Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Biden administration suppressing political dissenters as "domestic terrorists"

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,566

    Biden administration suppressing political dissenters as "domestic terrorists"

    To See the Danger of a Domestic “War on Terror,” Look No Further Than This Florida Case

    By Branko Marcetic

    Convinced his state capitol was set to be attacked by violent, far-right extremists, a Florida man called for armed resistance on social media and was promptly jailed. The episode is a case study of how easily a domestic "war on terror" will be turned on the Left.

    In the wake of January’s pro-Trump protest-turned-riot at the Capitol, some have warned of the dangers of a “war on terror”–style response to the episode, and how easily it could be turned against a host of activists, dissidents, and marginalized communities. A recent criminal case out of Florida shows these warnings are not just theoretical.

    On January 15, in Tallahassee, the FBI arrested thirty-three-year-old Daniel Alan Baker, a veteran and self-described “hardcore leftist” who had traveled the country last year participating in protests against police brutality. Described by various news outlets as involved in a “Florida Capitol plot” or plotting an attack on Trump supporters, Baker has been slapped with federal charges and denied bail on the grounds that he’s a flight risk.

    “Extremists intent on violence from either end of the political and social spectrums must be stopped, and they will be stopped,” said US attorney Larry Keefe. “This arrest serves as a message to anyone who intends to incite or commit violence in the Northern District of Florida: if you represent a threat to public safety, we will come for you, we will find you, and we will prosecute you.”

    Baker’s arrest was as dramatic as any of the scenes that came out of the Capitol three weeks ago. According to witnesses, early on a Friday morning, agents rushed Baker’s apartment, guns drawn, broke open the door, and threw a flash bang grenade, before arresting Baker “without incident.”

    How did a man described by his blind, elderly landlady as “a joy, very intelligent” and “considerate of the others who live here, quiet, well-behaved,” turn into what Keefe described as a “dangerous extremist” whose arrest had made the public safer? And what exactly had Baker done to justify a swarm of federal agents smashing down his door?

    Convinced of a Coup

    As the FBI’s criminal complaint lays out, Baker stands accused of “threatening the use of violence in the United States” and “using social media to recruit and train like-minded individuals in furtherance of his Ant-Government or Anti-Authority Violent Extremist Ideology.”

    It certainly sounds alarming. Such language suggests a left-wing version of this month’s thwarted violence in Washington, DC, and all manner of frightful scenarios: a plot to bomb the state capitol, to assassinate state lawmakers, or perhaps even to massacre the police officers he’d spent the previous year demonstrating against.

    But in fact, the FBI has neither presented evidence, nor accused Baker, of anything of the sort. Instead, the government’s case against Baker centers exclusively on his constitutionally protected speech — “extremist rhetoric,” in the FBI’s words. Namely, this refers to a series of social media posts targeting, as the complaint outlines, “those he claims are white supremacists, fascists, United States persons with different ideologies than his, and allies of the United States.”

    As thoroughly documented, Baker in recent months had become concerned that Trump was planning a “violent militant coup” since losing the election, and believed at several points that the United States was about to erupt in bloodshed and even civil war, even as these predictions failed to come true. These fears were escalated by what happened at the US Capitol weeks earlier.

    “With the riot, he was afraid there was going to be an armed coup, and it was going to happen at the state capitol,” says Jack Fox Keen, a friend of Baker’s.

    Alarmed at reports that Trump supporters and far-right demonstrators were planning armed protests in state capitols around the country — and concerned that local law enforcement neither had the numbers nor inclination to repel them — Baker urged people to take up arms and confront the protesters, envisioning himself and his allies encircling the crowd and trapping them inside the Capitol, before driving them out of the state.

    “They are staging an armed takeover, so only an armed community can stop them!” Baker wrote in the description of the “Defend Tallahassee” Facebook event he created, warning that “the enemy will have high power rifles and explosives,” and “is coming from every racist community in the area.”

    Prosecutors are also pointing to a flier titled “CALL TO ARMS JANUARY 20TH!” Baker allegedly posted as a comment to a local Tallahassee news station’s web article and printed physical copies of. Warning of “an ARMED COUP at every American Capitol,” the flier called on Floridians to “protect capitol RESIDENTS and CIVILIANS from armed racist mobs WITH EVERY CALIBER AVAILABLE,” and again urged attendees to “encircle” any protesters, “let them take the capitol and fight with the cops, SURROUND THEM AND TRAP THEM INSIDE!”

    “This is an armed COUP and can only be stopped by an armed community!” the flier reads. “If you’re afraid to die fighting the enemy, stay in bed and live.”

    This is the entire basis of the prosecution’s claim that Baker was “using social media to recruit and train” others to further an “Anti-Government or Anti-Authority” agenda: a Facebook event, a flier, and a handful of comments, all centered on protecting government property and personnel from what he believed would be an armed, far-right assault. The complaint highlights Baker’s most inflammatory language, ignoring the fact that he repeatedly made clear that his goal, if any such incident even happened, was to trap pro-Trump protesters in the Florida Capitol, and to protect those who might be threatened by them.

    “He felt he needed to defend black and brown people from white supremacists,” says Keen. “In his way he was using his privilege to defend.”

    Roommate Eric Champagne says Baker was “writing to a polarized audience” to mobilize people to come out, and that his real plans were a step down from even this rhetoric.

    “What he was discussing with me was doing normal street medic stuff, driving around,” says Champagne. “There’s concentric roads around the capitol, you can drive around and not be attacked, but you can stop and help someone who’s injured. This time he would just have a registered firearm just in case.”

    Baker had experience as a medic, and was at the time trying to raise money for an EMT program at his local community college. Those who know him recall stories of Baker rushing to apply first aid to strangers shot at protests or involved in accidents.

    “I always felt very safe with him, knowing there’s a fallback there,” says Susanna Matthews, Baker’s landlady. “Cause I’m eighty years old and blind.”

    The Most Dangerous Memes

    Perhaps most alarming is that the charges against Baker aren’t just based on his rhetoric around the pro-Trump Capitol protest that barely materialized. They also involve his activism, and a series of earlier, unrelated posts critical of police and military and using leftist slogans.

    The complaint focuses on Baker’s 2020 travels across the country to “participate in protests that have resulted in violence,” referring to last year’s George Floyd protests, including his time in Seattle’s CHOP/CHAZ movement. The sole example of his supposedly menacing behavior? Instructing “his followers on how to debilitate law enforcement officers by filling up balloons with paint and to throw them at law enforcement.”

    Baker’s criticism of and hostility to police makes up a large part of the complaint. Baker posted that police sound “like cold blooded nazis,” that his style of street judo “works against cops wearing body armor,” that he was “hunting” cops, and his general sense that police had been infiltrated by the far right (something that is objectively true) and were complicit in the Capitol riot (a suspicion shared by at least some lawmakers). At one point, the complaint cites Baker photographing and posting online photos of unmarked law enforcement vehicles parked at his home (“for intelligence purposes for his following”).

    Some of Baker’s rhetoric crossed over into violent imagery, telling followers, “Hospitalize your local fascist” or that he was “so fucking down to slay enemies again” — though as cases like the Occupy Wall Street protests showed, such rhetoric doesn’t necessarily translate into action.

    More goofily, the FBI also cites a handful of unremarkable yet superficially threatening leftist cliches in Baker’s posts: “I want to watch capitalist society burn”; “death to amerikka”; a meme that shows him “eating the rich”; or the fact that he played “anarchist-type monologues” in the background of his workout videos. It was also partly on the basis of such “repeated public endorsement of violence and violent acts” that the court denied him bail. Baker’s attorney has contended this is all political hyperbole, or at worst, too “conditional, equivocal, speculative, and unrealistic” to be taken seriously.

    “Politically he was not an accelerationist, but online he liked to feed the delusions,” says Champagne.

    He points to a tongue-in-cheek post cited in the FBI’s complaint: a YouTube video Baker put up in the wake of the Capitol incident of Trump supporters attacking a protester. “I have acquired a sponsor (Soros, you know, the antifa card was finally approved) and I and my donors will be offering cash rewards for information leading to the verified identification of any and every individual in this video,” he wrote in the description.

    The post was brought up by an FBI agent in Baker’s initial hearing, say those who attended. When the public defender asked the agent if he knew who George Soros was and if he really believed he was financing Baker, the FBI agent replied that, not knowing who Soros was, he couldn’t say. The answer prompted laughter in the courtroom. “I thought to myself, ‘Well, I’m not sure where you’ve been for the past however many years,’” recalls Matthews.

    There are also more serious questions about law enforcement’s conduct. Matthews and Champagne both recall the FBI agent later testifying that he had immediately identified himself as one when carrying out the arrest. Yet according to them, agents initially presented themselves as Postmates workers, and only identified themselves as FBI later — according to Champagne, once they had already broken down Baker’s door and thrown a flash bang. Matthews was so frightened by the “raving maniac” who first knocked on her door, she called 911, while the roommates — on edge due to right-wing death threats Baker had received in the past — had their own guns drawn.

    An Outlier, or Only the Beginning?

    Keen and Champagne maintain that the government’s portrayal of Baker is distorted and stripped of context. The complaint cites his other-than-honorable discharge from the military after going AWOL, for instance, but they say it neglects to mention this was because he’d been sickened by the rape culture he encountered upon enlisting. And while they disagree with his rhetoric online, they say Baker wasn’t violent, and instead believed in the tradition of armed self-defense, teaching both of them martial arts.

    “When he trained me, he said the best rape defense was knowing jiu-jitsu and being armed, and that vulnerable people in society should protect themselves,” says Keen.

    They stress his very real fear about impending far-right violence, and the post-traumatic stress disorder his military service left him with. That included his time in Syria fighting with the Kurdish People’s Protection Units, cited as an example of the danger he posed in both the charges against him and to deny him bail — even though the US military has backed the very same group.

    Yet at heart, Baker was — similar to many of the Capitol protesters who were spurred on by right-wing lies about the election result — responding to the news he was consuming. Much of the news media at the time designated the event as an “attack,” a “siege,” “terrorism,” and even an “insurrection” — meaning an armed anti-government uprising — and portrayed it as dangerously close to overthrowing US democracy. The following weeks were saturated with lurid warnings of far worse, more organized violence to come, based largely on claims from various authorities, like an FBI bulletin that predicted the armed storming of government buildings across the country. That included this CNN piece that Baker included in his flier.

    He was also responding to the language of politicians. Baker uploaded to YouTube this video of former Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA), now in the Biden administration, calling on Americans to “stand up, man up, woman up, and defend this constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.” On his channel, Baker pointed to the statement as a call to arms, citing it to justify his plans to confront protesters on inauguration day.

    If nothing else, Baker’s case shows how easily the martial climate that has prevailed since the Capitol riot can be turned on unrelated individuals who hold vastly different beliefs. Baker’s case is not unlike the government’s prosecution of even nonviolent pro-Trump protesters at the Capitol, which has rested partly on inflammatory social media posts and statements of their own. This is a particularly easy standard to apply to the Left, whose staunchest pacifists use slogans and engage in activities that law enforcement and prosecutors can misconstrue as scary and violent.

    In this way, the vow of Larry Keefe, the US attorney who announced Baker’s arrest, to go after “extremists” and “terrorists” across the spectrum in the wake of the riot is especially loaded. Keefe is a Trump appointee whose confirmation was secured by his pro-Trump ally, Representative Matt Gaetz. Gaetz has baselessly blamed antifa for the events at the Capitol, and last year wanted to “hunt them down like we do [terrorists] in the Middle East.”

    This isn’t isolated. New York police recently cracked down on Martin Luther King Day marchers, with the city’s mayor citing the Capitol riot as justification. Republican lawmakers swiftly used the riot to repackage and rush through anti-protest bills they first devised in response to last year’s anti-police brutality protests, most notably the vehemently pro-Trump Florida governor, Ron DeSantis. It’s exactly what both liberal and conservative authoritarians hoped for in the wake of the riot: that anything done in response to the pro-Trump crowd that stormed the Capitol would be later used to clamp down on protest from the left.

    How far this campaign will go remains to be seen. More immediately, Daniel Baker is awaiting trial in a special, segregated housing unit in prison. Online isn’t real life, unless the government decides to prosecute you for posting.


    https://www.jacobinmag.com/2021/01/d...se-fbi-capitol

  2. #2
    kelkel's Avatar
    kelkel is offline HRT Specialist ~ AR-Platinum Elite-Hall of Famer ~ No Source Checks
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    East Coast Dungeon
    Posts
    29,916
    Wow.
    -*- NO SOURCE CHECKS -*-

  3. #3
    In other words, the focus of our new leadership is to censor oppositng views and forcefully eliminate
    the resulting dissentt.

    By policing and censoring Americans who have the "wrong" opinions. I.e. disagree with the current leadership and direction. The biden administration seeks to silence it's opposition Then subsequently forcefully eliminate the resulting dissent caused by the censorship. That, my friends is textbook facist tactics.

    With the nations capital surrounded by razor wire and guarded by soldiers and armored vehicles one has to wonder if democracy, being the will of the people is truly dead. Leadership doing the will of the people don't have to be protected from the people their supposed to work for by soldiers with automatic weapons. That's not compromise gentleman. It's authoritarianism on full display.

    All the while we watched these same people call Donald Trump a "facist". Who never even tried to forcefully quell dissent or silence his critics. Despite having arguably the most vapid and vile opposition critics in modern times.

    Too funny. But, yet so tragic.
    Last edited by Hughinn; 01-31-2021 at 06:27 AM.

  4. #4
    Perhaps y'all think it is OK to threaten people's lives.

    Survival of the fittest and all.

    II. PROBABLECAUSE

    3. On October 8,2020, the FBI was notified that BAKER was threatening
    the use of violence in the United States and was using social media to recruit and
    train like-minded individuals in furtherance of his Anti-Govemment or Anti-Authority Violent Extremism Ideology.
    Authority Violent Extremism Ideology. BAKER has made multiple violent threats
    to those he claims are white supremacists, fascists, United States persons with
    different ideologies than his, and allies of the United States. In addition, BAKER
    has promoted the killing of United States military officers.



    https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndfl/pr...55291/download

    Last time I checked it is OK to have different views then some people.
    It is OK even to not like some people.

    However, threatening to harm or kill someone is not OK.
    Last edited by The Deadlifting Dog; 01-31-2021 at 07:32 AM.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Hughinn View Post
    Trump... never even tried to forcefully quell dissent or silence his critics.
    I claim bullshit.

    Attachment 180665

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by The Deadlifting Dog View Post
    Perhaps y'all think it is OK to threaten people's lives.

    Survival of the fittest and all.

    II. PROBABLECAUSE

    3. On October 8,2020, the FBI was notified that BAKER was threatening
    the use of violence in the United States and was using social media to recruit and
    train like-minded individuals in furtherance of his Anti-Govemment or Anti-Authority Violent Extremism Ideology.
    Authority Violent Extremism Ideology. BAKER has made multiple violent threats
    to those he claims are white supremacists, fascists, United States persons with
    different ideologies than his, and allies of the United States. In addition, BAKER
    has promoted the killing of United States military officers.



    https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndfl/pr...55291/download

    Last time I checked it is OK to have different views then some people.
    It is OK even to not like some people.

    However, threatening to harm or kill someone is not OK.
    I would like to think the responsibility of government is to protect the liberties and properties of its own citizens. But, I seen what happened to so many portland and Seattle business owners too. While their own leaders cheered the liberal mobs destroyed their livelyhoods.

    Like the freedom of speech, freedom of expression and the freedom of association. Basic tenets that make clear distinctions between language and actions. I thought that's why it was ok for so many liberal celebrities and politicians to advocate hostility, hatred and contempt toward their opposition.

    Last time I checked, protecting citizens rights to speak, even if in opposition to the status quo, was also included in those liberties our leaders are supposed to protect. Not threaten.

    But that's just my opinion I suppose. Because it's clearly not the case.
    Last edited by Hughinn; 01-31-2021 at 10:06 AM.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Hughinn View Post
    I would like to think the responsibility of government is to protect the liberties and properties of its own citizens. But, I seen what happened to so many portland and Seattle business owners too. While their own leaders cheered the liberal mobs destroyed their livelyhoods.

    Like the freedom of speech, freedom of expression and the freedom of association. Basic tenets that make clear distinctions between language and actions. I thought that's why it was ok for so many liberal celebrities and politicians to advocate hostility, hatred and contempt toward their opposition.

    Last time I checked, protecting citizens rights to speak, even if in opposition to the status quo, was also included in those liberties our leaders are supposed to protect. Not threaten.

    But that's just my opinion I suppose. Because it's clearly not the case.

    One big deflection, otherwise known as changing the topic when losing a debate.
    The thread is about a man who got arrested by the FBI for threats of violence.
    Threats of violence are not protected under the first amendment.

    You can argue that threats of violence should be allowed.
    or...
    You can argue that he didn't make threats of violence.

    I personally don't think threats of violence should be allowed.
    I also trust that the FBI had more information on this man than you.


    In case you didn't read it the first time:
    II. PROBABLECAUSE

    3. On October 8,2020, the FBI was notified that BAKER was threatening
    the use of violence in the United States and was using social media to recruit and
    train like-minded individuals in furtherance of his Anti-Govemment or Anti-Authority Violent Extremism Ideology.
    Authority Violent Extremism Ideology. BAKER has made multiple violent threats
    to those he claims are white supremacists, fascists, United States persons with
    different ideologies than his, and allies of the United States. In addition, BAKER
    has promoted the killing of United States military officers.



    https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndfl/pr...55291/download
    Last edited by The Deadlifting Dog; 01-31-2021 at 10:55 AM.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by The Deadlifting Dog View Post
    The thread is about a man who got arrested by the FBI for threats of violence.
    Threats of violence are not protected under the first amendment.

    You can argue that threats of violence should be allowed.
    or...
    You can argue that he didn't make threats of violence.

    I personally don't think threats of violence should be allowed.
    I also trust that the FBI had more information on this man than you.


    In case you didn't read it the first time:
    II. PROBABLECAUSE

    3. On October 8,2020, the FBI was notified that BAKER was threatening
    the use of violence in the United States and was using social media to recruit and
    train like-minded individuals in furtherance of his Anti-Govemment or Anti-Authority Violent Extremism Ideology.
    Authority Violent Extremism Ideology. BAKER has made multiple violent threats
    to those he claims are white supremacists, fascists, United States persons with
    different ideologies than his, and allies of the United States. In addition, BAKER
    has promoted the killing of United States military officers.



    https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndfl/pr...55291/download
    The problem is that it's unclear as to who makes such determinations.

    Liberal celebrities and politicians have often advocated violence and hostility toward other american citizens they happen to disagree with. Often openly.

    It's either free speech or it's not. It shouldn't be selectively applied and called fair. Because it's not.

    I'm not pretending to know why the law was applied to this baker guy but not others. I have no idea. I'm one of those people who thinks the law ought to apply evenly to everyone, regardless of personal belief, political affiliation,bbank accounts or skin color.

    Because the point of this thread, as stated in the title is the biden administration supressing political dissent.

    And that's not deflection. I see nothing stated above as being unique from this baker or many other anifa or BLM activist speech as far as recruiting or anything else.

    It's the selective application of what the current administration considers free speech that's in question. Not, the justification of the FBI for arresting him. Because they take their orders from the administration.

    As far as the debate you can think you "won" or whatever all you want. I'm not trying to win anything, and I'm not looking to personally insult or demean anyone. Just asking questions and pointing out discrepancy.

    I'll let those reading the thread decide.

    It's only my opinion, that when you allow a political party to decide what is free speech and what is hostile criminal language in line with what helps them and what doesn't, then you've effectively cancelled true freedom of speech
    Last edited by Hughinn; 01-31-2021 at 12:22 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,566
    It bears mention that Ocrazio-Cortex, Mad Maxine Waters and several other congressional demoncrats openly advocated violence during the 2020 Anti-Trump Fascists/Black LIES Matter riots and none of them got so much as a whack on the pee-pee as punishment. In fact it only boosted their neo-Bolshi creds.

    Not to mention demoncrats inciting violence was a frequent tactic used by the minions of Sheikh Obama (piss be upon him) when he occupied the throne.

    So how it is this one poor schlub merits the midnight visit from SWAT for what so many demoncrats were applauded for doing?


    EDIT:
    The obvious answer to that question is that there clearly are two un-fucking-equal systems of justice in operation in this country. Which means unless you toe the Neo-Bolshevik party line, justice is pure fiction.
    Last edited by Beetlegeuse; 01-31-2021 at 01:10 PM.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Beetlegeuse View Post
    It bears mention that Ocrazio-Cortex, Mad Maxine Waters and several other congressional demoncrats openly advocated violence during the 2020 Anti-Trump Fascists/Black LIES Matter riots and none of them got so much as a whack on the pee-pee as punishment. In fact it only boosted their neo-Bolshi creds.

    Not to mention demoncrats inciting violence was a frequent tactic used by the minions of Sheikh Obama (piss be upon him) when he occupied the throne.

    So how it is this one poor schlub merits the midnight visit from SWAT for what so many demoncrats were applauded for doing?


    EDIT:
    The obvious answer to that question is that there clearly are two un-fucking-equal systems of justice in operation in this country. Which means unless you toe the Neo-Bolshevik party line, justice is pure fiction.
    Read your links.
    Didn't see one quote where violence was suggested.

    Nice pieces of political spinning though.

    For the record:
    I am against violence and rioting.

    Interesting side note:
    Of the three people Beetlegeuse claims provoked violence...
    All three were minorities and 2 were women.
    Coincidence?
    Last edited by The Deadlifting Dog; 01-31-2021 at 02:47 PM.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Hughinn View Post
    The problem is that it's unclear as to who makes such determinations. Ultimately the courts decide.

    Liberal celebrities and politicians have often advocated violence and hostility toward other american citizens they happen to disagree with. Often openly.

    It's either free speech or it's not. It shouldn't be selectively applied and called fair. Because it's not.

    I'm not pretending to know why the law was applied to this baker guy but not others. I have no idea. I'm one of those people who thinks the law ought to apply evenly to everyone, regardless of personal belief, political affiliation,bbank accounts or skin color.

    Because the point of this thread, as stated in the title is the biden administration supressing political dissent. I don't care what he titled it. He could call it pigs fucking sheep for all that matters. He presented a article that complains about the FBI arresting a man who threatened violence.

    And that's not deflection. I see nothing stated above as being unique from this baker or many other anifa or BLM activist speech as far as recruiting or anything else. Perhaps Biden is tougher on crime than the "Law and Order" President.

    It's the selective application of what the current administration considers free speech that's in question. Not, the justification of the FBI for arresting him. Because they take their orders from the administration. see below

    As far as the debate you can think you "won" or whatever all you want. I'm not trying to win anything, and I'm not looking to personally insult or demean anyone. Just asking questions and pointing out discrepancy.

    I'll let those reading the thread decide.

    It's only my opinion, that when you allow a political party to decide what is free speech and what is hostile criminal language in line with what helps them and what doesn't, then you've effectively cancelled true freedom of speech
    You claim that the FBI takes their orders from the administration.
    You also bitch and moan about the riots under Trump presidency.

    Riddle me this...
    If the FBI is controlled by the President...
    Why didn't Trump use the FBI to crack down on the violence?

    I am OK with Biden cracking down on extremism, whether left or right.

    But if you complain again about the riots then please realize that by your own logic Trump is at fault.

    Trump wanted the riots to continue because he knew it bettered his chance for re-election.
    But alas... he lost. Bigly.

    Note: Trump's FBI even said the election was fair.

    Different administrations focus on different things.
    Trump built 25% of a wall to protect us from thugs and rapists.
    Biden seems to be focusing on extremism that has exploded in size since Obama became President.
    Many people disliked the idea of the wall.
    You are free to dislike the idea on cracking down on violent extremism.
    Write your congressman and vote.
    Last edited by The Deadlifting Dog; 01-31-2021 at 03:46 PM.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by The Deadlifting Dog View Post
    You claim that the FBI takes their orders from the administration.
    You also bitch and moan about the riots under Trump presidency.

    Riddle me this...
    If the FBI is controlled by the President...
    Why didn't Trump use the FBI to crack down on the violence?

    I am OK with Biden cracking down on extremism, whether left or right.

    But if you complain again about the riots then please realize that by your own logic Trump is at fault.

    Trump wanted the riots to continue because he knew it bettered his chance for re-election.
    But alas... he lost. Bigly.

    Note: Trump's FBI even said the election was fair.

    Different administrations focus on different things.
    Trump built 25% of a wall to protect us from thugs and rapists.
    Biden seems to be focusing on extremism that has exploded in size since Obama became President.
    Many people disliked the idea of the wall.
    You are free to dislike the idea on cracking down on violent extremism.
    Write your congressman and vote.
    Biden seems to be focusing on extremism that has exploded in size since Obama became President.


    I think the thing that puzzles most Americans, is why the biden administration has prioritized persecuting some Americans for having different opinions, instead of bringing prosperity to all Americans.

    "Combating extremists" is one thing, because extremists and violent activist's exist all across the political spectrum. Targeting specific people not based not on the propensity for violence, but upon their specific opinions is quite another.

    I think most Americans could swallow Biden chasing the boogeymen instead of bringing prosperity to all Americans. If he was chasing extremists on all sides with equal zeal, instead of using it as an excuse to harass his political opposition. Because if that's the priority of the biden administration and the people who support him, instead of bringing prosperity to all Americans, then America as one nation is done.

    If our leaders refuse to apply the law equally and without bias to all Americans, the the basic tenets of our democracy has become a chimera. A lie. And that's certainly not worth celebrating, and definitely not worth defending. Because we either all have equal liberty to live the way we want, or none of us do. And we're all just serf's to the people who rule us.
    If elected officials can use the power of public office to go after, spy upon, monitor, silence, censor and harass those who disagree with them in order to keep themselves in power, then we do not have a democracy. We have a facist despot.
    Last edited by Hughinn; 02-01-2021 at 08:13 AM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    227
    Extremism is not equal on either side, nor is it equally justified.

    Acting extremist because you have been tricked by your media into believing a lie is not the same as acting extremist because you have suffered hundreds of years of systematic racism. One group has no justification, and is violent for the sake of their poisonous beliefs being threatened, the other has justification, and has spent the last year being identified by the other group as extremist when 99% of their protests are peaceful.

    The amount of violence peaceful protesters have withstood at the hands of law enforcement is substantially higher than the amount of violence conducted by the group protesting, meanwhile rightwing violence and intimidation is the status quo for their gatherings rather than peaceful protest, and yet law enforcement lets them off the hook, do you know why? Because those with authoritarian or right wing beliefs disproportionally represent law enforcement.

    Hughinn, I'm not writing any of this to you specifically, I'm writing it because it needs to be written. You are not interested in the truth, you are interested in reinforcing your own belief, it's called confirmation bias.
    Last edited by DustMan; 02-01-2021 at 08:32 AM.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by DustMan View Post
    Extremism is not equal on either side, nor is it equally justified.

    Acting extremist because you have been tricked by your media into believing a lie is not the same as acting extremist because you have suffered hundreds of years of systematic racism. One group has no justification, and is violent for the sake of their poisonous beliefs being threatened, the other has justification, and has spent the last year being identified by the other group as extremist when 99% of their protests are peaceful.

    The amount of violence peaceful protesters have withstood at the hands of law enforcement is substantially higher than the amount of violence conducted by the group protesting, meanwhile rightwing violence is the status quo for their gatherings rather than peaceful protest, and yet law enforcement lets them off the hook, do you know why? Because those with authoritarian or right wing beliefs disproportionally represent law enforcement.

    Hughinn, I'm not writing any of this to you specifically, I'm writing it because it needs to be written. You are not interested in the truth, you are interested in reinforcing your own belief, it's called confirmation bias.
    You're suggesting that rioting and violence is justified because of past history and current political beliefs. It's simple.

    Then your condemning it on the other side, also based in political beliefs. Because those beliefs to you, are not worth justification.

    Then calling me delusional.

    When what I'm saying is that the law applies equally to everybody, or else it doesn't work for anybody. Regardless of beliefs,bank accounts,colors or history

    I'll let those reading here decide who's delusional
    Last edited by Hughinn; 02-01-2021 at 08:38 AM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    227
    You missed everything I said, either because you're too emotional to think straight, because you feel insulted, or because you are not interested in knowing the truth.

    As I said, the group you are backing has been misrepresenting the BLM movement, 99% of BLM protests are peaceful, and yet the majority of right wing "protests" are intentionally violent, or have the intention of intimidating civilians, the two are not equal, and you "pretending" that they are is as transparent as it gets.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by DustMan View Post
    You missed everything I said, either because you're too emotional to think straight, because you feel insulted, or because you are not interested in knowing the truth.

    As I said, the group you are backing has been misrepresenting the BLM movement, 99% of BLM protests are peaceful, and yet the majority of right wing "protests" are intentionally violent, or have the intention of intimidating civilians, the two are not equal, and you "pretending" that they are is as transparent as it gets.
    I'm not emotional about it at all bud.

    I'm willing to bet the majority of right wing protests are also peaceful.

    I'm saying that either the law is against violent extremists, or it's not.

    It shouldn't make distinctions based on political beliefs and selectively choose who to persecute based on those beliefs. Or thier political benefits by pursuing one over the other.

    Unlike yourself, my opinion is that the law ought to be applied completely without such bias. And be soley targeted at the actions of individuals. Because beliefs and opinions, regardless of what they are, or who espouses them, are not crimes.
    Last edited by Hughinn; 02-01-2021 at 10:07 AM.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Hughinn View Post
    Biden seems to be focusing on extremism that has exploded in size since Obama became President.


    I think the thing that puzzles most Americans, Not most Americans. You yes. is why the biden administration has prioritized persecuting some Americans for having different opinions Wrong. For making violent threats or violent plots, instead of bringing prosperity to all Americans. He is also focusing on bringing prosperity to ALL Americans.

    "Combating extremists" is one thing, because extremists and violent activist's exist all across the political spectrum. Targeting specific people not based not on the propensity for violence, but upon their specific opinions is quite another. He isn't targeting specific opinions. He is targeting violent extremism.

    I think most Americans could swallow Biden chasing the boogeymen instead of bringing prosperity to all Americans. He is doing both. And your so called "boogeyman" was just in the Capitol waving a confederate flag while chanting "Kill Mike Pence". If he was chasing extremists on all sides with equal zeal, instead of using it as an excuse to harass his political opposition. For fuck's sake. This thread is about him targeting a leftist. Are you claiming he is only attacking the left? Because if that's the priority of the biden administration and the people who support him, instead of bringing prosperity to all Americans, then America as one nation is done. America is alive and bleeding. Trumpism nearly killed it. Don't know if you realize by the Trumpers were actively attempting to overturn the constitution. All because they were sad they lost an election.

    If our leaders refuse to apply the law equally and without bias to all Americans, the the basic tenets of our democracy has become a chimera. A lie. And that's certainly not worth celebrating, and definitely not worth defending. Because we either all have equal liberty to live the way we want, or none of us do. And we're all just serf's to the people who rule us.
    If elected officials can use the power of public office to go after, spy upon, monitor, silence, censor and harass those who disagree with them in order to keep themselves in power, then we do not have a democracy. We have a facist despot.
    Bogeyman
    The Bogeyman (/ˈbəʊɡimæn, ˈboʊɡi-/;[1] also spelled boogeyman, bogyman, bogieman, boogie monster, boogie man, or boogie woogie) is a type of mythical creature used by adults to frighten children into good behavior.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogeyman

    The "boogeyman" is alive in Amercia.

    Attachment 180670 Attachment 180671 Attachment 180672 Attachment 180673 Attachment 180674

    Please stop pretending it doesn't exist.

    It's fucking sickening.

    And yes... there are leftist versions also...

    The good damn Trumpers drank the voter fraud kool-aid are quite literally tried to overturn the election results.
    It happened.
    It's real.



    Disclaimers:
    I am no way am claiming that all Trumpers are neo-nazis or that they approved of the insurrection.
    Last edited by The Deadlifting Dog; 02-01-2021 at 01:14 PM.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by The Deadlifting Dog View Post
    Bogeyman
    The Bogeyman (/ˈbəʊɡimæn, ˈboʊɡi-/;[1] also spelled boogeyman, bogyman, bogieman, boogie monster, boogie man, or boogie woogie) is a type of mythical creature used by adults to frighten children into good behavior.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogeyman

    The "boogeyman" is alive in Amercia.

    Attachment 180670 Attachment 180671 Attachment 180672 Attachment 180673 Attachment 180674

    Please stop pretending it doesn't exist.

    It's fucking sickening.

    And yes... there are leftist versions also...

    The good damn Trumpers drank the voter fraud kool-aid are quite literally tried to overturn the election results.
    It happened.
    It's real.



    Disclaimers:
    I am no way am claiming that all Trumpers are neo-nazis or that they approved of the insurrection.
    I laughed when I read that.

    I've never once denied that supremecy and supremests didn't exist and weren't one of the biggest problems facing our nation and society. Because they do exist and they continue to cause problems and divide us.

    The difference between you and I, is that I see the nonsense in believing the problem with our society is a bunch of racist idiots living in trailer parks on the outskirts of town and struggling to stay alive in places like idaho and rural nebraska and montana. That somehow that those broke fools are responsible for low test scores in inner city schools they don't attend, and that it's thier fault the government in states they don't run or live in are failing, and somehow it's those broke, often destitute and ignorant fools whose "privilege" is a threat to us all. To a logical man, nothing could be more ludacris.

    Because I understand the real supremecy and supremests culture is in silicon valley, hollywood,wall street, park avenue and washing DC. That's where the most powerful, privileged and wealthy supremacists in the world shape our lives the way they see fit. Policing the world from the decadence and comfort of thier fortified compounds. Siphoning and stealing with impunity from those who earn what little they have by thier own sweat and toil. Those people don't kill a man to rob him. They kill tens of thousands and rob the wealth of entire nations. You steal from them, it's larceny, they steal from us, it's just business. In essence they "purchase" the wealth of such conquered nations, paying for it in the blood of those they rule over, ours, because to them, we are lesser beings.

    I see the real supremecy.

    You're simply scared of the boogeymen your leaders (the real supremests) tell you about to keep you behaving and blind to the lie. Because the truth is that they are to blame for the failures and inequalities you detest. Not the boogeymen.

    It is indeed "fucking sickening"
    Last edited by Hughinn; 02-02-2021 at 11:48 AM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •