violence as righteousness?

It seems the whole WEIRD world is defaulting to the US tribalistic binary? It sure felt like that to me when we imported the BIPOC hierarchy verbatim, despite our 'I' being in the wrong place. America's original sin may be slavery, but ours in Canada would be our treatment of our native peoples.

Oh the two party system is absolutely a big part of it, and it's especially weird right now, because I suspect we are in the midst of another party realignment but few want to admit it. In meatspace it's still pretty easy to find people with fairly normal or apathetic political opinions, but as more of the social landscape moves online and things become increasingly politicized, the internet has made it difficult to maintain neutral positions. I'm a registered Independent who has never voted for Trump, but I find myself increasingly alone politically as I don't fully agree with either side, despite previously leaning more left. Neither party seems interested in much aside from getting re-elected by telling you how bad the other party is.

I don’t think the two-party system is specifically at fault. Trump is a textbook demagogue - to revisit the definition, a demagogue ‘is a political leader in a democracy who gains popularity by arousing the common people against elites, especially through oratory that whips up the passions of crowds, appealing to emotion by scapegoating out-groups, exaggerating dangers to stoke fears, lying for emotional effect, or other rhetoric that tends to drown out reasoned deliberation and encourage fanatical popularity. Demagogues overturn established norms of political conduct ‘ (Wikipedia.) That was basically written in the earliest democracy, that of Athens, and Trump is following the playbook. He’s skilled at using mass media to bully and intimidate his opponents - but it’s also the case that Congressional Republicans have clearly abdicated their responsibilities to check the excesses of the Executive Branch.

Everything about the Los Angeles situation is political theatre aimed at establishing the precedent of using American military forces to stifle dissent, another building block in his attempt to create a one-party state (and you think two parties are a problem!) With Trump, everything is always pretext - he appeals to so-called ‘emergencies’ to as to use emergency powers to rationalise economic and social policies that would otherwise never be considered. This Saturday 14th June, he’s having his mock Putin-style military parade in Washington, but there’s also a massive series of demonstrations planned under the banner of No Kings. Let’s hope there’s a massive, US-wide turnout.

If Trump is using these protests/riots as an excuse to crack down and extend his authority, it seems like the No Kings protests might just give him more of that. By attempting to establish his actions in LA as "law and order" against non-citizens via the media, then the natural next step would be to create a similar situation that "justified" doing the same to Americans, and then using anyone swept up in that with a particularly salacious record to further justify it in the media. Kind of feels like playing in to his hands.

WHAT IS DACA?

DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, is a U.S. immigration policy that provides temporary protection from deportation and work authorization for certain undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children. It essentially allows them to live and work openly in the country, though it does not grant permanent legal status or a path to citizenship.

Key aspects of DACA:

Eligibility:
To be eligible, individuals must generally have arrived in the U.S. before their 16th birthday, be under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012, have continuously resided in the U.S. since June 15, 2007, be physically present in the U.S. on June 15, 2012, and have no lawful immigration status at that time.

Benefits:
DACA provides a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and allows recipients to apply for a work permit, Social Security number, and driver's license.

Not a path to citizenship:
DACA does not grant lawful permanent residency (a green card) and does not provide a direct path to U.S. citizenship.

Ongoing legal challenges:
Despite its broad support, DACA has faced numerous legal challenges, and its future is uncertain.
In summary, DACA is a policy that offers temporary protection and some rights to undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, but it does not provide a permanent solution to their immigration status.

AI Response to the question

Perhaps, but it also could be seen as a ‘Bring it on! Show us what you got!’ When Trump and Hegsmeth really start to order American troops to teargas demonstrators, then let’s see what kind of loyalty they really command. They’ve been doing everything the can to root out anyone who is going to oppose the King’s Will, but how much loyalty do the military and intelligence services really owe to the King? Perhaps we’ll find out.

When Trump and Hegsmeth really start to order American troops to teargas demonstrators, then let’s see what kind of loyalty they really command. — Wayfarer

Aren't there numerous examples of things like that happening in our history already?

meatspace — MrLiminal

I have never heard this term before (admittedly, I am out of touch). It immediately resonated.

I'm a registered Independent who has never voted for Trump, but I find myself increasingly alone politically as I don't fully agree with either side, despite previously leaning more left. Neither party seems interested in much aside from getting re-elected by telling you how bad the other party is. — MrLiminal

I feel you. It is strange here in Canada that we have rushed to import this thinking - people were critiquing our Conservative candidate for PM because he was going to wage war on reproductive rights - despite the fact that he has never endorsed this position and Canadians generally don't endorse this position. We just took the talking point and applied it to our guy.

I read Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" last year, and have been obsessing about it ever since. His premise, if you haven't read it, was that the era of 'mass entertainment' was fundamentally different from the 'typographic' era that preceded it. As a student of McLuhan, he drew on his thinking to tackle the medium of television - which lead to the message of dislocation.

So what is the message of our screen-based era? I think it might be dissonance. As in, cognitive dissonance. A general, default state of anxiety? Does this play into your statement?

I suspect we are in the midst of another party realignment — MrLiminal

How do you see this playing out?

Trump is a textbook demagogue — Wayfarer

Agreed.

I think Matt McManus is onto something when he talks about 'postmodern conservatism'. I don't really think of Trump as conservative, but if he is, he seems a 'postmodern' conservative.

I think the Dems a postmodern party. Everything is relative, and yet for moral relativists, they sure are judgemental. They simply defer their moral judgements to technocratic moral 'experts'.

Neither party seems to actually believe in anything. Both land on 'stories' that resonate with their base.

Don't get me wrong - the worst party in this whole mess seems to be Trump. But Dems had plenty of chances to consider working class rural white concerns around immigration, for example.

They just defaulted to the easy narrative of ignorant and bigoted white deplorables.

Dems are definitely part of this problem. I generally support immigration, and used to be progressive. I fear that progressive stupidity is making things worse for the sort of immigrant most nations want to attract.

Progressives need to call out their own BS. Pointing at the failings of Trump isn't getting anyone anywhere. And the man is arguably not a failure - he's a hugely successful postmodern neoliberal opportunist.

Trump supporters and conservatives generally need to do this too. Hold your own tribe to account first. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

I have never heard this term before (admittedly, I am out of touch). It immediately resonated. — Jeremy Murray

Tbf it's not a common term. I'm an old sci-fi nerd, lol.

His premise, if you haven't read it, was that the era of 'mass entertainment' was fundamentally different from the 'typographic' era that preceded it. As a student of McLuhan, he drew on his thinking to tackle the medium of television - which lead to the message of dislocation. — Jeremy Murray

I would probably agree, but further posit we are post-mass media to a degree, as the internet has allowed people to sink further and further into soloed entertainment. On some level, I think part of the general unrest in America and possibly worldwide is *because* we are losing mass media to increasingly fractured interests. We no longer have a common story to tell or share, so everyone else seems increasingly alien outside your specific circle.

How do you see this playing out? — Jeremy Murray

Unclear. I think in a way the Republicans may be becoming the new big tent party temporarily while the Democrats become the new "moral majority." I think how that shakes out will largely depend on who wins the power struggle after Trump dies/leaves office and if that results in a party fracture or not.

Neither party seems to actually believe in anything. Both land on 'stories' that resonate with their base. — Jeremy Murray

I would say that's what it's always been, to a degree. As I said above, I think the larger problem is that our increasing levels of internal navel gazing is making it difficult to see differing ideas as something to entertain. If everyone you know always agrees with you, why would you ever want to talk to someone that didn't?

The vast majority of protestors are peaceful. — prothero

Clear horseshit. These are views of entire blocks and full stretches of highway - multiple cities, multiple neighbourhoods. This is just having blinkers on, at this stage.

Entirely reasonable people have serious objections to the methods and process being used by Trump. — prothero

Agreed.

The rest of your post tells me nothing, really. If people are here illegally, they should be deported. If people are rioting over that, sleep in their own beds. They are rioting, so they can sleep in their own beds.

This, again, acknowledging that Trump is absolutelyultra vires here (for the most part). That said, ICE agents being doxxed with families being threatened for enforcing laws and following their lawful commands (i.e chain of command instruction) is reason enough to protect their identities in lieu of ignoring immigration laws.

Once again, for complete clarity: Some of the methods are obviously overstep. Riots are too. Being here illegally isn't in any way ambiguous, or a 'humanitarian' issue. Its a legal issue with a clear and obvious response required.

The vast majority of protestors are peaceful. — prothero


Clear horseshit. These are views of entire blocks and full stretches of highway - multiple cities, multiple neighbourhoods. This is just having blinkers on, at this stage. — AmadeusD

In the sake of fairness, I wonder if this is a semantic issue at heart. I've lived in both big cities and small towns; 5 blocks in a big city can be nothing, but 5 blocks in a small town can be half the town. I think the most fair way to compare would be to previous riots/protests of similar size, and whether the amount of peaceful demonstration to destruction is above or below the median.

Aren't there numerous examples of things like that (troops tear-gassing demonstrators) happening in our history already? — MrLiminal

Don’t know, I’d have to do the research. But it has been said the last two days that in the Rodney King riots in LA in 1992, the Governor requested the National Guard’s help. It wasn’t imposed on them.

I don't really think of Trump as conservative, but if he is, he seems a 'postmodern' conservative. — Jeremy Murray

Trump is not a conservative in any meaningful sense. He’s someone who has hijacked conservatism for his own ends, and evicted many meaningful dissent from the Republican Party. There are some skilled Republican operatives who are using all of this as a vehicle, like remora fish around the great white shark, but none of the classical conservatives would recognise what the Republican Party has become.

I'm unsure that's right, but I understand the point and I think its an interesting, if not even illuminating way of thinking about it.

This is clearly not BLM levels of dickheadery, but its the same shit. Businesses looted, cars destroyed, highways blocked:

"Police reported people were shooting fireworks at officers. Rocks, scooters and cinder blocks were thrown at police cars. People attempted to set police cruisers on fire. Protesters also threw cinder blocks at police officers and at other people.[100] Five Waymo driverless cars were vandalized, set alight, and destroyed. LAPD officials warned that burning lithium-ion batteries releases toxic gasses."

"The LAPD reported that looting had occurred at stores in the area of 6th Street and Broadway (downtown Los Angeles),[106][107] as well as near 8th Street and Broadway.[108] Several fires were also reported to have been set in dumpsters and trash bins. Numerous buildings, including the Los Angeles Police Department headquarters, the United States Courthouse, and the old Los Angeles Times Building, were tagged with graffiti. At least one store had windows shattered by alleged looters.[109] Multiple windows at the Los Angeles Police Department headquarters were also broken.[109]"

"Mayor Bass declared a local state of emergency ..."

This "mostly peaceful" shit has got to stop. By numbers? Maybe. That isn't the point.

Thank you. To be honest, I'm not sure it's correct either, but it seemed like a worthwhile point to consider.

eDefinitely worthwhile, even if only in a wider sense!

Trump is not a conservative in any meaningful sense. He’s someone who has hijacked conservatism for his own ends, and evicted many meaningful dissent from the Republican Party. There are some skilled Republican operatives who are using all of this as a vehicle, like remora fish around the great white shark, but none of the classical conservatives would recognise what the Republican Party has become. — Wayfarer

Hence a pomo conservative? One that questions master narratives, such as 'classical conservatism'?

Regardless, I agree that Trump is not a classic conservative. Neither am I, but I still find myself offended, on behalf of the classic conservatives I admire, by his actions.

I would probably agree, but further posit we are post-mass media to a degree, as the internet has allowed people to sink further and further into soloed entertainment. — MrLiminal

That is the screen-based outcome. Each additional 'screen' is an additional layer, one on top of the other, each distorting the previous frame, like those old anti-drunk driving adds where they just piled one beer on top of another beer to give the viewer a sense of the experience of driving drunk.

The mass-media age was Postman's, in the 80s. Smart phones + social media is a transformation akin to the printing press, perhaps greater, given that the designers are well aware of how to make their product more addictive. Nobody became 'addicted' to print.

The era of the screen is inherently siloed. That dissonant experience is the point, the only solution offered being the endorphin hit of participating, alone, isolated, in your tribe, virtually. The protestors in LA have more in common with international communities than they do with conservative Americans?

I would say that's what it's always been, to a degree. As I said above, I think the larger problem is that our increasing levels of internal navel gazing is making it difficult to see differing ideas as something to entertain. If everyone you know always agrees with you, why would you ever want to talk to someone that didn't? — MrLiminal

With enough degrees of difference, one enters a different category. It used to be pretty standard to encounter people across the spectrum from you that you could still find points of agreement with.

I think our current moment is unprecedented. Not, 'all history is unprecedented', but rather, a once in a millenia epochal change?

This "mostly peaceful" shit has got to stop. By numbers? Maybe. That isn't the point. — AmadeusD

I used to attend a lot of protests. Anecdotally, they were 'mostly peaceful' and this new strain of protests appears significantly less so.

It seems pretty clear to conclude that 'the woke' today condone violence in a 'by any means necessary' sense that is fundamentally different from protests of even a decade ago?

Yeah, i'd agree, but I don't rush to immediately condemn it.

I tend to just look at what's happening in each case - BLM, I was on board with until I realised it based on a lie (disproportionate death of unarmed black men in Police encounters - absolute nonsense) and subsequently meant it was very, very close to what i'd consider a terrorist insurrection.

In this case, I see things like that the rioters are protesting deporting but flying flags of the countries they refuse to return to. Totally unserious and it looks like an excuse for the normal, social-media-enraged Youth to feel historically important and self-righteous by way of "morally permissible" violence. Again, totally unserious in my view.

AI report on the extent of violence in LA. Remember media does not sure show peracefull demonstrators only the more violent aspects.

AI report
Recent Protests (June 2025 - Immigration Enforcement):

In contrast to the historical riots, recent protests in Los Angeles regarding immigration enforcement have been described as far different in scale and primarily peaceful, though some instances of violence have occurred. Key characteristics include:

Mainly peaceful: While there have been clashes with police, arrests, and some property damage (cars set on fire, vandalism), the overall sentiment from officials and reports is that the majority of demonstrations have been peaceful.
Limited geographical scope: The protests have largely been confined to a roughly five-block stretch of downtown LA, a tiny area in the sprawling city of nearly 4 million people.
Fewer casualties and damage: Unlike the 1992 riots, no one has died, and there have been no widespread burning of homes or businesses. Damage has been minor in comparison.
Lower arrest numbers: While over 100 people have been arrested, this is a significantly lower number than the thousands arrested in past major riots.
Differing government response: While the National Guard and Marines have been deployed by federal order, local officials, including Mayor Karen Bass, have stated that the unrest is not "citywide civil unrest" and that the city has it largely handled, expressing concerns that the federal deployment might inflame the situation end of AI jreport
The media by its nature exaggerates the situation, as does the Trump government and right wring news organizations. Clearly to justify more aggressive law enforcement tactics.

Are we really wanting to play that game? AI is literally designed to not report accurately on politically charged issues. It tells us as much, in many cases. We have seen the videos. We have seen the pictures. We have eyes - we don't need an AI to trawl the internet for reports written by other humans. We can see the riots ourselves.

This was also said of BLM, with buildings burning and assaults occurring at the time.

past major riots. — prothero

Give it time. BLM riots lasted months. I'm not pretending this riot is somehow as big or bad as some previous ones at this moment. But "mostly peaceful" simply ignores the non-peaceful aspects - which are the point.

BLM was "mostly peaceful" but 19 people died and $1-$2bil in damages occurred having achieved nothing, and was based on a lie (two, actually). So its probably best not to use terms designed to prevaricate and have been shown to be disingenuous.

Well there are statements from the mayor and the police chief.
So I wonder where you get your more factual view of the overall situation.
I hope it is not fox news or youtube videos. Do you have some impartial source or someone on the ground.

It's funny how people thousands of years ago warned us about people like Trump. Truly there's nothing new under the sun. Regarding human behavior, that is.

I think our current moment is unprecedented. Not, 'all history is unprecedented', but rather, a once in a millenia epochal change? — Jeremy Murray

No, I agree, the internal rabbit holing and propaganda on this wide a scale is a uniquely modern problem. The first part was referring to politics always being stories.

If the deportations are racially motivated, why is that not already happening? — MrLiminal

Why is what not happening? The foreign aid scenario I talked about? Because some things are a little too on the nose even for the Trump Admin to pull off. They have the Midterms to think about. If the racism becomes too overt, they suffer politically.

An undersecretary of the state department tweeted this:
"Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work"

Does that happen in a non racist administration?

It's funny how people thousands of years ago warned us about people like Trump. Truly there's nothing new under the sun. Regarding human behavior, that is. — RogueAI

Well, the quest for power is as old as time and a constant in historyl.
The founding fathers were very concerned about the concentration of power in any one branch of the government. I think they naively assumed that no one like trump would become president. Or if someone did he would be checked by the congress or the courts (may still happen). Impeachment was also a mechanism for removing such an individual. After recent supreme court decisions giving the executive extensive immunity, there is little risk in pushing executive power to the limit.
the founding fathers really did not envision political parties they were a little naive and idealistic..
They also went out of their way to avoid direct democracy, and limited the vote to men of education and property (those with a stake in society). They expected men of character, integrity and intelligence to serve for a period and then return to their private lives.
My view is we are way off track with two political parties, universal suffrage, fractured media and an inability to respect different points of view.
There are legitimate differences of opinion about the size and scope of government but those who disagree with us are not traitors or enemies of the state.
The congress was supposed to a deliberative body who would indiviudal vote their conscience and do what was best for the country.
Instead the party leaders tell everyone how to vote and then punish those who fail to comply. Primary them in primaries, withhold committee assignments, withhold funding, etc. Most everyone then toes the line and the government is really run by just a few individuals and the rest just wish to keep their jobs and get reelected. The best peole are declining to run for reelection or declining to run at all and who can blame them

There are legitimate differences of opinion about the size and scope of government but those who disagree with us are not traitors or enemies of the state. — prothero

I think we crossed a Rubicon in 2020 when Trump tried to steal the election. In the aftermath, there was a bipartisan vote to impeach and convict him, but it fell short of conviction. Still, very rarely do members of a president's own party vote to convict in an impeachment.

Yes. Actual videos and pictures of the riots across multiple areas, which include vandalism, looting and various forms of assault.

I am unsure why you would trust an official over that. Particularly one's who aren't excatly bastions of truth and light.

Does that happen in a non racist administration? — RogueAI

"If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black!" - Joe Biden

It seems perhaps so. We could put this down to Biden making a gaffe, but that's cop out material. Given that his administration put forward at least a few overtly racist policies or guidelines (COVID recovery, ARP, COVID mortgage relief guidelines etc..) it isn't that hard to see why people are going to equivocate.

Its hard to think Trump or Biden are actually racist - they both played to their audience. Does this mean everyone is racist? Probably all the loud people, yes.

"If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black!" - Joe Biden

It seems perhaps so. We could put this down to Biden making a gaffe, but that's cop out material. Given that his administration put forward at least a few overtly racist policies or guidelines (COVID recovery, ARP, COVID mortgage relief guidelines etc..) it isn't that hard to see why people are going to equivocate.

Its hard to think Trump or Biden are actually racist - they both played to their audience. Does this mean everyone is racist? Probably all the loud people, yes. — AmadeusD

It was terrible that Biden said that, but what do his actions show? Does he act racist? Did he hire someone who said "competent white men must be in charge" or did he prioritize putting the first black woman on the Supreme Court and arguing in favor of affirmitive action? What similar things has Trump done to help blacks? I can't think of anything.

That's a racist action, though.

Your point isn't lost, hence my only real conclusion being:

it isn't that hard to see why people are going to equivocate. — AmadeusD

When the sorts of racism I'm picking up are overtly defended I have no problem with acting as if (though, this is wrong) its on the same level of some of Trumps statements. but again, i don't think either is actually racist. These sorts of moves (i.e "No, this form of racism is fine. In fact, we will re-define racism so it doesn't capture these clearly racially-motivated policies which detriment, or lift up specific racial groups for opportunity") are precisely hte kind of moves an authoritarian would make prior to something like "whites need to stay at home".

Oh wait. That's also happened, in some areas (though, no govt. backed at all - sidenote, and definitely glib).

Oh.. fwiw: I think Trump is a worse speaker than Biden by some considerable margin (last 36 months or so notwithstanding). He will make more mistakes than any other official, and seems to be doing so. He just doubles down, which is imbecilic when he could clarify that he sucks at it but his ego wont let him). So, I actually give Trump a bit more margin for error in this sense - he's mostly talking shit. A bigger problem, in a different way.

28 MINS AGO
6:22 PM PDT

Judge temporarily blocks Trump administration from activating National Guard troops in LA
By Helen Jeong
The Trump administration is blocked from activating U.S. military troops in Los Angeles, a judge ruled Thursday after hearing arguments over California's request to limit the scope of the National Guard and Marines' mission in Los Angeles as demonstrations continue over immigration enforcement operations.
'
California Gov. Gavin Newsom had asked a court earlier this week to put an emergency stop to the military helping federal immigration agents, who have carried out raids in the region that led to protests over the weekend and throughout the week.

Under the ruling, the Trump administration will have to return the California National Guard to Governor Gavin Newsom.

The order will not go into effect until 12 p.m. Friday, California time, as Judge Charles Breyer ordered a stay to give the Trump administration time to appeal

.

es. Actual videos and pictures of the riots across multiple areas, which include vandalism, looting and various forms of assault.

I am unsure why you would trust an official over that. Particularly one's who aren't excatly bastions of truth and light. — AmadeusD

So video footage and pictures (the extent of which could hardly be evaluated) with respect to the overall picture. This is more reliable than the police chief of L.A. , the mayor and the governor of the state. Your are not striking me as trying to get a fair and balanced picture of the overall situation rather just confirming your preexisting bias, I'll grant you it is hard to get at the truth these days but you don't really seem to be trying very hard either. I'll trust the elected officials on the scene. I am not condoning rioting, assault or destruction of property but the actions of a few do not negate the legitimate legal and constitutional concerns of peaceful protestors and many legal and constitutional scholars.

(the extent of which could hardly be evaluated) — prothero

If you can't evaluate them against the objection facts of the extend of LA, the extent of downtown LA, the numbers involved and the levels of violence I am unsure what to say....
I'm unsure I have, since Jan 6, seen swathes of politically-motivated pundits deny what is before their eyes in my lifetime (particularly in reliance on biased and clearly politically motivated officals statements which contradict the video and image evidence - and hte evidence of those who are literally under attack). Victim blaming at its finest, I say.

This is more reliable than the police chief of L.A. , the mayor and the governor of the state. — prothero

Yes. Obviously. This is not a serious discussion if you think otherwise. This seals it:

Your are not striking me as trying to get a fair and balanced picture of the overall situation rather just confirming your preexisting bias — prothero

Oh brother.

I am not condoning rioting, assault or destruction of property — prothero

To be fully clear, i don't expect anyone here does (except maybe Mikie and probably not him even). I do expect people to be incapable of seeing the truth, for their prior commitments though. I don't actually have any. They're all shitheads to me.