(C) Daily Kos This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . Burning LA and SD:What a major difference an inference can make [1] ['Greg Dworkin', 'Belinda Ridgewood', 'Thom Hartmann', 'Chloris Creator'] Date: 2026-10-09 Here we have another episode of Chad, Haley and their MAGA Mother Mary Lou discussing the recent comments from Trump of “Let them take Los Angeles, Let them take San Diego,” and it is truly amazing how different people can interpret the same words. Before I get into this, I want to share a short experience I had that’s highly relevant. I once dated a girl who became a massive Farakhan supporter. I didn’t break it off right away; it took me some time to get to that. As a result, I had a great front-row seat for many of his speeches and public statements for a few months. Eventually, I realized he was playing a rhetorical “trick.” Most of what he has to say, I felt, was factually true. Are people out to get you and fool you? Well, yeah. Are you wrong to fall into their wickedness? Of course. He then goes into a long litany of grievances with various people, which will include Black people, and will even include Muslims. He would be very explicit, and very harsh, against everyone. He would then say that the forces against you don’t want you to hear the truth. “They will vilify me, they will attack me, in order to keep your eyes closed. And you will know that I have only told you the truth when this happens. Their attacks will twist my words, twist my context, and you will know from that, that they are your enemy.” Somehow that now feels very familiar now. We’ve all heard what Trump said. While talking about how higher gas and fertilizer prizes are just a “small price to pay” compared to a Nuclear Bomb, Trump said “Let them take LA. Let them take San Diego.” Now, I would argue that it’s not a small price because it’s currently wrecking our economy, while at the same time the danger was far from imminent, as Former DNI Tulsi Gabbard testified that Iran had no plan to build a nuclear weapon, and Southern California is just a mere 6,500 miles beyond their missile range. So he’s already lying on all points. The scenario is totally impossible. The price has been huge in order to mitigate a risk that was nil to small. But did he also say that allowing Iran to take out LA and SD would be the small price to pay? Or are we just assuming that? In this video, Mary Lou says that her initial response was the same as everyone else. “Did he really say that?” But then she saw a couple of videos from TikTok that changed her mind. Both of those videos show the exact same Trump speech, perhaps plus a few initial words about “winning the conflict” that Chad’s video of Trump shows without interruption. But both of those TikTok people, who are just random people, not language experts, not a skilled analyst at defining intent – just fucking Joe and Janet Blow – declare that obviously he doesn’t mean what everyone says that he means. They break his statement up into separate segments. Here: in one part, he’s talking about the pain of high gas prices. Then they interject that he changes subject to “What if Iran succeeded and managed to attack a U.S City like Los Angeles or San Diego?” We’re playing “What if?” now? He doesn’t say that, but that’s their interpretation. The part that makes that difficult to believe is the crowd reaction, because they start to cheer at the idea of LA being destroyed. LA that’s filled with election-cheaters, mutilated “tranny” kids, socialists, communists, the Deep State, the weirdos and beardos. It’s the home of the “villains” that Trump says he’s going to eliminate and obliterate. Why exactly wouldn’t he serve that up to them as red meat? He doesn’t send disaster relief funds to Blue States. He tries to arrest Blue State officials. He sends ICE and the National Guard to harass Blues cities. What’s the skin off his nose if Southern California burns like an overripe hot pocket? The crowd listening in real-time thinks he means what he’s saying, and they’re here for it! They’d like to see it happen. They think Lex Luthor had a great real estate plan in “Superman” (1978) and it’s about time we got on that. You can hear them respond. You can hear what they think. You can tell that Trump doesn’t think that interpretation is a mistake. He doesn’t say “No, not literally. Just hypothetically.” He doesn’t say “Wouldn’t that be terrible?” He doesn’t try to tell them that he doesn’t mean that. He’s fine with that idea floating out there. Instead, he just keeps going, “It’s a small price to pay?” What price? Are we still talking about gas prices, or are we saying losing LA and SD is the small price to pay? He says shit like this on a regular basis. This is the final battle. With you at my side, we will demolish the Deep State, we will expel the Warmongers from out government, we will drive out the globalists, we will [gas out?] the communists, Marxists and Fascists. We will throw off the sick political class that hates our country. We will rout the fake News media. We will liberate America from these villians once and for all. So that sounds to me like he going on an ideological battle and purge of anyone who criticizes or disagrees with him, while using slurs and smears to demean their legitimacy. Y’know, Despot Stuff. The man is already running Concentration Camps filled with kids. Is it any wonder that people feel that he was threatening a similar purge or LA and SD? Or when he said this: DUSGUSTING! This is one of the most hateful, bigoted posts I have ever read. He then finishes it with "Fight Back". This is dangerous and so incredibly racist. pic.twitter.com/Q1vmq1EMVz — Brian Krassenstein (@krassenstein) October 8, 2026 Fighting words are at the center of his vocabulary. It’s a matter of interpretation because none of us really know what was going through Trump mind in the second. (Shiver) If only he had explained. Oh,wait he did. On Truth Social he accused the “Fake and Artificial News” of trying to say he is “inviting the enemy to bomb San Diego” and Los Angeles. According to him, he was only saying that paying a little more for gasoline for a short time is a small price for keeping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. A big price, he explained, would be Iran bombing San Diego or Los Angeles. Screenshot from Truth Social Screengrab Oh, so a Kentucky-fried LA and SD is what a big price would be? Really? Interesting that during the rallly he didn’t freaking say that. He could have made that clear at the time, but I didn’t hear him say anything about a “big price” to be paid, did you? What, we supposed to just make that assumption on our own? We’re supposed to offer him the benefit of the doubt? But Somalis and the sick people don’t get that do they, huh? What Trump has done here is, IMO, what Farakhan used to do. (Although it’s hard to go as far as “Jews are a mongrel race.”) He repeatedly says things that are radical and inflammatory, but he only goes so far. He goes far enough that you get the suggestion, but he holds right to the edge so that you can also grant him the (White) privilege of the benefit of the doubt, if you have the supposed “fuller context.” It’s a perfect Rorschach test. You see what you want to see. If you think Trump is low-down genocidal scum, then the destroy L.A. statement fits right into that view. If, instead, you’ve been repeatedly told that Trump “didn’t mean it” when he said “Both sides” during the Charlottesville attack (Yeah, except who were the Not Nazis at the Nazi rally who also supported the Confederate Statue? Were they the peopel chanting “Jews will not replace us?” If you volunteer to protest shoulder-to-shoulder with Nazis – then I don’t need to check your ID card, you’re an honorary Nazi too.) then you think he’s just been “misconstrued” by those mean, mean lefties. It’s not a dog-whistle; it’s a bullhorn now, but he never means what he seems to mean. Trump plays this game all the time. He’s using it to divide us all and laughing all the way to the Crypto Bank. The larger, legitimate point is the fact that he’s lying about the risk that Iran posed, and he’s lying that that was any kind of reasonable justification for his attacks and the blowback we’re suffering now. The price is not “small” at all. Some of this is the media getting wrapped around the axel wth the cosmetics, just like when the media went Gaa Gaa over John Ossoff’s offhand mention of Natalie Harp when the point of his comment was the illegal $400 million flying palace from Qatar. We should be laser-focused on his lies. His entire rationale for attack Iran is a farce. The real question is: who are these people who cheered? Are they really that different from Hasan Piker who (correctly) pointed out that the flaws in U.S. Foreign policy were the exact reasons that Bin Laden used to justify his 9-11 attack, as former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer has stated? Can these frackers keep playing the Hasan Piker-card after they cheered for L.A. and S.D. to burn like a marshmallow at a clam bake? [END] --- [1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2026/10/9/800109547/community/burning-la-and-sdwhat-a-major-difference-an-inferences-came-make/ Published and (C) by Daily Kos Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/