It’s trending the other way here already I think, hard to keep up, but the heyday of the internet troll and fake news may already be over…
It is my experience that people who lose trust do not believe less crazy ****. They believe  more crazy ****. I think? some studies have been done that demonstrate the cynical, on avg, have far more bunk beliefs.

If I hear a man say he doesn't trust the news, I'm fully expecting to hear some 9/11 truther **** from him at some point.
 
Losing trust in social media is not the same as losing trust in news in general. One should always be wary of the source of your information.
 

Prank calls, harassment, and doxxing fears drove the Marine unit sent to LA to pull down its website​

https://www.businessinsider.com/marine-unit-la-took-website-down-dodge-prank-calls-harassment-2025-6

With such substantial Posse Comitatus concerns about the Marine deployment, I have to say I'm utterly unsurprised that individuals would go to the USMC website fill in California and Infantry for Location and Type in the filter, and find the 2nd Batt 5th Marines and start making dumbass phonecalls to the numbers - which is all the article specifies as having happened.

As for the phone numbers themselves, I'm guessing they've been disabled and replaced by other numbers not publicly published and communicated internally to the unit and thence to their families with commendable efficiency.
 
article's in danish, but new developments in denmark that's relevant. there are a number of notes that i have to stress for context and why it's important before anyone makes a judgment (esp because i can see a bunch of dumb takes about this from certain posters)
danish politicians have just approved the establishment of three us military bases in denmark. during the greenland debacle (which is mindedly still unsolved) the us was also allowed to expand its presence in greenland (this is not in this article).
- the newspaper in question is "the worker", ie left-leaning minor paper, rigid reporting though, although quite biased. quick touch on the bias. the headline notes that there were protests in seven danish cities over the establishment of the bases and shows a few photos of the meagre protest attendance. so the article's headline is purposely pumping up the demonstrations.
- what to keep in mind here is that in spite of danes generally being well educated, they're still normal people, and the median voter doesn't pay attention to this kind of stuff. the news just aren't as sexy as a burning car in LA. most danes don't know that this agreement was even discussed, let alone made.
- the article is also good because it touches on the details of the actual agreement. here's the rundown:
--- three american military bases are to be established in denmark.
--- the agreement was voted for by basically all parties except the Unity List (socialists) and the Alternative (left-adjacent social liberal greens).
--- if the stationed break any laws in denmark, they will be tried under american law, not danish, even when the victim is danish. this is insane. esp with the state of lawfare in the us right now.
--- there are some geopolitical implications referenced by citing the protestors, some of which note that if a war breaks out with eg russia, this increase the chance that denmark will be a battlefield over russia. i'm not sure this is correct though and is not my qualm with the agreement.

a quote from DKP, dirty commies that they are,
"Med aftalen giver et flertal i Folketinget lov til, at tre områder i Danmark bliver underlagt amerikansk overherredømme. De amerikanske soldater må bære våben, udøve magt og flere andre ting, som måske er grundlovsstridigt. Ikke én eneste repræsentant for regeringspartierne eller én eneste minister tog ordet under debatten"
meaning
"with this agreement, a majority of parliament allows three areas in denmark to be subject to american liegedom. the american soldiers may carry arms, use force and many other things that are maybe unconstitutional. not a single representative for the governing parties and not a single minister made an argument during the dealings"

so, on trump and the relevance to him.
as with the agreement about an increased greenland presence, this is not a trump win per se. denmark has pretty blindly sided with the us since bush, and have consistently kowtowed to the us for a generation (let alone the close cooperation since ww2). don't praise trump over this, none of this is new (as i brought up in the greenland thread, if biden just asked for a missile battery, we'd say yes). rather, the point is that it's more of the same, and i really question the sanity of the politicians, specifically because trump does change things, and should have them reevaluate denmark's geopolitical position. while we're not as geriatric as the us congress (which is truly lost), i think the politicians in question still believe the world is the same as the work they've participated in during the last 25 years. they're doing the same work as was done during bush, and making the same alignments. it's really a question about old dogs and such and is frustrating to watch. we've seen it a few times over the last generation where denmark more aligned with the angloamerican sphere than the continental eu. such as when denmark illegally spied on eu citizens for the us a few years ago. danish politicians are not corrupt wall street types, mind you, although there are plenty of cracks that have started to erupt in our system since fogh, who was indeed the toxic element that began this abject submission. and mindedly, submitting to us wishes makes somewhat sense in a world before trump. right now? it is tiring. and most danes don't even know about it, and if they learn, they'll forget in a week, until the military bases become a problem.
 
Last edited:
There is no legal nuance associated whatsoever with openly breaking the law as it is written.
What laws were broken by federal officials in the arrest of suspected illegal aliens last week in LA? Title and section, please.
Perhaps the city and state officials did cite them at some point and I wasn't aware, though you would think that would be a very important factor in their protests against Trump.

...Or do you mean some vicarious breaking of the law where city residents were forced to vandalize stuff out of spite because the Feds rained on their parade?

Article II of the constitution says the president can call up national guardsmen when there is an impediment such as civil strife to the enforcement of federal law (e.g. deportation). And we know federal facilities have been attacked during that. It is further codified here:
That could be a political problem and look bad for him, true, but it is not some legally gray area. It is very clear. Our genuine disgust for Trump is not the legal standard of proof needed to do much about him...
 
Last edited:
What laws were broken by federal officials in the arrest of suspected illegal aliens last week in LA? Title and section, please.
Perhaps the city and state officials did cite them at some point and I wasn't aware, though you would think that would be a very important factor in their protests against Trump.

...Or do you mean some vicarious breaking of the law where city residents were forced to vandalize stuff out of spite because the Feds rained on their parade?

Article II of the constitution says the president can call up national guardsmen when there is an impediment such as civil strife to the enforcement of federal law (e.g. deportation). And we know federal facilities have been attacked during that. It is further codified here:
That could be a political problem and look bad for him, true, but it is not some legally gray area. It is very clear. Our genuine disgust for Trump is not the legal standard of proof needed to do much about him...

And your legal citation includes the following:
"Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia."
I'm quite certain the governor of California has not repeated any such orders to California's National Guard.
 
Article II of the constitution says the president can call up national guardsmen when there is an impediment such as civil strife to the enforcement of federal law (e.g. deportation).

Article II​

Section 1

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:– I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Section 2​


The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3​

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section 4​

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
 
Losing trust in social media is not the same as losing trust in news in general. One should always be wary of the source of your information.

Journalists vs Reporters.
If it bleeds, it leads.

Can't find any type of news source that doesn't put a spin/slant on any kind of political/ideological story. (right or left, doesn't matter)

Btw, same for polls and of course "studies".

Polls: take a look at how some of the questions are worded. (some are very leading)
Studies: Who paid for it, who benefits. (aka: follow the money) eg: eggs bad, then good, then ..

Social Media: heh. I have scatlogical names for ALL of them. (no, I don't use ANY of them)

So be wary of not so much what is said, but how it is said, and of course, what is NOT said.

(of course this complicates things.)

BTW: tomorrow is friday the 13th. Get yer tinfoil hats ready.
(all those years doing tech, full moons and friday13 get ... weird. If both on same day, I called in sick) :P
 
And your legal citation includes the following:
"Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia."
I'm quite certain the governor of California has not repeated any such orders to California's National Guard.
I am not certain if the law states that a governor himself transmit the orders, only that their office is used to do that, like "hi i'm from washington and i need to use your phone, governor". Needless to say the president does not need a governor's permission, nor did they numerous times before, nor wait for them to get back from water-skiing or whatever.

Article II​

Section 1

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:– I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Section 2​


The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3​

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section 4​

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
that'd be his broader power over the militia...though maybe I did not precisely word it...which a long time ago used to the "unorganized" militia until the National Guard came into being.
 
The mistake is to view street protests as outdated or insufficient in a digital age. They're not. Mass mobilizations still signal legitimacy, urgency, and depth of feeling in a way that digital-mostly movements can’t. People in the street demonstrate commitment; they draw media attention, humanize causes, make abstract grievances visceral. They force power to take notice - physically, logistically, and psychologically.

But here's the catch: a protest without a digital backbone risks becoming a fleeting spectacle. One day of headlines, then drowned by the algorithm. And a hashtag without people in motion risks becoming another echo in the void - loud for a moment, eventually forgotten.

The right has understood how to hybridize this. They’ve learned to link digital ecosystems - influencers, platforms, outrage engines - directly to mobilisation. It’s not either/or. It's that physical presence becomes amplified when it’s plugged into a well coordinated digital network that captures attention, shifts narratives, and sustains energy.

Progressive coalition haven’t scaled this integration nearly as well. The result is an asymmetry: the right can turn a school board hearing into a national flashpoint overnight. The left, even when it musters thousands in the streets, often struggles to translate that energy into lasting narrative power or institutional change.

We are in an age of protest plus infrastructure. One without the other is shouting into wind. But together, they create a closed circuit of momentum, amplification, and pressure - and that’s where the real leverage lies.
Good stuff I pondered for a while.

I agree the asymmetry is present. I would even state 2012 is the year the gap became obvious. The right wing media ecosystem began routinely turning out the Tea Party and kept them focused on whatever they really wanted. The same system is in place, doing the same things, and even if the end product today is a little different, the process that produced Trumpism and the TP is the same, unchanged.

There are several reasons the left cannot match it. Lack of concerted goals first and foremost. It's not as lacking in money as some would prefer to believe(it is hard to admit that perhaps the people's movement is simply out of sync with the people on many positions)

If the successful RW structure is inimitable and not replicable by the LW, only disrupting the successful right wing structure really remains. By the time the protest occurs, I think the issue is already decided, making the protests actually secondary; if they are occurring at all, RW ecosystem has already secured the support of enough of the people to get elected at the presidential level, and thus, will retain enough support to push the controversial policy through. It's already passed its bar.

In other words, it's already too late. Some of my less enlightened coworkers are cracking jokes about Kent State(a famous massacre of protestors). Entrenched minds will not be changed by these protests.

The old Reddit invasion and similar are some of the only imaginable things I can think of in which a sustained effort could actually effect the ecosystems producing that entrenchment. This would have to be a commonly understood tactic amongst the LW grassroots, in which it is prioritized highly...but, come to think on it, it may already be, and it just doesn't have impact, because of the lack of sync between their moral lens and the general populations.

The momentum may just be too much, and the world may be entering a more RW era, I guess? It stings to think that, but it does seem to be the most logical conclusion of how events are proceeding. It's difficult to look at Trump and conclude otherwise; America voted for this dude, twice, and nothing has been able to disrupt the processes that lead to his support? What's that say about people? Pretty dark.
 
One of the first things I learned in basic college Sociology is that there's no such thing as "no bias", so your perception of something will cloud your judgement of it.
There is also something called "degree". Not all bias is equal, nor in equal amount. CNN and Fox News are both biased, but I'll certainly not say they are equally biased.
 
Of course not. The more different from you people are, the more biased they are, it's a well known fact.
 
If the successful RW structure is inimitable and not replicable by the LW, only disrupting the successful right wing structure really remains. By the time the protest occurs, I think the issue is already decided, making the protests actually secondary; if they are occurring at all, RW ecosystem has already secured the support of enough of the people to get elected at the presidential level, and thus, will retain enough support to push the controversial policy through. It's already passed its bar.

In other words, it's already too late
Tell me if I'm wrong: I'm not sure what winning formula exists to try and advance those who largely don't want to integrate into American life...
it could be a very moral thing to do, sure, but not a politically winning one.

You (plural) protest in LA because, at least the ground there and not so much nationwide, you do not want the feds interfering with what the city considers a 'special arrangement', or what have you, with the immigrant community to keep the 'peace' which is now shattered. By them. That's what you're essentially saying...(?).

This isn't some indictment of progressivism you worry about, so much as the same urban dysfunction and mismanagement which sparked the likes of the Rodney King and George Floyd riots. It would be best for the movement to not coalesce around perpetuating big-city machinery. And seek other avenues against Trump.
Yeah, you created a lot of precise language out of very little foundation.
ok thanks
 
You (plural) protest in LA because, at least the ground there and not so much nationwide, you do not want the feds interfering with what the city considers a 'special arrangement', or what have you, with the immigrant community to keep the 'peace' which is now shattered. By them. That's what you're essentially saying...(?).

This isn't some indictment of progressivism you worry about, so much as the same urban dysfunction and mismanagement which sparked the likes of the Rodney King and George Floyd riots. It would be best for the movement to not coalesce around that. And seek other avenues against Trump.
If asked what the protests are about, I'd say they are a part of a long running cultural spat about how inclusive or exclusive America should be. I tend to favor more inclusion personally(though occasionally point out this may not be politically viable). The side that favors inclusivity has seen the state begin to actively exclude, and because LA is so huge, there were enough motivated people for a relatively minor(1000) protestors to gather. That's kinda that. Par for the course.

The quoted post is about observing and describing the trends that lead to support and opposition to that larger question about American exclusivity. The protests, for and against, I basically just consider a manifestation of those phenomenons.
 
Tell me if I'm wrong: I'm not sure what winning formula exists to try and advance those who largely don't want to integrate into American life...
it could be a very moral thing to do, sure, but not a politically winning one.

It's MAGA that does not want to integrate into American life. They hate almost everything about America, from our immigrant heritage and our ethnically and religiously diverse population to our political traditions of divided power and protections for individual rights. And because they hate America they are trying to turn it into the kind of tyranny that the first generation of Americans fought a war to escape.
 
It's MAGA that does not want to integrate into American life. They hate almost everything about America, from our immigrant heritage and our ethnically and religiously diverse population to our political traditions of divided power and protections for individual rights. And because they hate America they are trying to turn it into the kind of tyranny that the first generation of Americans fought a war to escape.
I've seen folks point put that Trump, the Republicans, Project 2025, and all the related cronies have been doing all the same grievances done by King George III and his cronies listed in the freaking Declaration of Independence
 
Kristi Noem just had her goons tackle and handcuff a US Senator on live television. Senator Schumer is asking for "answers" lmao
 
Back
Top Bottom