|
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.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 13 2025 05:00 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 04:22 BlackJack wrote:On March 13 2025 04:19 Fleetfeet wrote:On March 13 2025 04:12 BlackJack wrote:
It's certainly harsh to punish some naive hooligan as a domestic terrorist but as a matter of fact the destruction of property as a means of intimidation/coercion for political/ideological reasons can easily be considered terrorism. Do you think there's a form of protest that the current government would support? There seems to be a strong urge from them to silence dissenters. Why would any government "support" any protest against said government? Because they have a genuine and strong belief in freedom of expression as a foundational principle of democracy.
I guess one could be splitting hairs here and differentiate between "supporting the protest" and "supporting the right to protest", where "supporting the protest" entails having the same goals, while "supporting the right to protest" just entails making sure that the protest can happen, even if you don't agree with the actual statements of the protest.
I think the second is very necessary and important. The first is not something goverments usually do, especially with protests against said government.
|
On March 13 2025 04:22 oBlade wrote:Anybody messing with transportation in any way should be poetically railroaded by terrorism statutes. Mass slashing of tires, breaking city blocks worth of windows, catalytic converter harvesting, blocking entire highways with those conga lines. If it creates fear or has any political component, as we already know it does with Tesla, it belongs in GITMO not society. No country need tolerate this.
Counterpoint: Saboteurs in the third Reich faced execution, they‘d be the terrorists you‘d speak highly of in another context.
It‘s currently not very clear yet if the US is approaching that tier of villainy. But the danger is always there once the technology is advanced enough and everyone on the left has been branded a terrorist and punished.
Looks like Trump is scrambling to find an enemy in his narrative and so far he has presented Canada, Europe, China, Mexico, Ukraine and Russia as potential adversaries who didn‘t say thank you enough perhaps.
I think you‘re mostly safe until paramilitaries start terrorizing people though.
|
United States43860 Posts
On March 13 2025 04:12 BlackJack wrote:
It's certainly harsh to punish some naive hooligan as a domestic terrorist but as a matter of fact the destruction of property as a means of intimidation/coercion for political/ideological reasons can easily be considered terrorism.
We already have laws against vandalism. What you're proposing here is a thought crime where they're prosecuted not for the vandalism but for the beliefs in their heart during the vandalism. Though conservatives have always believed that they deserve to be a protected class.
|
On March 13 2025 05:04 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 05:00 Jockmcplop wrote:On March 13 2025 04:22 BlackJack wrote:On March 13 2025 04:19 Fleetfeet wrote:On March 13 2025 04:12 BlackJack wrote:
It's certainly harsh to punish some naive hooligan as a domestic terrorist but as a matter of fact the destruction of property as a means of intimidation/coercion for political/ideological reasons can easily be considered terrorism. Do you think there's a form of protest that the current government would support? There seems to be a strong urge from them to silence dissenters. Why would any government "support" any protest against said government? Because they have a genuine and strong belief in freedom of expression as a foundational principle of democracy. I guess one could be splitting hairs here and differentiate between "supporting the protest" and "supporting the right to protest", where "supporting the protest" entails having the same goals, while "supporting the right to protest" just entails making sure that the protest can happen, even if you don't agree with the actual statements of the protest. I think the second is very necessary and important. The first is not something goverments usually do, especially with protests against said government.
The hairs are there to be split!
I think the reason I worded my response the way I did is that if a government truly believes that freedom of expression is a foundational principle of democracy, they should not just put up with protests without cracking down, but actively support people who engage with politics in this way, regardless of their particular stance.
If they are pretending to believe in freedom of expression as a foundational principle of democracy, then they would clearly have to just put up with the protests so that people believe them.
If you're Trump and your supporters are Trump supporters, you can pretend to believe in freedom of expression as a foundational principle of democracy while constantly violating it every time someone speaks up against them and people will still believe them, but that's our modern world.
|
On March 13 2025 05:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 04:12 BlackJack wrote:
It's certainly harsh to punish some naive hooligan as a domestic terrorist but as a matter of fact the destruction of property as a means of intimidation/coercion for political/ideological reasons can easily be considered terrorism. We already have laws against vandalism. What you're proposing here is a thought crime where they're prosecuted not for the vandalism but for the beliefs in their heart during the vandalism. Though conservatives have always believed that they deserve to be a protected class.
Yeah... that's what terrorism is. We also have laws against flying jets into buildings.
|
On March 13 2025 04:59 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 04:22 BlackJack wrote:On March 13 2025 04:19 Fleetfeet wrote:On March 13 2025 04:12 BlackJack wrote:
It's certainly harsh to punish some naive hooligan as a domestic terrorist but as a matter of fact the destruction of property as a means of intimidation/coercion for political/ideological reasons can easily be considered terrorism. Do you think there's a form of protest that the current government would support? There seems to be a strong urge from them to silence dissenters. Why would any government "support" any protest against said government? form of protest*, not protest.
Well there have been protests happening daily across the entire country since the election... I don't know if the government is supposed to be supportive of that but clearly they are tolerated.
|
On March 13 2025 01:54 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 01:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 13 2025 01:05 WombaT wrote:On March 13 2025 00:47 GreenHorizons wrote:LibHorizons: 14 Democrats is wayyyy too few to sign on to a letter calling for Mahmoud Khalil to be released. Pretty disappointing that AOC wasn't one of them. Fourteen House Democrats dispatched an emphatic letter Wednesday to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, demanding the immediate release of Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University graduate who has been arrested and detained based on accusations stemming from his campus advocacy for Palestinian rights. A legal resident of the United States who holds a green card and is married to a US citizen, Khalil was arrested Saturday by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, and detained in Louisiana, as a part of a crackdown on dissent being cheered on by President Trump. That represents a grave threat to the right of anyone to dissent in the United States, say the House members. “We are horrified by the recent illegal abduction and now indefinite detention of Mahmoud Khalil —a U.S. legal permanent resident—by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents, and we unequivocally demand his immediate release from DHS custody,” explained their letter, which recounted details of Khalil’s arrest and declared, “Based on these facts, Khalil’s constitutional rights have been violated.” www.thenation.com AOC did speak about it at least. I agree that the low number of signatories is disappointing for sure. On the flip side, I mean does it matter how many sign on to a letter to a Trump appointee? Are they going to listen or do anything? Perhaps going to the court of public opinion is the better option, although IMO doing both is preferable. LibHorizons: Pretty much the last thing Democrats will have to slow/stop Trump/Musk is not voting for the Republican CR Friday. Senate Democrats are considering their next move after the House narrowly passed a stopgap measure to keep the government funded through September, with a fast-approaching Friday deadline to avert a possible government shutdown.
House Republicans approved the six-month funding measure with the support of just one Democrat on Tuesday. The bill, known as a continuing resolution, increases defense spending and funding for veterans' health care, while decreasing non-defense spending below 2024 levels. It also includes more funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
With the House passage, the measure now heads to the Senate, where Republicans, with a 53-seat majority, need support from Democrats to reach a 60-vote threshold to propel the measure to passage. ...
Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky has also pledged to oppose the measure, making support from at least eight Democrats necessary to pass the measure and send it to the president's desk. www.cbsnews.com I’m intrigued as to why Rand Paul is the outlying GOP dissenter on this. May have to have a wee search. Ok. Did said search he seems to want to cut from x to pay for y, far as I can tell. https://truthout.org/articles/as-dems-mull-continuing-resolution-sources-say-elon-musk-wants-a-shutdown/Could be bullshit, it’s a source I’m not super au fait with, and a bunch of anonymous sources. On the other hand, it does feel plausible. So perhaps pushing in this direction is more tricky than it first appears. I’m only really getting up to speed on the specifics and mechanics right now, so I’ve a fair few gaps I’m seeking to fill. LibHorizons: It's plenty tricky on first appearance too. It's just the last significant leverage they have besides access to the capital for playing GTA.
Sounds like both passing it or shutting down the government make it easier to fire people and destroy agencies:
...the bill contains several spending cuts (including lessening federal support for Washington, D.C.’s budget by $1 billion), and would empower Trump and Musk to continue their DOGE project to slash federal agencies, eliminating hundreds of thousands of jobs and cutting critical spending.
Shutting the government down is what should happen if Trump/Musk are a fraction of the threat we're told they are every day, and arguably are, evidenced by their actions thus far.
|
On March 13 2025 05:09 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 05:07 KwarK wrote:On March 13 2025 04:12 BlackJack wrote:
It's certainly harsh to punish some naive hooligan as a domestic terrorist but as a matter of fact the destruction of property as a means of intimidation/coercion for political/ideological reasons can easily be considered terrorism. We already have laws against vandalism. What you're proposing here is a thought crime where they're prosecuted not for the vandalism but for the beliefs in their heart during the vandalism. Though conservatives have always believed that they deserve to be a protected class. Yeah... that's what terrorism is. We also have laws against flying jets into buildings.
That‘s attempted mass murder, not vandalism.
You‘re saying that if someone kicked a fence in because the owner is a Republican, he should get shipped off to Guantanamo ? Where do you draw the line. Terrorism usually involves an endangerment of physical well-being of other people, not objects. (And through physical action)
You need to take risks at some point when the political establishment is turning to shit. These risks involve speaking up and possibly getting shit on.
Beats getting shot at when you try that too late.
|
Norway28784 Posts
Tbh I'd assume an american tesla owner is still more likely to be a liberal/democrat than a maga republican. Might not apply to vehicles sold in the past four months or whatnot but I never associated MAGA with EVs, and I know left-leaning people who bought teslas two years ago thinking 'well ok musk is kinda fucked up but it's a better bang for the buck than I get elsewhere so fuck it'. They'd buy something else now, but his real political leanings weren't public knowledge one year+ ago.
So pretty dumb target for vandalism. Hit a tesla dealer, sure.
|
On March 13 2025 05:43 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Tbh I'd assume an american tesla owner is still more likely to be a liberal/democrat than a maga republican. Might not apply to vehicles sold in the past four months or whatnot but I never associated MAGA with EVs, and I know left-leaning people who bought teslas two years ago thinking 'well ok musk is kinda fucked up but it's a better bang for the buck than I get elsewhere so fuck it'. They'd buy something else now, but his real political leanings weren't public knowledge one year+ ago.
So pretty dumb target for vandalism. Hit a tesla dealer, sure.
Tesla got pushed hard during Trumps first term.
I think he never liked the fact that euros and japanese dominated the car market while the US dominated IT but because he‘s a greedy guy he had to try and tackle one of the last markets that kept those countries competitive.
Since that didn‘t work and he‘s experiencing pushback now he‘s punishing the competition with tariffs and giving his protege Musk access to confidential information to do what people usually do when they do Roman salutes on live tv.
They‘ll tell you it‘s harmless stuff like improving government efficiency while a bunch of people get aggregated by political beliefs, sexual orientation etc. and put on some shitlist in case they ever get powerful enough to have a chance at eliminating them for good, probably.
|
On March 13 2025 05:10 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 04:59 Fleetfeet wrote:On March 13 2025 04:22 BlackJack wrote:On March 13 2025 04:19 Fleetfeet wrote:On March 13 2025 04:12 BlackJack wrote:
It's certainly harsh to punish some naive hooligan as a domestic terrorist but as a matter of fact the destruction of property as a means of intimidation/coercion for political/ideological reasons can easily be considered terrorism. Do you think there's a form of protest that the current government would support? There seems to be a strong urge from them to silence dissenters. Why would any government "support" any protest against said government? form of protest*, not protest. Well there have been protests happening daily across the entire country since the election... I don't know if the government is supposed to be supportive of that but clearly they are tolerated.
You don't know if the government should be supportive of its citizen's right to protest?
|
United States24768 Posts
On March 13 2025 05:43 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Tbh I'd assume an american tesla owner is still more likely to be a liberal/democrat than a maga republican. Might not apply to vehicles sold in the past four months or whatnot but I never associated MAGA with EVs, and I know left-leaning people who bought teslas two years ago thinking 'well ok musk is kinda fucked up but it's a better bang for the buck than I get elsewhere so fuck it'. They'd buy something else now, but his real political leanings weren't public knowledge one year+ ago.
So pretty dumb target for vandalism. Hit a tesla dealer, sure.
I see it less as anti-MAGA and more anti-Musk at this point. They are related but distinct.
|
On March 13 2025 05:26 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 05:09 BlackJack wrote:On March 13 2025 05:07 KwarK wrote:On March 13 2025 04:12 BlackJack wrote:
It's certainly harsh to punish some naive hooligan as a domestic terrorist but as a matter of fact the destruction of property as a means of intimidation/coercion for political/ideological reasons can easily be considered terrorism. We already have laws against vandalism. What you're proposing here is a thought crime where they're prosecuted not for the vandalism but for the beliefs in their heart during the vandalism. Though conservatives have always believed that they deserve to be a protected class. Yeah... that's what terrorism is. We also have laws against flying jets into buildings. That‘s attempted mass murder, not vandalism. You‘re saying that if someone kicked a fence in because the owner is a Republican, he should get shipped off to Guantanamo ? Where do you draw the line. Terrorism usually involves an endangerment of physical well-being of other people, not objects. (And through physical action) You need to take risks at some point when the political establishment is turning to shit. These risks involve speaking up and possibly getting shit on. Beats getting shot at when you try that too late.
I'm not saying anyone should get shipped off to guantanamo... I'm merely pointing out that as far as the definition of terrorism goes this clearly fits it.
I'm sure this discussion will go how most of these discussions go...
I'll make some analogy to highlight the hypocrisy like... "If a white supremacist went around torching the cars of black people because they don't think black people should be in their town then everyone would agree that's a form of domestic terrorism."
Then someone will reply "Well that's different because black people are being targeted and they are a protected class. For it to be terrorism it has to be intimidation against race/religion/sex or some other protected class and not against a political ideology."
Then I'll point out that that's never been a criteria for terrorism and it's something that was just invented for the sake of this argument.
But it won't matter because 10 other people will come in and also perform the necessary mental gymnastics to agree with this new arbitrary criteria in order to prove me wrong.
Eventually I'll get annoyed and give up and let people have their own definitions for words
|
On March 13 2025 06:04 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 05:10 BlackJack wrote:On March 13 2025 04:59 Fleetfeet wrote:On March 13 2025 04:22 BlackJack wrote:On March 13 2025 04:19 Fleetfeet wrote:On March 13 2025 04:12 BlackJack wrote:
It's certainly harsh to punish some naive hooligan as a domestic terrorist but as a matter of fact the destruction of property as a means of intimidation/coercion for political/ideological reasons can easily be considered terrorism. Do you think there's a form of protest that the current government would support? There seems to be a strong urge from them to silence dissenters. Why would any government "support" any protest against said government? form of protest*, not protest. Well there have been protests happening daily across the entire country since the election... I don't know if the government is supposed to be supportive of that but clearly they are tolerated. You don't know if the government should be supportive of its citizen's right to protest?
Simberto answered this at the top of the page. Maybe it's splitting hairs but you're using "supportive of protest" and "supportive of a right to protest" interchangeably when they are two different things.
|
On March 13 2025 06:13 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 06:04 Fleetfeet wrote:On March 13 2025 05:10 BlackJack wrote:On March 13 2025 04:59 Fleetfeet wrote:On March 13 2025 04:22 BlackJack wrote:On March 13 2025 04:19 Fleetfeet wrote:On March 13 2025 04:12 BlackJack wrote:
It's certainly harsh to punish some naive hooligan as a domestic terrorist but as a matter of fact the destruction of property as a means of intimidation/coercion for political/ideological reasons can easily be considered terrorism. Do you think there's a form of protest that the current government would support? There seems to be a strong urge from them to silence dissenters. Why would any government "support" any protest against said government? form of protest*, not protest. Well there have been protests happening daily across the entire country since the election... I don't know if the government is supposed to be supportive of that but clearly they are tolerated. You don't know if the government should be supportive of its citizen's right to protest? Simberto answered this at the top of the page. Maybe it's splitting hairs but you're using "supportive of protest" and "supportive of a right to protest" interchangeably when they are two different things.
I am not. I said form of protest from the beginning. You misunderstood it as 'protest' and I corrected you.
Given I can name three (campus 'illegal protest', tesla 'illegal boycott' and tesla 'terrorism') questionable statements from the current administration regarding its citizens' right to protest off the top of my head, I'd say it isn't unreasonable to suggest they don't support their citizens right to protest.
I'm not pressuring you to make you fuck up fwiw. I know you as a devil's advocate and a free speech absolutist, and I was curious which would break first, given that this issue is at odds for those positions.
|
Northern Ireland26523 Posts
This tangent is the equivalent of spending an hour at your dinner party interrogating every guest to find out who farted, when another guest openly took a shit on the floor in front of everyone.
|
United States43860 Posts
On March 13 2025 05:09 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 05:07 KwarK wrote:On March 13 2025 04:12 BlackJack wrote:
It's certainly harsh to punish some naive hooligan as a domestic terrorist but as a matter of fact the destruction of property as a means of intimidation/coercion for political/ideological reasons can easily be considered terrorism. We already have laws against vandalism. What you're proposing here is a thought crime where they're prosecuted not for the vandalism but for the beliefs in their heart during the vandalism. Though conservatives have always believed that they deserve to be a protected class. Yeah... that's what terrorism is. We also have laws against flying jets into buildings.
Is it possible you're being a little hyperbolic here with the argument that keying a Tesla is terrorism because 9/11.
|
On March 13 2025 06:26 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 06:13 BlackJack wrote:On March 13 2025 06:04 Fleetfeet wrote:On March 13 2025 05:10 BlackJack wrote:On March 13 2025 04:59 Fleetfeet wrote:On March 13 2025 04:22 BlackJack wrote:On March 13 2025 04:19 Fleetfeet wrote:On March 13 2025 04:12 BlackJack wrote:
It's certainly harsh to punish some naive hooligan as a domestic terrorist but as a matter of fact the destruction of property as a means of intimidation/coercion for political/ideological reasons can easily be considered terrorism. Do you think there's a form of protest that the current government would support? There seems to be a strong urge from them to silence dissenters. Why would any government "support" any protest against said government? form of protest*, not protest. Well there have been protests happening daily across the entire country since the election... I don't know if the government is supposed to be supportive of that but clearly they are tolerated. You don't know if the government should be supportive of its citizen's right to protest? Simberto answered this at the top of the page. Maybe it's splitting hairs but you're using "supportive of protest" and "supportive of a right to protest" interchangeably when they are two different things. I am not. I said form of protest from the beginning. You misunderstood it as 'protest' and I corrected you. Given I can name three (campus 'illegal protest', tesla 'illegal boycott' and tesla 'terrorism') questionable statements from the current administration regarding its citizens' right to protest off the top of my head, I'd say it isn't unreasonable to suggest they don't support their citizens right to protest. I'm not pressuring you to make you fuck up fwiw. I know you as a devil's advocate and a free speech absolutist, and I was curious which would break first, given that this issue is at odds for those positions.
I don't see a meaningful difference between a government supportive of a protest against it or supporting a "form of protest" against it. Either way, I expect any government would not want to support protests against it or any "form of protest" against it.
Then you said "You don't know if the government should be supportive of its citizen's right to protest?"
Which is an entirely different question. Yes, governments should be supportive of its citizens' right to protest.
Are you now asking me whether Trump's government is supportive if its citizens' right to protest? I doubt it.
|
Northern Ireland26523 Posts
On March 13 2025 06:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 05:09 BlackJack wrote:On March 13 2025 05:07 KwarK wrote:On March 13 2025 04:12 BlackJack wrote:
It's certainly harsh to punish some naive hooligan as a domestic terrorist but as a matter of fact the destruction of property as a means of intimidation/coercion for political/ideological reasons can easily be considered terrorism. We already have laws against vandalism. What you're proposing here is a thought crime where they're prosecuted not for the vandalism but for the beliefs in their heart during the vandalism. Though conservatives have always believed that they deserve to be a protected class. Yeah... that's what terrorism is. We also have laws against flying jets into buildings. Is it possible you're being a little hyperbolic here with the argument that keying a Tesla is terrorism because 9/11.
I think a case can be made, by certain definitions.
Equally, who cares? In the wider scheme of things it’s a complete nothingburger.
|
On March 13 2025 06:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 05:09 BlackJack wrote:On March 13 2025 05:07 KwarK wrote:On March 13 2025 04:12 BlackJack wrote:
It's certainly harsh to punish some naive hooligan as a domestic terrorist but as a matter of fact the destruction of property as a means of intimidation/coercion for political/ideological reasons can easily be considered terrorism. We already have laws against vandalism. What you're proposing here is a thought crime where they're prosecuted not for the vandalism but for the beliefs in their heart during the vandalism. Though conservatives have always believed that they deserve to be a protected class. Yeah... that's what terrorism is. We also have laws against flying jets into buildings. Is it possible you're being a little hyperbolic here with the argument that keying a Tesla is terrorism because 9/11.
It's an example against your argument that "we already have laws against vandalism so we're prosecuting a thought crime."
Pretty much every "act of terrorism" is already in violation of some other law that's already on the books. In fact the "thought" or "intention" behind the action is the most core tenet of whether something is terrorism or not.
Setting a building on fire is arson. Setting a building on fire that's a mosque is also arson. But setting a mosque on fire to intimidate muslims is also... you guessed it... terrorism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
