The Real timschochet

By the way while I don’t believe this applies to me I do appreciate you’re being willing to criticize Trump in this context.

1. Laguna is a very woke community. (As compared to Newport Beach which is very Trumpy). Newport Beach is beautiful but has all sorts of unpleasant people living there. Laguna on the other hand is warm and welcoming. Black Lives Matter signs everywhere, rainbow flags everywhere, pro-amnesty, pro-trans. It’s a hippie paradise and a great place to be. 2. You ask about specific policies. It’s certainly a sanctuary city for undocumented people. But beyond that I can’t tell you. All I can point out is that it’s had liberal leadership for years and there is almost no crime. But I am NOT arguing that liberal leadership creates less crime. I am simply pointing out how absurd it is for conservatives to claim that liberal leadership creates MORE crime. Rather than for me to disprove, that would up for you guys to prove. And you can’t. You can certainly point to high crime areas run by liberals. But if those areas were run by conservatives there would be just as much crime. 3. Pointing out the percentage of any given race is simply racism. It is historically very clear that any race of people will create the same level of crime given the same economic and societal conditions. If you had an all white population living in Chicago with the same economic and social conditions you would have the same number of shootings, same amount of violence. If you had an all black community living in Laguna Beach with high incomes matching the folks living there now it would be just as safe. If you don’t believe this you’re a bigot.

Actually I’m not.

I’m not in favor but I don’t care.

Yes I did. Proud of that.

What hate?

Well you’re welcome to link a post in which I supported honoring George Floyd.

When and if you disagree with something I actually wrote here rather than a straw argument I will be happy to respond to you.

This post is deliberately ignorant of the actual facts.

I’m not actually.

Just an embarrassing, ridiculous, and probably disingenuous statement. I say probably because I don’t believe you’re a bigot or a racist. That’s a compliment to you. But how to reconcile that with your amazing and absurd statement here? Because OF COURSE there is everything wrong with Kirk’s statements: forget liberal or conservative, no moral person could read the stuff I quoted earlier (courtesy of the Guardian) and fail to find them problematic. I’m left with 3 alternatives: 1. You’re simply ignorant of what he said (doubtful because at this point it’s been all over the news plus I’ve directly exposed you to it here.) 2. You’re simply trolling, trying to get a reaction. In your case this is always at least partly the case IMO. 3. You are so invested in winning the partisan game between conservatives and liberals, so intent on being right, that you automatically defend voices on “your side” and can’t admit even to yourself that they might be in the wrong. I think it’s mostly #3. I think you’re being dishonest but mainly to yourself. And no I’m not going to engage in breaking down Kirk’s statements so that you can find legalistic or false context explanations (as you love to do.) I’m not interested in getting that deep into his ugliness. You want to believe it’s all OK and part of normal conservatism that’s your call. But it isn’t either.

I would certainly have voted against this. If it had simply been a bill condemning political violence that would have been fine. But I am not going to vote for a bill that honors Charlie Kirk. He didn’t deserve to die but he was not a good person. He spewed hateful, bigoted. ignorant and dangerous rhetoric on a variety of subjects. He had the absolute right to do so. But I don’t want my tax money honoring that. Disgraceful.

From Reagan to these clowns? How did we get here?

First off sorry I missed this post after I went to sleep last night. Second what I wrote is that in the past I’ve been guilty of IGNORING political violence from the left. That is NOT the same as endorsing it. I don’t and never have. What I have done is drawn attention to violence from the right and not drawn attention to violence from the left. That was wrong of me and I acknowledged it. Now I’m not quite sure why you continue to harp on this. You know, or you should know by now, that I don’t endorse violence. So what’s the point? Are you that desperate to catch me with the “l”, as you wrote?

I used to laugh too but in truth it’s really not a laughing matter. As I wrote yesterday @Strike is not only constantly wrong but a lot of what he writes is dangerous ignorance.

It has everything to do with it.

Your arguments are just lame excuses. The head of the FCC threatened Disney: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way.” Trump himself bragged about it afterwards. You can try to pretend this was self inflicted, or justified. Buy you’re wrong as usual

It still works for decent people. It may never have worked for you.

“(Referring to Joy Reid, Michelle Obama, Sheila Jackson Lee, Kentanji Brown Jackson)…you do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to take a white person’s slot.” This was a racist comment. There’s no “intellectual honesty” or “intellectual capacity” that would make this comment not racist, not hateful. And your denial of this makes you nothing more than an apologist for racism, and not a very smart one.

Damn you anti science people are such morons.

Actually yes many things he said was hate speech. It was open dialogue, he said it in open debate but it was certainly hateful stuff: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-quotes-beliefs There is no way to reasonably read this stuff and say “oh it’s a legitimate point of view, I just disagree.” Not if you’re a decent person. He was, unfortunately, a white supremacist bigot. He didn’t deserve to die for it. But he was one.

I may print this out and frame it.

No I don’t think you’re trolling. But I think your post and analysis of my position is based more on your own constant need for a black and white, us vs them scenario rather than an honest estimation of what I believe. In the past couple of years I’ve made hundreds of posts in this forum and I have consistently and ALWAYS rejected political violence as a solution to any problem. You’ve read me enough, argued with me enough to know that is the case. And just in case you’re confused enough to believe that I have changed my position (which is core to my beliefs) I clearly stated it in the next post. So for you to try to argue with me about what I’m thinking strikes me as bizarre or disingenuous. But let me go further just in case there is STILL a misconception: my position mirrors that of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr, when faced with oppression that was protected by law: those two men resorted to peaceful, nonviolent resistance which included breaking or ignoring the law in certain instances so long as there was no violence. To me this is a proper response to American injustice, and to Trump. There are times and countries in history when violent resistance is justifiable- against slavery, or genocide , or brutal war. But in modern America we have not and I trust never will be threatened with those things. Hopefully I have made myself abundantly clear. Any further questions?

Well except for the no political violence part. Also I don’t believe that Trump is evil. I used the word awful. Not the same.

Well first off never political violence, that’s unacceptable. Second we have to redefine winning. I want to save our democracy.