President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
what’s your position on borders, victor? are they a white supremacist genocidal baby killing pedophile idea?
right, bc you guys didnt care when Dems did it. but the guy did get glowing write ups from liberal reporters in the Wapo.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powe...
Did you care about it when he did it? Or even know who he was? You used to be a dreaded liberal, right?
Trump is suing New York Times.
AG Bondie has gone full woke with "hate speech isn't free speech" and my whole rightwing feed is mocking her for that.
You guys derided me when i said the problem with Trump is about his leftist tendencies, yet here we are (you can't get much more leftist than "hate speech isn't free speech")
Anyone else notice the justice department removed its reports on the largest domestic terrorism threats in America. I guess shortly before Trump announced his war on "antifa" and other left wing groups.
This info is now completely missing... too bad they don't understand internet archive:
https://archive.is/UYS0O
This is now the active page w/ everything missing:
I assume someone is reporting on this.
if you find the actual lawsuit please link to it because I am curious about what the actual purported defamation was other than "the NYT doesn't like Trump".
I mean I am curious about which articles, which instances they are using to sue
I tried to look up the lawsuit but the court that it’s filed in requires registration to search their cases. It’s the Middleton District Court of Florida.
I did find some info that it cited a few articles and a book.
The filing cited several articles about Trump published by the Times last year. It also took aim at "Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father's Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success," a book written by two Times reporters, Susanne Craig and Russ Buettner. Craig, Buettner, and their publisher, Penguin Random House, were listed as defendants alongside the Times.
what’s your position on borders, victor? are they a white supremacist genocidal baby killing pedophile idea?
when the USA does it yes of course.
Did you care about it when he did it? Or even know who he was? You used to be a dreaded liberal, right?
yes I was against it.
What are the cases where borders are ok?
They are just slaughtering random boats in the Caribbean to get a few likes on twitter. The only difference between Trump and the Dems is that they broadcast whereas the Dems hide it and then prosecute anyone who leaks it. We are a demonic society les by genocidal pedophiles.
...FOR FUN AND PROFIT!
Anyone else notice the justice department removed its reports on the largest domestic terrorism threats in America. I guess shortly before Trump announced his war on "antifa" and other left wing groups. This info is now completely missing... too bad they don't understand internet archive:https://archive.is/UYS0OThis is now the active page w/ everything missing:
Removing reporting and investigation on far-right terrorist groups and militias happened very early in the 2nd Trump presidency. I also seem to recall that this would also heavily affect screening processes for such affiliations in regards to military service and various law enforcement employment. Screening which had gaps as it was.
It is a not a development that bodes well. Attacks and political violence from such groups have long been identified as one of the biggest domestic terrorism threats in the US, and we also know that such groups are extremely eager to recruit from the armed forces and law enforcement, as well as keen on their members receiving military or law enforcement training. Down the line you might very well see serious consequences from this lapse in vigilance.
It was reported at the time, but I don't think it created all that much of a reaction.
Add it together with Jan 6th pardons, far right nationalists given prominent positions, a tangled web of politics, payouts and alliances with far right influencers and the President himself and high-ranking administration officials using language, imagery and posts that condone violence against, war with and oppression of its own citizenry, and the equation gets worse. Here is an administration that doesn't just ignore far right violence, but seems to actually endorse it.
As Antifa isn't a organisation, has no structure, no leaders, HQ, it means the administration can just decide what it (i.e. anything they want).
Can see lots of peaceful protestors being deemed domestic terrorists and disappearing in the near future.
As Antifa isn't a organisation, has no structure, no leaders, HQ, it means the administration can just decide what it (i.e. anything they want).
Can see lots of peaceful protestors being deemed domestic terrorists and disappearing in the near future.
Well, it's not like the far right comes with a uniform organization and leadership either. Trumpism and nationalist-adjacent conservatism might have delivered the far right a mainstream figure they can rally around and a GOP they can politically influence, but the far right is still a fragmented landscape of militias, nationalists, white supremacists, accelerationists, fascists and Nazis with differing ambitions and agendas.
Lack of cohesion, leadership and organization does not necessarily denote lack of capacity for violence or terrorism. If we look to the broader concept of the "far left" and capacity for violence, we do see increases in threats and attacks linked to this ideology. In most western countries, conservative and far-right politicians do actually face a significant amount of threats of violence from people who oppose them politically, often more than their counterparts on the other side of the aisle.
If we go the concept of "antifa" specifically, the common threat over the last decades from that end has been insurrectionist anarchists. People who exploit demonstrations and political upheaval to instigate riots. They are of course well aware of the effect you describe and they actively want it to happen. They believe that a heavy-handed government response will create even more civil unrest, which they think will further their cause.
If the far left with capacity for violence will evolve into the equivalent of far-right terrorist groups like Atomwaffen Division or violent networks like "Active Club Network" is an open question. I don't think we see much signs of that yet, the far left today simply isn't that keen on cooperation across their differences, nor on forming groups / militias.
My take is that we see worrying signs of increase in willingness for violence and acceptance on the far left, and that it would be stupid to ignore this. However, there isn't much to signal that it is in any danger of rising to the levels of organization and planning that we currently see in the landscape of far right groups.
As Antifa isn't a organisation, has no structure, no leaders, HQ, it means the administration can just decide what it (i.e. anything they want).
Can see lots of peaceful protestors being deemed domestic terrorists and disappearing in the near future.
neonazi groups and nazi adjacent groups often don't have organizations, structure or official leaders (especially the young online ones), that doesn't mean previous admins were wrong in going after them or that going after them meant automatically going after anyone rightwing.
Silly me. I assumed that you were using the standard definition of competency ie good ability to perform at one’s job, rather than your bespoke definition which is something like enable the most violence against one’s opponents.
I’ll try not to make the same mistake again.
Why do you even reply? The conclusions to his ideology are beyond sociopathic, he defends evil tyrants and dumb sycophants all day long, for months on end, and, as you once again see, he shifts goalposts without shame
Possibly why Trump has decided to attack the NYT
I mean, there isn't a sworn affidavit from Trump saying he took a bath in the payouts he received for whoring out the US, so we should reserve judgment.
I'll let lozen explain why both sides are bad.
Bondie clarifies and reduces the scope of her previous wild claims about going after hate speech /
Attorney General Pamela Bondi
@AGPamBondi
·
1h
Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime. For far too long, we’ve watched the radical left normalize threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence. That era is over.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), it is a federal crime to transmit “any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another.” Likewise, 18 U.S.C. § 876 and 18 U.S.C. § 115 make it a felony to threaten public officials, members of Congress, or their families.
You cannot call for someone’s murder. You cannot swat a Member of Congress. You cannot dox a conservative family and think it will be brushed off as “free speech.” These acts are punishable crimes, and every single threat will be met with the full force of the law.
Free speech protects ideas, debate, even dissent but it does NOT and will NEVER protect violence.
It is clear this violent rhetoric is designed to silence others from voicing conservative ideals.
We will never be silenced. Not for our families, not for our freedoms, and never for Charlie. His legacy will not be erased by fear or intimidation.
/
This is far more reasonable. Thoughts?
Lol they're keeping Trump away from London in case enraged Cockneys burn him at the stake. Keeping him locked away in castles and royal residences and entertaining the poor old cockwomble with military parades etc. At least this time he can see what proper marching is really like.
I'm going to guess 95%+ of Brits think Trump is a colossal twat.
I think it’s a lot less than that. Most people who say theyll vote for Farage won’t think that.
Some of them even said they want Trump to “buy the Uk and make it a state of America like they did with Canada”.
if you find the actual lawsuit please link to it because I am curious about what the actual purported defamation was other than "the NYT doesn't like Trump".
I mean I am curious about which articles, which instances they are using to sue
It doesn't matter. This lawsuit will be dismissed. This is pure diversion.
AG Bondie has gone full woke with "hate speech isn't free speech" and my whole rightwing feed is mocking her for that.
You guys derided me when i said the problem with Trump is about his leftist tendencies, yet here we are (you can't get much more leftist than "hate speech isn't free speech")
Politically, Trump is an authoritarian first and foremost. Authoritarianism doesn't have to align perfectly with a particular spot on the left/right American political spectrum.
As Antifa isn't a organisation, has no structure, no leaders, HQ, it means the administration can just decide what it (i.e. anything they want).
Can see lots of peaceful protestors being deemed domestic terrorists and disappearing in the near future.
As far as I know, you don't have to do anything in order to "join" antifa. In other words, joining antifa isn't analogous to joining an American fraternity or joining the Hell's Angels.
If you put antifa stuff on your social media, you frequent certain places on the internet, and then you engage in some form of protest or you commit a crime that relates to a political figure or movement, you will be deemed antifa in the media and the popular imagination.
