• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Trump handing LA effectively?

Is Trump handing LA effectively?


  • Total voters
    102
  • Poll closed .
"worse" is a matter of perspective. For Trump, the best thing that could happen is all out revolt with ALL the accompaning violence. This would 'prove' Trump right, allowing him to justify and assert even more authority and control.

MAGAs will cheer this.

I suppose I should have defined the goal in the OP - which would be, to simmer the situation down in LA. I guess it's possible that's not the goal, but that would be a tough one to own for most Trump supporters, to where I'm not sure you would get 100% agreement that this is the case.

I can make room for some, but I have a hard time believing all. I could be naive, but I figure I'll let them tell me one by one. :)
 
Good bit of self awareness there.



I wouldn't, but I'm sure some would. Just like many Democrats celebrated Ashli Babbitt being shot and killed.
Note, I said ANY action Trump suggests meets the approve of his supporters. They would support him if he shot someone on 5th avenue, he said so himself, if you remember.
I wouldn't, but I'm sure some would. Just like many Democrats celebrated Ashli Babbitt being shot and killed.
You started out meeting me half way then you threw that asinine comment in there. NO Democrat was celebrating Ashli Babbitt being shot. When someone makes such an asinine statement it cancels out any level-headed argument he might have been attempting to make.
 
Is Trump handling this effectively in terms of reducing violence? No.

Is Trump handling this in such a way as to give him a political win? Probably yes.

Ok, I'm curious. How does failing to reduce the violence equate to a political win? I'm not calling BS, I'm simply asking for more on this, if you feel like giving it.
 
Yeah, that's nonsense. Police in large cities have plenty of resources to routinely handle large events, such as protests, parades, street fairs and more.

Having them and electing to use (deploy?) them are very different things.

If we followed your logic, then every big city should have National Guards and Marines show up every St Patrick's Day. :rolleyes:

Nope, since that (parade/celebration?) doesn’t involve targeted vandalism of federal property.
 
I tend to agree, while refraining from giving my opinion on whether or not that narrative is valid.

Why do you think Trump let himself get painted into a corner like this?
It was always known that sanctuary cities and sympathetic states would be resistant. To not do anything at all would amount to the media constantly running spots that he lied to the American people and does not care about immigration. His mission was to get control of the border and then start cleaning out the worst of the worst who are not supposed to be here. Step one has been addressed and now it's on to step two. As long as Trump holds his ground, does not abandon deportation strategy and does not authorize any use of force, this could yet turn around and cast a black eye to a city and state that loves to get in its own way. If State and local officials allow this to continue then the question will eventually be asked: Why are the citizens destroying their own cities for people are who aren't even supposed to be here?

I generally view it as a no-win because Trump is all action and I don't know if he can wait.
 
I suppose I should have defined the goal in the OP - which would be, to simmer the situation down in LA. I guess it's possible that's not the goal, but that would be a tough one to own for most Trump supporters, to where I'm not sure you would get 100% agreement that this is the case.

I can make room for some, but I have a hard time believing all. I could be naive, but I figure I'll let them tell me one by one. :)
"Own"? Not hardly. If something bad happens, like a massacre, it will be portrayed as the result of Democrat policies and laid at the feet of Newsom. Trump and his followers will accept no responsibility whatsoever.
 
It was always known that sanctuary cities and sympathetic states would be resistant. To not do anything at all would amount to the media constantly running spots that he lied to the American people and does not care about immigration. His mission was to get control of the border and then start cleaning out the worst of the worst who are not supposed to be here. Step one has been addressed and now it's on to step two. As long as Trump holds his ground, does not abandon deportation strategy and does not authorize any use of force, this could yet turn around and cast a black eye to a city and state that loves to get in its own way. If State and local officials allow this to continue then the question will eventually be asked: Why are the citizens destroying their own cities for people are who aren't even supposed to be here?

I generally view it as a no-win because Trump is all action and I don't know if he can wait.

Thanks, I understand your point of view. Seems to me you're saying that Trump has a hard time getting out of his own way, which I think is a fair statement.
 
A simple poll, to capture a moment in time.

The question is not whether it's good or bad, sane or insane, lawful or unlawful, only whether or not Trump's response to what's happening in LA right now is the most effective response.

My personal opinion is that this is not an effective response, but rather serves to reinforce the concerns around incompetent tyranny, and pretty much guarantees escalation. Furthermore, it gives his detractors more ammunition the further it escalates.

What do you guys think?

So Trump is being smart by actually engaging very little. His threatened response however makes the local authorities actually address the problem. As you'll here the arguments back and forth in the media. The troops are often not even being deployed.

The local authorities (Bass and Newsom and soon to be many other Democrat jurisdictions) do not want to stop these protests. They want to use them to drive a national news cycle narrative about how horrible and mean Trump is according to them.

So Trump threatens the troops and they clean up their own mess but not before it has generated plenty of horrible imagery that is bad for them and great for Trump. There's burning, looting and so on.

Then the matter will be handled, in order to get Trump NOT to deploy the National Guard and they're left with bad optics and honestly Trump will get most of the credit for it ending quickly even though the reality is little will have been done by the National Guard.

You're basically watching Trump do here what he does with many deals and especially with tariffs. He has all the cards.
 
"Own"? Not hardly. If something bad happens, like a massacre, it will be portrayed as the result of Democrat policies and laid at the feet of Newsom. Trump and his followers will accept no responsibility whatsoever.

Well, as I stated in the OP, this is a snapshot of a moment in time. It will be interesting to see what happens - well, interesting from up here, I'm not sure I'd call it "interesting" if it were my country going through this.
 
Thanks, I understand your point of view. Seems to me you're saying that Trump has a hard time getting out of his own way, which I think is a fair statement.
No doubt and I believe most politicians fall into this category. Trump is the veritable bull in the china shop for better or worse.
 
No doubt and I believe most politicians fall into this category. Trump is the veritable bull in the china shop for better or worse.

Well, in terms of other politicians, I'd have to look at their results individually. But I get your point.

I also make room for the fact that we have not yet seen the full extent of Trump's results. I have my opinion on the direction things are going, but I guess you never really know until it's in the rear view mirror.
 
Having them and electing to use (deploy?) them are very different things.
LAPD resources WERE deployed. Things were not even remotely getting out of control. These were garden-variety protests.

Nope, since that (parade/celebration?) doesn’t involve targeted vandalism of federal property.
:rolleyes:

Since you apparently have absolutely no idea what you're talking about: The St Patrick's Day Parade involves 150,000 participants and 2 MILLION spectators. This requires an enormous police presence, not only to keep a rowdy crowd under control, but to prevent it from being targeted by terrorists. AND there are lots of officers participating in the parade itself.

And yet, somehow crime doesn't spike during the parade. :unsure:

And they don't need National Guards either.
 
I voted other.
What @ttwwtt78640 wrote in Post #9.

I found that post confusing and light on actual content.

Do you think this is an effective approach?

Do you think the army should have been deployed Jan 6?
 
Well, in terms of other politicians, I'd have to look at their results individually. But I get your point.

I also make room for the fact that we have not yet seen the full extent of Trump's results. I have my opinion on the direction things are going, but I guess you never really know until it's in the rear view mirror.
Yes, it still has more to play out and unfortunately there is much gain for both sides politically from this incident. Trump wants to deliver on his campaign promise, Newsom has his eyes on the prize and I'm guessing Bass would like to move upward. Ain't politics grand?
 
Waving a Mexican flag (or any other flag) isn't a crime, and something an American citizen can do without legal repercussion. Burning cars and looting are against the law and should be prosecuted whether or not someone is flying a Mexican flag (or any other flag).

Agree. Waving a Mexican flag isn't against the law.

But standing in front of burning car waving a Mexican flag certainly isn't a good look. And for any protester trying to generate support for their cause, that image isn't helping much.

..
 
Yes, it still has more to play out and unfortunately there is much gain for both sides politically from this incident. Trump wants to deliver on his campaign promise, Newsom has his eyes on the prize and I'm guessing Bass would like to move upward. Ain't politics grand?

Seems like the only ones with anything to gain in America are the politicians...hehe... I guess that's the case more often than not. I wonder how long before everyone feels like burning something.
 
I found that post confusing and light on actual content.
How so? What confused you, and what was light about his opinion?
ttwtt78640 said:
Other. The use of military/NG to protect federal buildings, from ‘mostly peaceful’ protestors, frees up state/local LEOs to deal with crime in other places. IIRC, those objecting loudest to this situation called for the use of military/NG to protect the US Capitol on 1/6/2021.
Do you think this is an effective approach?
I think what I agreed with in my post above is an effective approach.
Do you think the army should have been deployed Jan 6?
I think Trump was correct to request the NG to be called in on 1/6 to help as much as he is now correct to protect to have them there to protect LA federal property. I think Pelosi accepted full responsibility for not having them there on 1/6.
 
Sending troops to LA is to stop looting, burning and bodily harm, especially cops.
Of course the left doesn't want any of that because it will leave them with nothing to bitch about and hoping for some political gain.
 
No lol. We saw in 2020 when he tried to crack down hard on protests it made more people come out and protest against them.
 
Ok, I'm curious. How does failing to reduce the violence equate to a political win? I'm not calling BS, I'm simply asking for more on this, if you feel like giving it.
Letting it 'get out of control' will be the pretense for declaring martial law. At that point, ANYONE who objects to Trump's ham fisted approach will be subject to charges of 'aiding and abetting' the enemy.
 
Back
Top Bottom