Los Angeles Warzone: "Insurrectionist Mobs" Attack Cops, Set Fires, Block 101 Freeway

When you consider the democrats turn their backs on victims of illegals raping molesting murdering Americans who cares about Americans rights?

 

You voted for a criminal.

So don't pretend the law is a red line.

Besides, the POTUS's dispatch of military against the Governor's will is unconstitutional.

The only thing that matters to you is the realization of your political agenda.

Wow...

For 10 years, Trump has depicted all illegals as rapists, murderers and invaders.

Have you ever once heard him say that unfortunately, he'd be forced to deport mothers, workers and students?

No.

 

What better way to protect the rights of Americans than to vote for a criminal for President?

Do you know if Trump has paid the restitution for which he was convicted of raping E Jean Caroll?

 

You can't be found guilty in civil court

 

Doesn't change the fact that Trump raped a woman.

And if memory serves, Trump was also criminally convicted of accounting falsifications.

Because he wanted to buy the silence of a pornstar with whom he had cheated on his wife......

Then you'll understand where I place the MAGA arguments that the law of the land is something important.

 

When you don't have money to buy pallets of bricks... you just create your own cement weapons to attack federal officers...

video here
https://x.com/AnthonyCabassa_/statu...ageIndex=0pageSize=30postTypeId=1total=144349

 

Actually, I didn't vote this election season. I did say previously that I wasn't going to. And I keep my word. So no, I didn't vote for "a criminal".

^^^ Said February 18th 2024.

Your dog don't bite with me.

Bold/underlined: No, he hasn't. That is just Democrat/leftist/Trump hater spin/lies/propaganda.

And why would he say "unfortunately"? Why would he say "he'd be forced"? Why mention mothers? Workers? Students? All he has to say is "illegal immigrants", or "illegal aliens", or "undocumented immigrants" or any of the other terms used to describe people in our country illegally.

 

You know very well that one cannot prove a negative. So its up to you to prove that he did do something. If you can't then the only other option is "he did nothing to stop the rioting". That's how positives and negatives work. So, going to prove something that he tried to stop the rioting? Or no and admit that he didn't do anything to stop the rioting?

 

I'm so sorry.

So you're supporting a criminal.

 

When you consider some on the Right would side with the rapist and force the rape victim to have the rapists baby

 

No, I'm supporting facts. That you don't like the facts is not my problem.

 

it's so bad, even if you show them ID, you might get harassed


"US citizen detained by immigration officials who dismissed his Real ID as fake"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/24/us-citizen-detained-ice-real-id

"Authorities wrestled a US-born citizen to the ground, cuffed him and dismissed his so-called Real ID as “fake” during an arrest operation targeting undocumented people on Wednesday under the direction of the Trump administration"

 

This has nothing to do with the LA riots. Try again.

 

You support the fact that a criminal violates the constitution and sends the military to confront civilians.

 

people are being ID'd and harrassed, innocent people, that is an example

 

Except that there is no violation of the Constitution.

From Patricio's thread/post: § 252, the President may act unilaterally only when there is “unlawful obstruction, combination, or assemblage” that makes enforcement of federal law impracticable by normal means.

Guess what...attacking federal officers trying to uphold the law is most definitely "unlawful obstruction" that "makes enforcement of federal law impracticable by normal means".

LINK: Why Trump's invocation of Title 10 will not hold up in court. Newsom will win. | PoliticalForum.com - Forum for US and Intl Politics

So fun when those on the left provide my material for me debunking their own assertions.

 

You know very well what I was asking for. You ignored the one post from me because you knew you couldn't prove that these rioters, which is the subject of this thread, were not rioting because of what you suggest they are rioting over. When I asked you again, in a shorter post, you took advantage of the shorter post to then provide an unrelated instance to what is happening in LA to push your idea that the LA riots is because "people are upset that American citizens are being targets as well and harassed, until they prove themselves non-guilty".

Talk about dishonest posting. You never fail to uphold that type of posting style.

 

do you care that what I posted is happening to American citizens under Trump?

 

Trump justifies sending the military under the pretext that there is an insurrection in California.

That's exactly what all dictators do: pretend there's a rebellion and send in the army.

 

Well he is the president and it is a national news story and an event concerning the entire nation.


When is the left going to stop destroying their own cities?

 

Are you going to deny what we are all seeing covered by national news?

You going to deny all of the violence and all of the property destruction going on?

 

I deny that what is happening now in California bears any resemblance to an insurrection.

 

That's not why most of them are upset. Many agree that illegal immigration should not happen and that illegal immigrants should be deported, while still opposing Trump's manner of doing it without due process.

 

Trump did have that fault. Newsom maybe too. But Trump was more complicit than that. Trump declared the election rigged and asked people to show up and march on the capitol (though he did not say invade it violently as some claim). Did Newsom do anything similar here in this case?

 

No, that's not how it works. At most you can say you aren't aware of anything he did to try to stop the rioting. If you declare confidently that he did nothing, you take on the burden of proof.