Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On October 07 2020 05:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I want to know if the "republicans" in this thread are okay with this announcement and what they think the consequence of it will be.
Good idea on principle to tell Pelosi to go pound sand with her COVID-but-also-unrelated-stuff-we-want-spending spree. Last vote on her ridiculous proposal lost 17 vulnerable Democrats who still wanted more negotiations, so I think there's potential there, but who knows. The GOP will point to Democrats blocking the senate relief bill and around we'll go. When it comes to spending money though Democrats usually have political advantage. Without the media on their side I don't know how Democrats could survive blocking 1.6T because they didn't get 2.2T, but such is life.
So as for the consequences? No idea.
I'm kinda more interested in this, hope they work overtime
So, correct me if I'm wrong. But you're against any kind of relief for the people who need it most because...Pelosi? Or was it because it included stuff you personally don't feel is necessary? What do you say to those people? This pandemic, whether you believe it or not, is affecting real people. And are you willing to part with your belongings to help those in dire need if it comes to that?
Also, I don't think trump and co want to open that can of worms again. Bringing up that past is only trying to cover for last and into this week, his many mistakes/falsehoods.
No, I'm not against continued relief per se. As for "What do you say to those people?"...
I mean I could say the same thing in reverse. The automatic adoption of the Democrat premise should be avoided, but that's what they count on. Basically refuse to budge from 2.2T and then blame the other side. Man, I remember the days when the GOP had the House and we heard "they are only one-half of one-third of the government! They can't just stamp their feet and expect to get their way!" Pelosi's refusal to move substantively is just as much a part of this, and imo less reasonable.
as a final thought... on the politics, 17 dems voted no, as I noted before. They are pissed that Pelosi wouldn't move. I'm not sure this is a slam dunk, but again who knows. Most red states it seems are reopening anyways.
On October 07 2020 07:02 Shingi11 wrote: If dems keep the filibuster around the recovery could be slow cause you know as soon as the GOP loses the upper chamber bipartisanship is going to be important to them again.
I can’t imagine a world where dems let another Obama happen. The moment republicans start to obstruct, my hope is that we essentially carpet bomb that effort
Worry not, leader of the House Democrats Nancy Pelosi would never let that happen, as she proclaims that we need a STRONG Republican party!
Seriously, Democrats are spineless and they are just as incentivized to accomplish nothing as Republicans are.
If they want to signal they'll ACTUALLY fight Republicans properly they'll expand the Supreme Court, and go from there to secure good policy that Americans actually want.
I think that if the repubs push through Ms.religions lady there will be enough anger. I dont if you have on blinders or what but there have been multiple senators that have said they have had enough. Even Pelosi and Schumer have given nods that they are done with the games from Mcturtle. There is will there.
I need more than faux Democrat outrage, I need their words to say, "We will increase the roster of the Supreme Court" and then one of the first things they need to do once in power is increase the roster of the Supreme Court.
Democrats say lots of things, and I'm not really at the point where I'm willing to buy them at their word.
If they're seriously done with Republican bullshit they'll act quickly and decisively to stop it, ranging from stacking the Supreme Court to increasing voter enfranchisement by voting on federal elections a federal holiday, etc.
Dems wont have the votes even if they win a majority and the white house. I don't think people do themselves any favors falling for the same old con they rightly recognize Republicans regularly fall for. Rhetorical flourishes from people with demonstrated records of the opposite (granted Biden doesn't even give the courtesy of pandering on this).
On October 07 2020 05:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I want to know if the "republicans" in this thread are okay with this announcement and what they think the consequence of it will be.
Good idea on principle to tell Pelosi to go pound sand with her COVID-but-also-unrelated-stuff-we-want-spending spree. Last vote on her ridiculous proposal lost 17 vulnerable Democrats who still wanted more negotiations, so I think there's potential there, but who knows. The GOP will point to Democrats blocking the senate relief bill and around we'll go. When it comes to spending money though Democrats usually have political advantage. Without the media on their side I don't know how Democrats could survive blocking 1.6T because they didn't get 2.2T, but such is life.
So as for the consequences? No idea.
I'm kinda more interested in this, hope they work overtime
So, correct me if I'm wrong. But you're against any kind of relief for the people who need it most because...Pelosi? Or was it because it included stuff you personally don't feel is necessary? What do you say to those people? This pandemic, whether you believe it or not, is affecting real people. And are you willing to part with your belongings to help those in dire need if it comes to that?
Also, I don't think trump and co want to open that can of worms again. Bringing up that past is only trying to cover for last and into this week, his many mistakes/falsehoods.
No, I'm not against continued relief per se. As for "What do you say to those people?"...
I mean I could say the same thing in reverse. The automatic adoption of the Democrat premise should be avoided, but that's what they count on. Basically refuse to budge from 2.2T and then blame the other side. Man, I remember the days when the GOP had the House and we heard "they are only one-half of one-third of the government! They can't just stamp their feet and expect to get their way!" Pelosi's refusal to move substantively is just as much a part of this, and imo less reasonable.
as a final thought... on the politics, 17 dems voted no, as I noted before. They are pissed that Pelosi wouldn't move. I'm not sure this is a slam dunk, but again who knows. Most red states it seems are reopening anyways.
But do you not think that Pelosi is looking at how much and how many people need the relief and how long they will need it, that she is unwilling to budge? Taking what you can get is still losing to a lot of people. You're putting a bandaid on a sinking ship. That's not a long term, nor even a mid-term, goal. There needs to be something substantial and it seems that Pelosi is leveraging her capital on getting that. I'm not privy to all of the details, but I think it's the best move to hold out for substantial relief instead of incremental. The economy is a sham of a recovery. This money will keep people in their homes during the winter and food on the table. Do you think that is not worth holding out for more substance?
And the 17 dems who voted no, are they pandering to their electorate because they are up for re-election or is there a principled reason for it?
And what are the C19 results from those red states opening up?
On October 07 2020 05:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I want to know if the "republicans" in this thread are okay with this announcement and what they think the consequence of it will be.
Good idea on principle to tell Pelosi to go pound sand with her COVID-but-also-unrelated-stuff-we-want-spending spree. Last vote on her ridiculous proposal lost 17 vulnerable Democrats who still wanted more negotiations, so I think there's potential there, but who knows. The GOP will point to Democrats blocking the senate relief bill and around we'll go. When it comes to spending money though Democrats usually have political advantage. Without the media on their side I don't know how Democrats could survive blocking 1.6T because they didn't get 2.2T, but such is life.
So as for the consequences? No idea.
I'm kinda more interested in this, hope they work overtime
So, correct me if I'm wrong. But you're against any kind of relief for the people who need it most because...Pelosi? Or was it because it included stuff you personally don't feel is necessary? What do you say to those people? This pandemic, whether you believe it or not, is affecting real people. And are you willing to part with your belongings to help those in dire need if it comes to that?
Also, I don't think trump and co want to open that can of worms again. Bringing up that past is only trying to cover for last and into this week, his many mistakes/falsehoods.
No, I'm not against continued relief per se. As for "What do you say to those people?"...
I mean I could say the same thing in reverse. The automatic adoption of the Democrat premise should be avoided, but that's what they count on. Basically refuse to budge from 2.2T and then blame the other side. Man, I remember the days when the GOP had the House and we heard "they are only one-half of one-third of the government! They can't just stamp their feet and expect to get their way!" Pelosi's refusal to move substantively is just as much a part of this, and imo less reasonable.
as a final thought... on the politics, 17 dems voted no, as I noted before. They are pissed that Pelosi wouldn't move. I'm not sure this is a slam dunk, but again who knows. Most red states it seems are reopening anyways.
But do you not think that Pelosi is looking at how much and how many people need the relief and how long they will need it, that she is unwilling to budge? Taking what you can get is still losing to a lot of people. You're putting a bandaid on a sinking ship. That's not a long term, nor even a mid-term, goal. There needs to be something substantial and it seems that Pelosi is leveraging her capital on getting that. I'm not privy to all of the details, but I think it's the best move to hold out for substantial relief instead of incremental. The economy is a sham of a recovery. This money will keep people in their homes during the winter and food on the table. Do you think that is not worth holding out for more substance?
And the 17 dems who voted no, are they pandering to their electorate because they are up for re-election or is there a principled reason for it?
And what are the C19 results from those red states opening up?
well I'm logging off now but I dont find 1.6T to be a "bandaid." Pelosi is, and always has been, about power. The only exception was Obamacare, but she knew once enacted it would never go away so she took the bullet for a once in a generation expansion of government. But I will not start from either premises 1) Pelosi is just out here trying to do what's right, or B) that more is always better. I hope I answered your question at least somewhat.
On October 07 2020 05:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I want to know if the "republicans" in this thread are okay with this announcement and what they think the consequence of it will be.
Good idea on principle to tell Pelosi to go pound sand with her COVID-but-also-unrelated-stuff-we-want-spending spree. Last vote on her ridiculous proposal lost 17 vulnerable Democrats who still wanted more negotiations, so I think there's potential there, but who knows. The GOP will point to Democrats blocking the senate relief bill and around we'll go. When it comes to spending money though Democrats usually have political advantage. Without the media on their side I don't know how Democrats could survive blocking 1.6T because they didn't get 2.2T, but such is life.
So as for the consequences? No idea.
I'm kinda more interested in this, hope they work overtime
So, correct me if I'm wrong. But you're against any kind of relief for the people who need it most because...Pelosi? Or was it because it included stuff you personally don't feel is necessary? What do you say to those people? This pandemic, whether you believe it or not, is affecting real people. And are you willing to part with your belongings to help those in dire need if it comes to that?
Also, I don't think trump and co want to open that can of worms again. Bringing up that past is only trying to cover for last and into this week, his many mistakes/falsehoods.
No, I'm not against continued relief per se. As for "What do you say to those people?"...
I mean I could say the same thing in reverse. The automatic adoption of the Democrat premise should be avoided, but that's what they count on. Basically refuse to budge from 2.2T and then blame the other side. Man, I remember the days when the GOP had the House and we heard "they are only one-half of one-third of the government! They can't just stamp their feet and expect to get their way!" Pelosi's refusal to move substantively is just as much a part of this, and imo less reasonable.
as a final thought... on the politics, 17 dems voted no, as I noted before. They are pissed that Pelosi wouldn't move. I'm not sure this is a slam dunk, but again who knows. Most red states it seems are reopening anyways.
But do you not think that Pelosi is looking at how much and how many people need the relief and how long they will need it, that she is unwilling to budge? Taking what you can get is still losing to a lot of people. You're putting a bandaid on a sinking ship. That's not a long term, nor even a mid-term, goal. There needs to be something substantial and it seems that Pelosi is leveraging her capital on getting that. I'm not privy to all of the details, but I think it's the best move to hold out for substantial relief instead of incremental. The economy is a sham of a recovery. This money will keep people in their homes during the winter and food on the table. Do you think that is not worth holding out for more substance?
And the 17 dems who voted no, are they pandering to their electorate because they are up for re-election or is there a principled reason for it?
And what are the C19 results from those red states opening up?
well I'm logging off now but I dont find 1.6T to be a "bandaid." Pelosi is, and always has been, about power. The only exception was Obamacare, but she knew once enacted it would never go away so she took the bullet for a once in a generation expansion of government. But I will not start from either premises 1) Pelosi is just out here trying to do what's right, or B) that more is always better. I hope I answered your question at least somewhat.
Thank you. If you want to continue in the morrow, I will. Otherwise your response so far will suffice.
On October 07 2020 07:02 Shingi11 wrote: If dems keep the filibuster around the recovery could be slow cause you know as soon as the GOP loses the upper chamber bipartisanship is going to be important to them again.
I can’t imagine a world where dems let another Obama happen. The moment republicans start to obstruct, my hope is that we essentially carpet bomb that effort
Yes, yes, you will villify Republicans EVEN MORE. Call them racists EVEN MORE. Get on TV and say they're destroying the country EVEN MORE.
Wait, exactly what changes? That's been the message for years now.
If you don't want to be vilified, maybe don't be so evil.
On October 07 2020 13:49 Shingi11 wrote: While i am happy that trump is misplaying this so badly I am just so confused about his line of thinking. The economy is like the only good thing his whole administration can try to point to as a bright spot and he may of just crashed it right before the election. To say you are going to hard shut down talks tell after election just seems so dumb. (also the implied threat that you have to wait tell biden if i lose)
On October 07 2020 07:02 Shingi11 wrote: If dems keep the filibuster around the recovery could be slow cause you know as soon as the GOP loses the upper chamber bipartisanship is going to be important to them again.
I can’t imagine a world where dems let another Obama happen. The moment republicans start to obstruct, my hope is that we essentially carpet bomb that effort
Worry not, leader of the House Democrats Nancy Pelosi would never let that happen, as she proclaims that we need a STRONG Republican party!
Seriously, Democrats are spineless and they are just as incentivized to accomplish nothing as Republicans are.
If they want to signal they'll ACTUALLY fight Republicans properly they'll expand the Supreme Court, and go from there to secure good policy that Americans actually want.
I think that if the repubs push through Ms.religions lady there will be enough anger. I dont if you have on blinders or what but there have been multiple senators that have said they have had enough. Even Pelosi and Schumer have given nods that they are done with the games from Mcturtle. There is will there.
I need more than faux Democrat outrage, I need their words to say, "We will increase the roster of the Supreme Court" and then one of the first things they need to do once in power is increase the roster of the Supreme Court.
Democrats say lots of things, and I'm not really at the point where I'm willing to buy them at their word.
If they're seriously done with Republican bullshit they'll act quickly and decisively to stop it, ranging from stacking the Supreme Court to increasing voter enfranchisement by voting on federal elections a federal holiday, etc.
I don't know, it could be dangerous to say things like that right before a big election. It could motivate some Democrats but possibly backfire too. Personally I'd be happy to see it though, given that the Republicans are openly announcing now that their priority is to stack the courts while the many Americans desperate for relief aid can basically get fucked.
I agree, while the odds are looking good that dems will take the senate they are by no means certain. Just look at any of the senate debates that have been going. All the republican senators are literally foaming at the mouth to try and get there opponents to say they will stack the courts. That should tell you how dangerous that kinda talk can be right before an election. All those dreams die if dems fall short of 50
I don’t really get it either, genuinely wondering if the guy was still high on meds when this call was made.
Aside from anything else it’s not very consistent with the previous approach to intimately tie the previous (probably still insufficient) stimulus directly to the President’s hand with his signature being on the cheques and all that.
Apart from the potentially huge human and moral cost of doing this now, on a purely Trump-focused political pragmatism level it doesn’t make much sense to me either.
Unlike other legislative this is going to really bite people immediately, en masse and visibly and it seems Trump’s polling is going south so that he needs something in the win column that he can hang his hat on. I’ve noticed Trump is a lot lighter with the ‘art of the deal’ rhetoric these days, perhaps commensurate with his seeming inability to actually make deals when he doesn’t have by far the better hand.
I don’t know, my instinct with this is that the idea that the Dems will take the heat for this is a miscalculation and unlike other legislative quagmires in the past the failure to pass another stimulus will be immediately felt across the political spectrum.
I may be wrong on this as I’ve been wrong many times before. If I were to try and employ this broad tactic I would be campaigning right up to Election Day on trying hard to pass a stimulus and the Dems being the impediment, not dropping it now and in this manner. That way it’s less likely to stick to me.
On October 07 2020 07:02 Shingi11 wrote: If dems keep the filibuster around the recovery could be slow cause you know as soon as the GOP loses the upper chamber bipartisanship is going to be important to them again.
I can’t imagine a world where dems let another Obama happen. The moment republicans start to obstruct, my hope is that we essentially carpet bomb that effort
Yes, yes, you will villify Republicans EVEN MORE. Call them racists EVEN MORE. Get on TV and say they're destroying the country EVEN MORE.
Wait, exactly what changes? That's been the message for years now.
If you don't want to be vilified, maybe don't be so evil.
But being evil is fun!
We’re just seeing the consequences of the GOP’s practices during the Obama era, which may have worked for them in a short term tactical sense but had clear and obvious downsides in a longer strategic sense.
Either you’re viewed as being consistently obstructionist because you’re well, consistently obstructionist, or your opponents adopt similar tactics or both.
On October 07 2020 13:49 Shingi11 wrote: While i am happy that trump is misplaying this so badly I am just so confused about his line of thinking. The economy is like the only good thing his whole administration can try to point to as a bright spot and he may of just crashed it right before the election. To say you are going to hard shut down talks tell after election just seems so dumb. (also the implied threat that you have to wait tell biden if i lose)
On October 07 2020 13:17 Starlightsun wrote:
On October 07 2020 11:48 Zambrah wrote:
On October 07 2020 11:43 Shingi11 wrote:
On October 07 2020 10:16 Zambrah wrote:
On October 07 2020 10:08 Mohdoo wrote:
On October 07 2020 07:02 Shingi11 wrote: If dems keep the filibuster around the recovery could be slow cause you know as soon as the GOP loses the upper chamber bipartisanship is going to be important to them again.
I can’t imagine a world where dems let another Obama happen. The moment republicans start to obstruct, my hope is that we essentially carpet bomb that effort
Worry not, leader of the House Democrats Nancy Pelosi would never let that happen, as she proclaims that we need a STRONG Republican party!
Seriously, Democrats are spineless and they are just as incentivized to accomplish nothing as Republicans are.
If they want to signal they'll ACTUALLY fight Republicans properly they'll expand the Supreme Court, and go from there to secure good policy that Americans actually want.
I think that if the repubs push through Ms.religions lady there will be enough anger. I dont if you have on blinders or what but there have been multiple senators that have said they have had enough. Even Pelosi and Schumer have given nods that they are done with the games from Mcturtle. There is will there.
I need more than faux Democrat outrage, I need their words to say, "We will increase the roster of the Supreme Court" and then one of the first things they need to do once in power is increase the roster of the Supreme Court.
Democrats say lots of things, and I'm not really at the point where I'm willing to buy them at their word.
If they're seriously done with Republican bullshit they'll act quickly and decisively to stop it, ranging from stacking the Supreme Court to increasing voter enfranchisement by voting on federal elections a federal holiday, etc.
I don't know, it could be dangerous to say things like that right before a big election. It could motivate some Democrats but possibly backfire too. Personally I'd be happy to see it though, given that the Republicans are openly announcing now that their priority is to stack the courts while the many Americans desperate for relief aid can basically get fucked.
I agree, while the odds are looking good that dems will take the senate they are by no means certain. Just look at any of the senate debates that have been going. All the republican senators are literally foaming at the mouth to try and get there opponents to say they will stack the courts. That should tell you how dangerous that kinda talk can be right before an election. All those dreams die if dems fall short of 50
I don’t really get it either, genuinely wondering if the guy was still high on meds when this call was made.
Aside from anything else it’s not very consistent with the previous approach to intimately tie the previous (probably still insufficient) stimulus directly to the President’s hand with his signature being on the cheques and all that.
Apart from the potentially huge human and moral cost of doing this now, on a purely Trump-focused political pragmatism level it doesn’t make much sense to me either.
Unlike other legislative this is going to really bite people immediately, en masse and visibly and it seems Trump’s polling is going south so that he needs something in the win column that he can hang his hat on. I’ve noticed Trump is a lot lighter with the ‘art of the deal’ rhetoric these days, perhaps commensurate with his seeming inability to actually make deals when he doesn’t have by far the better hand.
I don’t know, my instinct with this is that the idea that the Dems will take the heat for this is a miscalculation and unlike other legislative quagmires in the past the failure to pass another stimulus will be immediately felt across the political spectrum.
I may be wrong on this as I’ve been wrong many times before. If I were to try and employ this broad tactic I would be campaigning right up to Election Day on trying hard to pass a stimulus and the Dems being the impediment, not dropping it now and in this manner. That way it’s less likely to stick to me.
He did something similar previously with a government shutdown no? Or maybe he actually thinks that it will work as a threat to make people vote for him, it could also be all the drugs he got in the last few days that apparently have all sorts of mental side effects.
But I still think this wasn't Trump's idea, this was the people around him convincing him that this is a good idea, while knowing that it is not. But they are seeing how much of a long shot winning is and preparing the way to be in the opposition, by sabotaging the relief effort and crashing the economy further before Biden takes over so they can run the mid-terms on how bad Biden was for the economy. And yes I realise that sounds like a conspiracy theory but can you honestly say the likes of Mitch McConnell wouldn't be capable of doing it?
On October 07 2020 11:53 Nevuk wrote: More seriously: The average democratic voter may have been calling republicans racists for years now, but it wasn't until very recently that anyone in party leadership started echoing it when talking about people rather than very specific actions. Voting rights act repeal of 2013? They would call it racist, but they wouldn't call Boehner racist.
It wasn't until Hillary in 2016 called them a basket of deplorables that anyone in leadership said it about republicans, and that was clearly an unintentional gaffe. Michelle Obama recently saying that Trump's campaign was racist in a scripted speech is the closest I've seen.
There's a lot of "obscure democratic blogger wrongly calls out racism" "falsely accused victim goes on fox news and conservative talk radio to talk about how reverse racism is the real issue and how it murdered their wife and slept with their dog" that makes cries of racism seem a lot more common and powerful than they really are.
Started getting like that until around 2008-2009 when social media took off. Also starting around this time news article became more clickbait instead of actual news. Seems to coincide with the rise of the smartphone and people not using their PC so much. The pool is far larger than the mid 2000's (# of users online & actual content online) and people need to say crazier stuff to get noticed, whether to satisy their narcissism, earn them a few bucks or both.That explains a lot of it.
On October 07 2020 11:53 Nevuk wrote: More seriously: The average democratic voter may have been calling republicans racists for years now, but it wasn't until very recently that anyone in party leadership started echoing it when talking about people rather than very specific actions. Voting rights act repeal of 2013? They would call it racist, but they wouldn't call Boehner racist.
It wasn't until Hillary in 2016 called them a basket of deplorables that anyone in leadership said it about republicans, and that was clearly an unintentional gaffe. Michelle Obama recently saying that Trump's campaign was racist in a scripted speech is the closest I've seen.
There's a lot of "obscure democratic blogger wrongly calls out racism" "falsely accused victim goes on fox news and conservative talk radio to talk about how reverse racism is the real issue and how it murdered their wife and slept with their dog" that makes cries of racism seem a lot more common and powerful than they really are.
Started getting like that until around 2008-2009 when social media took off. Also starting around this time news article became more clickbait instead of actual news. Seems to coincide with the rise of the smartphone and people not using their PC so much. The pool is far larger than the mid 2000's (# of users online & actual content online) and people need to say crazier stuff to get noticed, whether to satisy their narcissism, earn them a few bucks or both.That explains a lot of it.
Was it because social media took off around 2008 or was it because 1/3 of the country lost their mind when a black man became President?
The fact this isn't remotely as big of an issue in the rest of the world kinda leads me to think it might not be social media.
On October 07 2020 20:42 Gorsameth wrote: Was it because social media took off around 2008 or was it because 1/3 of the country lost their mind when a black man became President?
Really? Here's the thing, that supposed 1/3, they aren't the ones who've been doing all the rioting and looting since the 2016 election (the aftermath of the election and the recent riots we've seen).The extremists are on the left. The left went insane because suddenly, someone stopped their agenda.Even last month, we saw critical race theory banned in US Government and companies dealing with the Government. Thats why this has hyped up so much since 2016.Before then they were just fighting people opposed to the agenda whilst the agenda was still moving forward. Thats why they're squealing so loud now. They've lost control.
Plus i would say we have seen comparable situation in the UK, with Brexit and the 2019 UK election.The left reaction has been just as juvenile, for same reasons outlined above.
The unwillingness of folks like Nettles to wrestle with the implications of the fact that particular kinds of awful people support the same people they do will not be forgotten. Here's one among a host of reasons why Nettle's post is divorced from reality in lockstep with the far-right media he consumes.
Asked at yesterday’s presidential debate if he would condemn white supremacist violence by groups like the Proud Boys, President Trump was defiant, remarking: “Almost everything I see is from the left-wing, not the right-wing.” But that very same day, the FBI issued an intelligence report warning of an imminent “violent extremist threat” posed by a far-right militia that includes white supremacists—identifying the current election period up to the 2021 inauguration as a “potential flashpoint.”
The report, obtained exclusively by The Nation and titled “Boogaloo Adherents Likely Increasing Anti-Government Violent Rhetoric and Activities, Increasing Domestic Violent Extremist Threat in the FBI Dallas Area of Responsibility,” warns of the threat posed by the far-right militia group known as the “Boogaloos.” Marked for official use only and law enforcement sensitive, the document was prepared by the FBI’s Dallas Field Office and is dated September 29, 2020. It draws on a wide array of intelligence sources, making specific mention of human sources—suggesting that the Bureau may have confidential informants within the group. The document points to several catalysts for the rise in the group’s membership, including resentment over perceived government overreach embodied by the Covid-19 shutdown and the presidential election.
The document states,
FBI Dallas Field Office judges in the next three months, continuing up to the January 2021 inauguration with the presidential elections acting as a potential flashpoint, boogaloo adherents likely will expand influence within the FBI Dallas AOR [Area of Responsibility] due to the presence of existing anti-government or anti-authority violent extremists, the sentiment of perceived government overreach, heightened tensions due to COVID-19-related state and local restrictions, and violence or criminal activity at lawful protests as a result of the death of an African American USPER [US person] in Minneapolis, factors that led to violence at otherwise peaceful and lawful protests in the FBI Dallas AOR.
The word “Boogaloo” refers to a second American Civil War, which the loosely organized, fiercely anti-government group has declared its intention to bring about. Its members often wear an outfit of military fatigues and a Hawaiian shirt. While the Boogaloos clearly contain white supremacist elements—many members believe the coming civil war will be a race war—their main focus is strident opposition to government.
While skepticism of government is undoubtedly a common sentiment, the Boogaloos have distinguished themselves by carrying out significant acts of violence in furtherance of this belief. For example, this summer, one Boogaloo, Steven Carrillo, is alleged to have killed two law enforcement officers in Northern California. True to the group’s desire to hasten the next civil war, Carrilllo is alleged to have killed the law enforcement officers at an otherwise peaceful demonstration with a silenced machine gun, in hopes of provoking retaliation from the police against the demonstrators. Later in September, two other Boogaloo members were arrested and charged with providing material support to Hamas. The two men are alleged to have told an FBI informant posing as a Hamas member that they shared a common ideology in opposing the US government, and offered to act as mercenaries.
Two human sources are identified as being central to the judgments in the intelligence assessment. One of the sources has reported various threats since 2017, and some of the information reported has since been corroborated. The report mentions one source, claiming to have “direct access” to the Boogaloos, quoting a heavily armed member’s intentions to “hunt” anti-fascist anarchists and shoot any looters. The language echoes that of President Trump, who, following this summer’s civil unrest, tweeted, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts.” As The Nation reported in June, the same day that Trump announced his intention to designate “Antifa” a terrorist group, the FBI’s Washington Field Office was unable to find any evidence of antifa involvement in the violence. However, in July, The Nation reported that the US intelligence community was tracking a “potential threat to law enforcement” from the Boogaloos. While antifa groups have engaged in acts of property destruction and sometimes violence, a recent study published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that anti-fascist groups have not been involved in a single murder in the United States in the past 25 years.
The intelligence report concludes by citing concerns of the Boogaloos’ “increased ‘patrolling’ or attendance at events” amenable to their cause. You might say those orders are coming from the top—at the presidential debate last night, President Trump called for his supporters to patrol polling places. “I’m urging my supporters to go into the polls and watch very carefully because that’s what has to happen,” Trump said.
On October 07 2020 21:01 farvacola wrote: The unwillingness of folks like Nettles to wrestle with the implications of the fact that particular kinds of awful people support the same people they do will not be forgotten. Here's one among a host of reasons why Nettle's post is divorced from reality in lockstep with the far-right media he consumes.
Asked at yesterday’s presidential debate if he would condemn white supremacist violence by groups like the Proud Boys, President Trump was defiant, remarking: “Almost everything I see is from the left-wing, not the right-wing.” But that very same day, the FBI issued an intelligence report warning of an imminent “violent extremist threat” posed by a far-right militia that includes white supremacists—identifying the current election period up to the 2021 inauguration as a “potential flashpoint.”
The report, obtained exclusively by The Nation and titled “Boogaloo Adherents Likely Increasing Anti-Government Violent Rhetoric and Activities, Increasing Domestic Violent Extremist Threat in the FBI Dallas Area of Responsibility,” warns of the threat posed by the far-right militia group known as the “Boogaloos.” Marked for official use only and law enforcement sensitive, the document was prepared by the FBI’s Dallas Field Office and is dated September 29, 2020. It draws on a wide array of intelligence sources, making specific mention of human sources—suggesting that the Bureau may have confidential informants within the group. The document points to several catalysts for the rise in the group’s membership, including resentment over perceived government overreach embodied by the Covid-19 shutdown and the presidential election.
The document states,
FBI Dallas Field Office judges in the next three months, continuing up to the January 2021 inauguration with the presidential elections acting as a potential flashpoint, boogaloo adherents likely will expand influence within the FBI Dallas AOR [Area of Responsibility] due to the presence of existing anti-government or anti-authority violent extremists, the sentiment of perceived government overreach, heightened tensions due to COVID-19-related state and local restrictions, and violence or criminal activity at lawful protests as a result of the death of an African American USPER [US person] in Minneapolis, factors that led to violence at otherwise peaceful and lawful protests in the FBI Dallas AOR.
The word “Boogaloo” refers to a second American Civil War, which the loosely organized, fiercely anti-government group has declared its intention to bring about. Its members often wear an outfit of military fatigues and a Hawaiian shirt. While the Boogaloos clearly contain white supremacist elements—many members believe the coming civil war will be a race war—their main focus is strident opposition to government.
While skepticism of government is undoubtedly a common sentiment, the Boogaloos have distinguished themselves by carrying out significant acts of violence in furtherance of this belief. For example, this summer, one Boogaloo, Steven Carrillo, is alleged to have killed two law enforcement officers in Northern California. True to the group’s desire to hasten the next civil war, Carrilllo is alleged to have killed the law enforcement officers at an otherwise peaceful demonstration with a silenced machine gun, in hopes of provoking retaliation from the police against the demonstrators. Later in September, two other Boogaloo members were arrested and charged with providing material support to Hamas. The two men are alleged to have told an FBI informant posing as a Hamas member that they shared a common ideology in opposing the US government, and offered to act as mercenaries.
Two human sources are identified as being central to the judgments in the intelligence assessment. One of the sources has reported various threats since 2017, and some of the information reported has since been corroborated. The report mentions one source, claiming to have “direct access” to the Boogaloos, quoting a heavily armed member’s intentions to “hunt” anti-fascist anarchists and shoot any looters. The language echoes that of President Trump, who, following this summer’s civil unrest, tweeted, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts.” As The Nation reported in June, the same day that Trump announced his intention to designate “Antifa” a terrorist group, the FBI’s Washington Field Office was unable to find any evidence of antifa involvement in the violence. However, in July, The Nation reported that the US intelligence community was tracking a “potential threat to law enforcement” from the Boogaloos. While antifa groups have engaged in acts of property destruction and sometimes violence, a recent study published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that anti-fascist groups have not been involved in a single murder in the United States in the past 25 years.
The intelligence report concludes by citing concerns of the Boogaloos’ “increased ‘patrolling’ or attendance at events” amenable to their cause. You might say those orders are coming from the top—at the presidential debate last night, President Trump called for his supporters to patrol polling places. “I’m urging my supporters to go into the polls and watch very carefully because that’s what has to happen,” Trump said.
Meanwhile, those of us on the left keep hearing from our most radical elements that Biden is a hopeless racist dinosaur. Tit for tat indeed.
He didn't even know who the Proud Boys were.But like i said previously on here, he officially designated KKK as a terrorist organisation last month.Biden had 8 years to do this, why didn't he? Biden even gave a eulogy at former KKK recruiter Robert Byrds funeral.C'mon man!
Trump has condemned white supremacy many, many times.
On October 07 2020 20:42 Gorsameth wrote: Was it because social media took off around 2008 or was it because 1/3 of the country lost their mind when a black man became President?
Really? Here's the thing, that supposed 1/3, they aren't the ones who've been doing all the rioting and looting since the 2016 election (the aftermath of the election and the recent riots we've seen).The extremists are on the left. The left went insane because suddenly, someone stopped their agenda.Even last month, we saw critical race theory banned in US Government and companies dealing with the Government. Thats why this has hyped up so much since 2016.Before then they were just fighting people opposed to the agenda whilst the agenda was still moving forward. Thats why they're squealing so loud now. They've lost control.
Plus i would say we have seen comparable situation in the UK, with Brexit and the 2019 UK election.The left reaction has been just as juvenile, for same reasons outlined above.
right, not like the 'rioting and looting' had a clear origin in black people being repeatedly executed by police. Obviously they should just accept that as part of every day life.
Or should we look at the government for many years now, including under Trump, having put out reports that list white supremacists as the biggest terrorist threat to the US. here is the latest DHS report, released yesterday. On page 18
Among DVE(Domestic Violent Extremists), racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists—specifically white supremacist extremists (WSEs)—will remain the most persistent and lethal threat in the Homeland.
Do I need to link a list of all domestic terrorist attacks in the US? we can have a look at how many are left vs right wing (hint, you won't like the answer).
Nice job moving the goalposts Nettles, Trump soundbites and empty gestures (which we're supposed to ignore, depending on the day and the Trump apologism at hand) are irrelevant to how wrong your original point was. The notion that the right does not have dangerous elements is utter nonsense.
On October 07 2020 21:01 farvacola wrote: The unwillingness of folks like Nettles to wrestle with the implications of the fact that particular kinds of awful people support the same people they do will not be forgotten. Here's one among a host of reasons why Nettle's post is divorced from reality in lockstep with the far-right media he consumes.
Asked at yesterday’s presidential debate if he would condemn white supremacist violence by groups like the Proud Boys, President Trump was defiant, remarking: “Almost everything I see is from the left-wing, not the right-wing.” But that very same day, the FBI issued an intelligence report warning of an imminent “violent extremist threat” posed by a far-right militia that includes white supremacists—identifying the current election period up to the 2021 inauguration as a “potential flashpoint.”
The report, obtained exclusively by The Nation and titled “Boogaloo Adherents Likely Increasing Anti-Government Violent Rhetoric and Activities, Increasing Domestic Violent Extremist Threat in the FBI Dallas Area of Responsibility,” warns of the threat posed by the far-right militia group known as the “Boogaloos.” Marked for official use only and law enforcement sensitive, the document was prepared by the FBI’s Dallas Field Office and is dated September 29, 2020. It draws on a wide array of intelligence sources, making specific mention of human sources—suggesting that the Bureau may have confidential informants within the group. The document points to several catalysts for the rise in the group’s membership, including resentment over perceived government overreach embodied by the Covid-19 shutdown and the presidential election.
The document states,
FBI Dallas Field Office judges in the next three months, continuing up to the January 2021 inauguration with the presidential elections acting as a potential flashpoint, boogaloo adherents likely will expand influence within the FBI Dallas AOR [Area of Responsibility] due to the presence of existing anti-government or anti-authority violent extremists, the sentiment of perceived government overreach, heightened tensions due to COVID-19-related state and local restrictions, and violence or criminal activity at lawful protests as a result of the death of an African American USPER [US person] in Minneapolis, factors that led to violence at otherwise peaceful and lawful protests in the FBI Dallas AOR.
The word “Boogaloo” refers to a second American Civil War, which the loosely organized, fiercely anti-government group has declared its intention to bring about. Its members often wear an outfit of military fatigues and a Hawaiian shirt. While the Boogaloos clearly contain white supremacist elements—many members believe the coming civil war will be a race war—their main focus is strident opposition to government.
While skepticism of government is undoubtedly a common sentiment, the Boogaloos have distinguished themselves by carrying out significant acts of violence in furtherance of this belief. For example, this summer, one Boogaloo, Steven Carrillo, is alleged to have killed two law enforcement officers in Northern California. True to the group’s desire to hasten the next civil war, Carrilllo is alleged to have killed the law enforcement officers at an otherwise peaceful demonstration with a silenced machine gun, in hopes of provoking retaliation from the police against the demonstrators. Later in September, two other Boogaloo members were arrested and charged with providing material support to Hamas. The two men are alleged to have told an FBI informant posing as a Hamas member that they shared a common ideology in opposing the US government, and offered to act as mercenaries.
Two human sources are identified as being central to the judgments in the intelligence assessment. One of the sources has reported various threats since 2017, and some of the information reported has since been corroborated. The report mentions one source, claiming to have “direct access” to the Boogaloos, quoting a heavily armed member’s intentions to “hunt” anti-fascist anarchists and shoot any looters. The language echoes that of President Trump, who, following this summer’s civil unrest, tweeted, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts.” As The Nation reported in June, the same day that Trump announced his intention to designate “Antifa” a terrorist group, the FBI’s Washington Field Office was unable to find any evidence of antifa involvement in the violence. However, in July, The Nation reported that the US intelligence community was tracking a “potential threat to law enforcement” from the Boogaloos. While antifa groups have engaged in acts of property destruction and sometimes violence, a recent study published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that anti-fascist groups have not been involved in a single murder in the United States in the past 25 years.
The intelligence report concludes by citing concerns of the Boogaloos’ “increased ‘patrolling’ or attendance at events” amenable to their cause. You might say those orders are coming from the top—at the presidential debate last night, President Trump called for his supporters to patrol polling places. “I’m urging my supporters to go into the polls and watch very carefully because that’s what has to happen,” Trump said.
Meanwhile, those of us on the left keep hearing from our most radical elements that Biden is a hopeless racist dinosaur. Tit for tat indeed.
He didn't even know who the Proud Boys were.But like i said previously on here, he officially designated KKK as a terrorist organisation last month.Biden had 8 years to do this, why didn't he? Biden even gave a eulogy at former KKK recruiter Robert Byrds funeral.C'mon man!
But he constantly compares Antifa to white supremacists and says they are worse. All the evidence provided by law enforcement, who would be the ones in possession of the actual facts around this, says that the opposite is true, that Antifa have been barely active this year (ie barely involved in BLM) and white supremacists are the biggest terrorist threat to the US, and have infiltrated the police without trying because police officers are volunteering to use police resources inservice of white supremacist goals. Do you ever hear Trump talking about this stuff? Why not?
On October 07 2020 21:13 Gorsameth wrote: right, not like the 'rioting and looting' had a clear origin in black people being repeatedly executed by police. Obviously they should just accept that as part of every day life.
No, but maybe there are better ways of enacting change than burning down entire city blocks and killing people in riots? The epidemic is gang violence, but since that happens in democrat run cities and can't be used for political gain by the democrats it's only spoken in whispers.Hows Chicago?
Or should we look at the government for many years now, including under Trump, having put out reports that list white supremacists as the biggest terrorist threat to the US. here is the latest DHS report, released yesterday. On page 18
Among DVE(Domestic Violent Extremists), racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists—specifically white supremacist extremists (WSEs)—will remain the most persistent and lethal threat in the Homeland.
Do I need to link a list of all domestic terrorist attacks in the US? we can have a look at how many are left vs right wing (hint, you won't like the answer).
Right wingers aren't shutting down entire cities, they're not building cities within cities (CHAZ).Trump designated Antifa (along with KKK) as a terrorist organisation as well last month. You want to see left wing terrorism on an even greater scale than what we've been seeing? Watch what happens when Trump wins again in November.
On October 07 2020 21:13 Gorsameth wrote: right, not like the 'rioting and looting' had a clear origin in black people being repeatedly executed by police. Obviously they should just accept that as part of every day life.
No, but maybe there are better ways of enacting change than burning down entire city blocks and killing people in riots? The epidemic is gang violence, but since that happens in democrat run cities and can't be used for political gain by the democrats it's only spoken in whispers.Hows Chicago?
Or should we look at the government for many years now, including under Trump, having put out reports that list white supremacists as the biggest terrorist threat to the US. here is the latest DHS report, released yesterday. On page 18
Among DVE(Domestic Violent Extremists), racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists—specifically white supremacist extremists (WSEs)—will remain the most persistent and lethal threat in the Homeland.
Do I need to link a list of all domestic terrorist attacks in the US? we can have a look at how many are left vs right wing (hint, you won't like the answer).
Right wingers aren't shutting down entire cities, they're not building cities within cities (CHAZ).Trump designated Antifa (along with KKK) as a terrorist organisation as well last month. You want to see left wing terrorism on an even greater scale than what we've been seeing? Watch what happens when Trump wins again in November.
93% of BLM protests have been completely peaceful, and where violence was started is was usually by infiltrators or police. Would you like me to link you the FBI report?
EPT
