Domestic spying

A New 'War on Terror' Would Be Just as Disastrous as the Original

"We don't need to use a faulty model and apply it to the very real terrorism problem that we have at home," says terrorism expert Max Abrahms.

|

HD Download

More than two months after rioters stormed the Capitol, Washington, D.C. is still occupied by National Guard troops, and the police say they want to make the fencing that surrounds the Capitol building permanent.

Political scientist Max Abrahms studies global terrorism. He says that the U.S. government's response to January 6 is disproportionate to the actual threat and has turned the Capitol into something resembling a green zone in a war-torn country.

"I think that this was one of those situations where the government swung like a pendulum from doing too little to doing too much," Abrahms tells Reason.  

"They were clearly overwhelmed and unprepared for this onslaught," says Abrahms. "So the government responded by putting in place something like 25,000 national guards in caging up the Capitol. That would be appropriate not to deter the next Timothy McVeigh but to deter something like ISIS storming Baghdad."

Abrahms says that "luckily that's not the kind of threat environment we're dealing with in the United States."

Abrahms worries that the war on terror, started by the George W. Bush administration after 9/11 and which included detaining suspects without due process, torture, mass surveillance, and counterproductive military action, is coming to the homefront. The target: white supremacists and anti-government militia groups.

"Our response to 9/11, and this isn't stressed enough, was actually deeply counterproductive against the kinds of terrorists that we were combating," says Abrahms. "Americans can do much better. We don't need to use a faulty model and apply it to the very real terrorism problem that we have at home."

Instead of toppling dictators, the tactics of this new domestic war on extremism have so far been limited to bullying social media companies into evicting so-called extremists from their platforms, as happened with Donald Trump. 

FBI Director Christopher Wray wants the government to consider repealing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to make it even easier to hold tech platforms liable for content that the government says incites violence. 

"While the immunity under Section 230 has obviously helped the evolution of the social media industry, it's also allowed it to avoid a lot of the burdens and risks that other brick-and-mortar companies have had to face," Wray said on March 2 to the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

Since the mid-1990s, FBI directors have been citing international terrorism as a reason to consider preventing the use of end-to-end encryption. Wray is now making the same arguments, citing domestic extremists.

"We are concerned about end-to-end encryption, especially default end-to-end encryption in connection with a lot of these platforms," Wray testified.

In his book Rules for Rebels: The Science of Victory in Militant History, Abrahms argues that the foreign war on terror created power vacuums that made the world increasingly dangerous, such as when Saddam Hussein was replaced by Al Qaeda in Iraq, or when U.S. intervention in Syria helped the jihadist group Al-Nusra foment power. Abrahms says we're in danger of repeating the same dynamic in this new war on terror.

"Removing somebody like Donald Trump from Twitter…might seem like a great idea to some people until they realize that Trump isn't the absolute worst leader that could possibly bubble up," says Abrahms. "In all likelihood, the replacements are going to be even more extreme."

"We see a similar phenomenon with people moving from more mainstream social media platforms like Twitter, to ones that have a higher concentration of right-wing extremists like Parler, or even apps with…end-to-end encryption where nobody could surveil them," Abrahms says.

John Brennan, former CIA director under the Obama administration, told MSNBC in January that the Biden team is working "in laser-like fashion" to investigate what he says resembles an overseas insurgency.

"It brings together an unholy alliance frequently of religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists…even libertarians," Brennan said.

Abrahms argues that the perverse effect of lumping such disparate groups together is to push otherwise reasonable actors towards the extremes.

"I think that these different issues need to be unpacked and mainstream media can't simply say that everyone on the right—including those who are more in favor of limited government and sympathetic to some libertarian views—is crazy and believe in pedophile rings at pizza parlors," says Abrahms

Abrahms believes that the mainstream media and the government are attempting to weaponize some of the legitimate fear that has resulted from the events of January 6 in order to marginalize those on the political right, "including those who have quite reasonable views."

"There's this perverse phenomenon where terrorism commentators and pundits, broadcast ubiquitously by the media, make it seem as if terrorists are just so brilliant, strategic, and effective," Abrahms says. "In fact, we often see the exact opposite."

Abrahms says that terrorism frequently results in a backlash against those who perpetrate it. And he argues that the January 6 riots have made far-right groups look much less attractive to members.

"It's become a national embarrassment to be part of these groups," says Abrahms.

The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, which passed in the House back in September, would create new federal law enforcement units focused solely on domestic terrorism. Some politicians and law enforcement officials have said Congress should go further 

"In U.S. law there is no list of domestic terrorism organizations the same way there is for foreign terrorist organizations," Wray said before the Senate. 

"I don't know if we should have one or not," responded Senator Lindsey Grahm (R–S.C.). "But I think it's time to think about it."

Abrahms argues that such illiberal actions could actually serve to incite terrorism. 

"One of the telltale signs of an illiberal government is when it makes no distinction between what it deems as political extremists and tactical extremists," Abrahms says.

Abrahms is concerned that a heavy-handed crackdown lumping the extreme beliefs of some on the right together with the extreme tactics of would-be terrorists will ultimately backfire, just as the war on terror swept up many innocent Muslims and spurred even greater radicalization. 

"I'm really worried, frankly, about Timothy McVeigh 2.0. I think that the government needs to do everything possible not to create one," says Abrahms. "But I'm not confident that the government actually is doing that."

Abrahms believes that the government should prosecute those who commit terrorist acts of violence to the fullest extent of the law. However, he worries that there will be some crossover between who the government regards as a political extremist and an actual terrorist. 

"We cannot crack down on people just because we don't like their ideology," Abrahms says. "Otherwise the government is going to turn into the thought police and that is going to spawn the next generation of terrorists."

Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Capitol riot footage by Ford Fischer. 

Photo credits: FBI/Zuma Press/Newscom; Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Newscom; Dabiq/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Pete Souza/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Moore Mike / Mirrorpix/Newscom; CNP / Polaris/Newscom; FBI/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Dabiq/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Moore Mike / Mirrorpix/Newscom; Pool/Sipa USA/Newscom; Stanislav Kogiku / SOPA Images/S/Newscom; Thiago Prudencio/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Jaap Arriens/Sipa USA/Newscom; Christy Bowe/Polaris/Newscom; Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA/Newscom; Kevin Dietsch/UPI/Newscom; Dennis Brack / DanitaDelimont.com/ Danita Delimont Photography/Newscom; Ho/ZUMA Press/Newscom

NEXT: Lanny Friedlander: The Eccentric Genius Who Created Reason Magazine

HD Download

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “the very real terrorism problem that we have at home”

    Oh fuck you.

    1. My last pay test was $9500 operating 12 hours per week on line. my sisters buddy has been averaging 15k for months now and she works approximately 20 hours every week. i can not accept as true with how easy it become as soon as i tried it out.

      This is what do,…………………………….. READ MORE

      1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..READ MORE

      2. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an ghg easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..READ MORE

    2. “Oh fuck you”

      To be sure.

      1. No, no, we DO have a domestic terror problem. The democrat party. Which is a sponsor and enabler of antifa and BLM.

        We need a war on ,racism in this country. Or soon there will be no recognizable version of America.

        1. ‘Marxism’, not racism.

          1. THE GREAT JOBS OF USA BOYS GIRLS AND OLDERS I must give my thanks to Ashley, who posted here last week comment About system she uses to earn onlin℮… I’ve got my first check total of $550, pretty cool. i Am so excited, this is the first time i Actually earned something.CMs i am going to work even harder new And i can’t wait for next week payment.

            go to home tab for more detail… Online Jobs provid

    3. You know what? Let’s do this.

      Let’s start a “War on Terror” here in the states. How’s that worked out for our troops the last 20 years?

      The only reason these idiots want to start a “war on terror” here in the US is because they think they won’t suffer the consequences of it. If they don’t high-tail it to China to suckle at the teat of their Chinese overlords, how long do you think they’ll support something like this if anyone with an urban address is pulled over and executed on the spot? When supplies to their urban and suburban ratholes are disrupted? When their pet minorities start cracking them just for the hell of it?

      Yeah, considering how successful these morons have been at actually winning wars the last 20 years, I’d say starting another one here at home is the last thing they should be doing.

      1. Sounds exactly like what a foreign power and U.S. peer would be interested in having the US government do.

        1. Yeah, these people don’t even wipe their ass anymore without China telling them how to put the toilet paper on the roll.

  2. In ten years Reason will be pretending that they airways knew this new war on terrorism was based on false pretenses, but by then it will be too late to have made a difference.

    1. We have always been at war with Eastasia terrorism.

  3. The target: white supremacists

    Given how broad that label has become, anybody good at math or reads a Dr Suess book is going to be targeted.

    1. Gavin says it’s everyone who signed the recall.

  4. To be fair, the “original” war on terror was started after a foreign nation infiltrated an airline pilot’s school and flew planes into two of the tallest skyscrapers in the world, and the pentagon, killing a couple thousand people. My understanding of the ‘new’ war on terror is that it’s started after a few hundred people walked between some red ropes at the capitol and sat in Nancy Pelosi’s desk, and one of those people was shot in the face by a capitol police officer.

    I say that whatever road America goes down, we should be aware of what started us down that road.

    1. The protesters of Jan 6 weren’t even on the level of the fraternity members in Animal House.

      And they blew a great chance to repeat Otter’s speech on the floor of the House.

    2. I’m hoping that at some point that we can have an honest discussion about what actually happened on Jan. 6.

      No it was not nearly as bad as 9/11. Comparing it to that is just silly.

      But it was ALSO not just some frat party that got out of hand. It was not just people wandering around. They trashed the place. They broke windows. They stole stuff. Some of them came prepared to do some real harm. No, not Viking hat guy, but the guys who came in military gear, the guys who set pipe bombs, the guys who pre-planned and coordinated to storm the Capitol. And they did it with the intent of stopping the peaceful transition of power in a demonstration of mob rule.

      Can we talk about Jan. 6 with the full context of what was going on, and not try to minimize what it was?

      1. “They trashed the place. They broke windows. They stole stuff. Some of them came prepared to do some real harm.”

        We witnessed this, and far worse, nearly every day for six months at the hands of BLM and Antifa rioters all across the country. BLM/Antifa attempted to storm the White House on several occasions. The historic St. Johns church was set on fire and nearly destroyed. Countless statues and national monuments were destroyed or vandalized. Lawless autonomous zones sprung up in various states. Businesses were destroyed. People were killed, including many police officers. Rand Paul and his wife were swarmed by a mob of rioters that were threatening to kill them. Portland is still under siege to this day.

        With that in mind it should never be forgotten that everyone presently calling January 6th an “insurrection” and a “terrorist” attack spent six months casually brushing off mass coordinated violence, looting, rioting, and billions of dollars in destruction at the hands of BLM/Antifa as a “mostly peaceful protest.” Indeed, they pretended it simply wasn’t even happening, with Rep. Nadler denying the existence of Antifa entirely, while clowns like Mayor Durkan referred to the destruction of Seattle as “the summer of love.”

        If an honest conversation is in the cards, then it should start with an admission that the people pushing the “insurrection” narrative are completely full of shit. Until that time, there is nothing more to say.

        1. So all you have is whataboutism.

          1. I have no interest in having a discussion with people that are full of shit. Back in the water, sea lion.

          2. “Can we talk about Jan. 6 with the full context of what was going on”

          3. And you’re not ready for an honest conversation. Lol. Fuck right off.

          4. And all you have is bitter denial. Would you like to take a trip down Michigan Ave in Chicago to view the looted stores? How about Minneapolis, where 1800 businesses were damaged or destroyed and they are still on the hook to give a worthless Junkie’s family 27 million tax dollars that could have gone towards something worthwhile.

            1. Why does this matter in the context of Jan. 6?

              1. The context of January 6th is essentially a bunch of protesters taking selfies due to an election they disagreed with. Just like BLM and LGBT attacks on the Capitol when Kavanaugh was sworn in or when the other riots occurred last summer you fucking halfwit.

                Of you think one is terrorism then the other is even more so as there was more violence, destruction, and repetition you fucking half wit.

                You dont give a fuck about protestations of the election. You didn’t give a fuck when democrats objected the last 3 times they lost. You didn’t give a fuck at Trumps inauguration riots. You didn’t give a fuck about false FISA investigations into a rival campaign.

                So fuck off with your context.

                The only context you give a fuck about is gop did something bad, ignore anything the dnc does you fucking halfwit.

                1. The context of January 6th is essentially a bunch of protesters taking selfies due to an election they disagreed with.

                  Complete bullshit. You are intentionally minimizing the scope of their actions in order to provide cover for their riotous behavior.

                  Just like BLM and LGBT attacks on the Capitol when Kavanaugh was sworn in or when the other riots occurred last summer you fucking halfwit.

                  None of these involved trying to subvert the peaceful transition of power.

                  Of you think one is terrorism then the other is even more so as there was more violence, destruction, and repetition you fucking half wit.

                  I DON’T think it’s “terrorism”, I think that is too dangerous of a label for it. But I don’t think it is just “people taking selfies”. Own up to what it actually was, Jesse.

                  1. Jeffy, you’re fixated on this one event, yet you willfully ignore the much greater damage, including significant loss of life and billions of dollars of property damage across the country. You’re like someone bitching about a firecracker going off after a dozen pipe bombs just exploded.

                    And yes, antifa and BLM are absolutely trying to intimidate private citizens and government workers into bending to their will.

                  2. And which element of the definition of “terrorism” is not met? You claim there was violence in pursuit of a political objective. Why is that not terrorism?

            2. Did the burned and looted stores have anything to do with trying to subvert the peaceful transition of power?

              1. Yes you fucking idiot. You don’t think riots,fires,outing, arson have effects on politicians and elections?? Are you really that fucking stupid?

                1. Funny I didn’t see Antifa attacking Congress because they didn’t like the results of an election. That was your team, pal.

                  1. Rand Paul was in more danger in this one instance than any politician inside the Capitol on January 6th.

                    https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/28/politics/rand-paul-protesters-police/index.html

                    I suppose that doesn’t count.

                  2. Because you are wilfully ignorant. How many politicians houses have they surrounded and threatened? Vandalism at their homes? Doxxing of their children and which schools they went to?

                    You are incredibly ignorant.

              2. Have you forgotten the armed men that were present and would not let that happen? I assure you, they had plenty of armament stashed inside that building if need be. I’ve worked with the capital police, Bud, they have full authority to protect their charges and stop this so called “assault on the capital”. They were scared to act harshly due to the political climate but if they were pushed further, there would be several more gunned down idiots.
                I’ve spent years in combat Son, how about you? People arm themselves and don camo when they mean to do real harm, they don’t wear Red, White and Blue and stupid Buffalo helmets. They don’t run away when one person gets shot.

                1. I’m not talking about stupid Viking hat guy. I’m talking about the paramilitary folks like the Proud Boys or the Oath Keepers. The ones who showed up with tactical gear, a pre-coordinated plan, and a lot of talk that went far beyond grievance about just the election. Like these guys:

                  https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/oattkeepers-capitol-riots-conspiracy/2021/03/11/03c26114-8291-11eb-9ca6-54e187ee4939_story.html

                  The Oath Keepers issued a public call on the group’s website Jan. 4 for “patriots” to come to the District “to stand tall in support of President Trump. . . . Prepare to do whatever must be done to honor our oaths to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic . . . whatever happens.”

                  These guys are not mere “tourists”.

                  1. How many weapons were confiscated?

                  2. There were zero weapons found at the Capitol moron. The charging documents for the oath keepers includes a conversation where they say they will not being weapons.

                    How fucking ignorant are you?

          5. You basically invited putting it in context, by putting it in a context of your own.

          6. Lord, but you’re one of the stupidest motherfuckers to ever post at this site.

            Did you even know what the portmanteau “whataboutism” was, before you read about it three months ago?

            1. What do the Kavanaugh protests or the BLM/Antifa protests have anything to do with trying to stop the peaceful transition of power?

              1. The left has done this repeatedly you dumb mother fucker.

                You are in an uproar over protesters while ignoring far more examples such as autonomous zones and the such.

              2. “trying to stop the peaceful transition of power”

                What were the Kavanaugh protesters doing when they invaded the Senate hearings?
                What were the BLM/Antifa protesters doing when they attacked the Whitehouse… twice?

                Remember how you laughed about it when the burned down the church across the grounds and when the president had to be taken to a safe room?
                Remember how you squealed with rage when the troops protecting the Whitehouse pepper-sprayed the mob, but how you chortled with glee when Babbit was shot in the head?

                What an evil gaslighting fuck you are.

                1. What were the Kavanaugh protesters doing when they invaded the Senate hearings?
                  What were the BLM/Antifa protesters doing when they attacked the Whitehouse… twice?

                  Whatever it was, it wasn’t trying to stop the peaceful transition of power.

                  1. Whatever it was, it wasn’t trying to stop the peaceful transition of power.

                    Because the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice, after the retirement of his predecessor, is not a transition of power in any way.

                    You are an idiot. Insufferable and beyond hope.

                  2. “it wasn’t trying to stop the peaceful transition of power”

                    The fuck it wasn’t. The president isn’t the sole power you lying fuck. SCOTUS is a branch of government too.
                    Anyway, are you claiming that attacking the Whitehouse and trying to kill Trump is a peaceful transition of power?

              3. So trying to intimidate a SCOTUS nominee and the people who might vote to confirm him doesn’t count? You’re right of course. Only when it effects the democrat agenda is it an issue.

                Which is always the way of things with you. You’re a disingenuous little democrat shill.

                1. Flag jeff, or insult him, and you all are a lot better and more creative at insulting him that I can be.

                  That’s all he’s worth engaging with for, here.

          7. “all you have is whataboutism.”

            Pointing out your hypocrisy isn’t “whataboutism” no matter how hard you pretend, Jeff.

          8. chemtard the fat fuck simping for his lefty boos again.

      2. Sure. Less than 1000 idiots walked into the Capitol. I’ve seen zero evidence that any bombs are tied to them. They were disruptive but far less so than the protesters at the Kavanaugh hearings et al.

        The only option is to portray this as what it was. A simple mostly peaceful protest. But the Left does not like that.

        1. And more whataboutism.

          Why is so hard to discuss what happened on Jan. 6 on its own merits, without bringing up BLM or Antifa or Kavanaugh?

          1. Why is it wrong to compare one protest to others?

            You mean outside of demonstrating the scope or destructiveness of the protest?

            If you’re going to act like 1/6 is some special event, then it must be really special and not just one of many such events for years on end that did not lead to laws targeting them.

            It was a mostly peaceful protest. More peaceful than virtually any other protest in years.

            1. None of these other protests had anything to do with subverting the peaceful transition of power, by trying to overturn an election. It is just juvenile “they did it so I get to do it too”.

              1. This is what retarded sophisticated do, try to reduce an argument to such limited realms that only they can have an argument.

                This is why everyone thinks you’re a dishonest piece of shit.

                1. What people like me do, is not put up with bullshit invalid comparisons that have only as their motivation to provide an infantile “BUT THEY DID IT TOO!!!!” rationale to try to justify despicable behavior because it was your team that did it.

                  Do you even understand that the big reason why a lot of people – not just lefties, but a lot of people – were upset with Jan. 6 was NOT primarily because of the property damage? So trying to compare the events of Jan. 6 to some other riot on the basis of something like property damage alone is completely missing the point, and INTENTIONALLY so, as you are trying to excuse the behavior of the rioters with “but they did it too” nonsense about Antifa.

                  1. You asked for context asshole and, when you got it, rejected it out of hand as an irrelevant comparison.

                    So what the fuck were you really asking for?

                    Fuck off.

                  2. What people like me do, is not put up with bullshit invalid comparisons

                    You don’t like the comparisons because they make your side look bad. Dress it up in as much sophistry as you want, that’s really all there is to it.

                  3. After daily rioting for months, those BLM animals were awarded millions of dollars and the backing of Vice President knee pads. Perhaps those misguided people on Jan 6 saw that and decided to try it themselves. Monkey see, monkey do.
                    This is how it is done now, rioting and disorder, the winning method has been established, until the real shooting starts.
                    Why don’t we do a victim count? Why don’t we compare costs? Why don’t we talk about the increase in crime across the board that the BLM animals have caused? All over false pretense.
                    Nobody wants to talk about Jan 6 because nobody supported those morons in DC. Do you see a big, star-studded funeral for Babbit? No, she was buried quietly because good people don’t promote criminal behavior. Only race baiting scumbags like Obama, Jackson, and Sharpton.

              2. Why should obese people like yourself have any say in regards to covid when your personal choices effect your risk more than an asymptomatic person? No talking about any other covid issues, only your fitness. Go.

                This is as valid as your reductionist sophistry.

              3. Pointing out your hypocrisy isn’t whataboutism you evil gaslighting fuck.

          2. Can we talk about Jan. 6 with the full context of what was going on …?

            Why is so hard to discuss what happened on Jan. 6 on its own merits …?

            So which is it, little sea lion? Do you want the context or not? Because if you want context, then you need talk about the shit that happened in 2020.

            Do us all a favor and get back in the water because it’s going to get real fucking dry up here.

            1. Psst! Tell him the water’s buoyant, and he’ll jump right in.

              And hopefully drown.

          3. chemjeff radical individualist… Please try to understand that WRONG people resent the HELL out of RIGHT people, because the right people make the wrong people look bad! It is programmed into the hunter-gatherer brain!

            See http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Do_Gooders_Bad/ for full details. Relevant out-take below:

            The knuckle-dragging troglodytes among us, on the internet, even when we know darned well that most of the commenters are anonymous, go into an instinctually-driven mode of “punish the people who are wise, benevolent, and correct”, and make them look bad! Else they might steal my wife or girlfriend, and make my babies”! It is knee-jerk stupidity, on a largely-anonymous chat board, but there it is!

            1. This fruitloop sure likes advertising his site.
              I hope he gets banned for it, but in the meantime spamming gets him spamflagged.

              1. Sorry, comment mis-placed the first time… HERE it is, in the right place!

                Can’t refute what I say, empty-headed wonder?

                1. Say? You don’t ‘say anything.

                  You gibbering. Incomprehensibly.

                  1. Wow, what literary talent and rapier wit! Let’s see if I can match or exceed it, with some OTHER brilliantly smart comments that I have created just now!

                    Fuck off, spaz!
                    You eat shit, you said so yourself!
                    You’re a racist Hitler-lover!
                    Take your meds!
                    That’s so retarded!
                    You’re a Marxist!
                    Your feet stink and you don’t love Trump!
                    Your source is leftist, so it must be false!
                    Trump rules and leftists drool!
                    You are SOOO icky-poo!
                    But Goo-Goo-Gah-Gah!

                    Wow, I am now 11 times as smart and original as you are!

                    1. You should take our comments to heart, engage in some much needed introspection.. then come to the correct conclusion and immolate yourself. Finally achieving the agonizing death that is still too good for you.

                      You know I’m right.

                    2. Sexless Stranger-Strangler, drinking Sexless Kool-Aid in a spiraling vortex of darkness, cannot or will not see the Light… It’s a VERY sad song! Kinda like this…

                      He’s a real Kool-Aid Man,
                      Sitting in his Kool-Aid Land,
                      Playing with his Kool-Aid Gland,
                      Has no thoughts that help the people,
                      He wants to turn them all to sheeple!
                      On the sheeple, his Master would feast,
                      Master? A disaster! Just the nastiest Beast!
                      Kool-Aid man, please listen,
                      You don’t know, what you’re missin’,
                      Kool-Aid man, better thoughts are at hand,
                      The Beast, to LEAVE, you must COMMAND!

                      A helpful book is to be found here: M. Scott Peck, Glimpses of the Devil
                      https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1439167265/reasonmagazinea-20/

                      Hey Sexless Stranger-Strangler …
                      If EVERYONE who makes you look bad, by being smarter and better-looking than you, killed themselves, per your wishes, then there would be NO ONE left!
                      Who would feed you? Who’s tits would you suck at, to make a living? WHO would change your perpetually-smelly DIAPERS?!!?
                      You’d better come up with a better plan, Stan!

          4. I’m hoping that at some point that we can have an honest discussion about what actually happened on Jan. 6.

            So you lied when you opened about this.

          5. Because it was insignificant in scale. It was over-patriotic morons acting out. Thankfully, most of them had jobs to get back to so they did not spend 6 moths burning and looting as an occupation.
            Why won’t you discuss BLM and ANTIFA? They are still active. The Jan 6 morons are in jail or back at work. Ineffective.

            1. They tried to stop the peaceful transition of power through sheer mob violence. That is more terrifying to me than some angry mob burning things indiscriminately. Because the angry mob trying to overturn the election is trying to undermine the democratic process itself. If an angry mob burns and loots a store, it is wrong, but it is also not a threat to the Republic. Having a bunch of people in paramilitary gear planning and organizing to storm the Capitol, going way beyond a mere protest, but to try to stop the certification of the vote itself, is far worse.

              1. Lol. Youre just ridiculous at this point.

              2. You mean like when your team tried to stop the SCOTUS confirmation hearings by attacking the Senate meeting?
                Or like when you guys attacked the Whitehouse last year… twice?

                1. Can’t refute what I say, empty-headed wonder?

                  1. What the hell are you on about?

                    1. Sorry, mis-placed comment…

                      You can NOT refute THIS! You knuckle-dragging troglodyte!!!

                      http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Do_Gooders_Bad/

                      In hunter-gatherer societies, successful hunters are criticised for catching a big animal even though their catch means everyone gets more meat. ”

                      To me, sociobiology is often intuitive. At first glance, the hunter-gatherer tendency (instinctually driven?) to immediately “take down a peg or two” the hunter-hero who just bagged a good kill of “red meat” to help feed me? This is counter-intuitive! But take a deeper, more thoughtful look at it: If we make a BIG hero out of the hunter-hero, he might steal all of our women, and make all of our babies! So the tribal shaman will remind the hunter-hero, and the tribe, that it is the shaman that knows how to beat the drums just exactly the right way, who drives away the sun-god-eating (eclipse) demons, and make the demons un-eat the sun-god! And the tribal artist will remind everyone that it is he (maybe even sometimes she) who knows the right way to carve the mammoth tusk, to make a magical fertility icon-figurine, and keep the tribe fertile. We are ALL heroes around here, and NOT just the hunter-hero! So the hunter-hero needs to be reminded of that, so that he’ll not steal ALL of our women!

                      The knuckle-dragging troglodytes among us, on the internet, even when we know darned well that most of the commenters are anonymous, go into an instinctually-driven mode of “punish the people who are wise, benevolent, and correct”, and make them look bad! Else they might steal my wife or girlfriend, and make my babies”! It is knee-jerk stupidity, on a largely-anonymous chat board, but there it is!

                    2. In hunter-gatherer societies, shit-munchers were cast out to be eaten by cave lions.

              3. If an angry mob burns and loots a store, it is wrong, but it is also not a threat to the Republic.

                Because the people that own that store, and people in general, are just superfluous considerations — pawns in the government’s game of chess — whose safety, security, and freedom are immaterial to the continued existence of “the Republic,” as if the government itself is the apex of all existence.

                When douchebags make it a point to prioritize the safety of governing institutions over the safety of the people, you can be assured that the douchebag in question is also an authoritarian piece of shit. This of course explains why this particular douchebag has no absolutely no compunctions about executing a woman for trespassing, and prosecuting a man for posting memes.

                All in the name of the “the Republic.”

                1. You do have a talent of completely twisting what I say into something that is not by inventing a fairly creative story around it.

                  But you are right about one thing, I’m not an anarchist. I most definitely prefer a Republic over rule based on mob violence.

                  1. And you have a talent for running from your own words.

              4. Bullfuckingshit.

                2020 saw the complete rejection of civil rights by the government/left, media, and every institution. Then political violence on behalf of and encouraged by the left for months on end. Vows of even greater violence if the left didn’t get its way. Lie after outright lie, censorship of truth. The election was a farce. Rules changed unconstitutionally and at the last minute. Courts shirked their duties. Unbelievable vote swings that were called out as suspect immediately.
                For months half the country said this election is bullshit, explain yourselves because it looks completely fraudulent, only to be told they’re conspiracy theorists and traitors who will be rounded up and put into camps. All of the issues raised completely ignored, covered up, or hand-waved away.
                So those people got together to protest, to show they have concerns that need to be addressed and they won’t just shut up because you tell them to.
                They gathered a massive crowd in front of congress to demonstrate their objections. Then, just as Ted Cruz began raising those issues on the senate floor, Capitol police opened up barriers and protesters poured in. Other Capitol police confronted them and some protesters became rioters.
                People were pissed, they were disrespected, and mixed messages led to tempers getting (mildly) out of hand. Some acted foolishly. But it never even came close to approaching the violence, destruction, or malice of the previous 6 months of leftist riots.
                On top of that, the Left’s/government’s reaction has been far more disgraceful and treasonous than any of the 1/6 protest.
                But keep pushing, asshole.
                I’d be happy to fucking end you permanently.

                1. Oh this is too perfect. Congratulations you demonstrate yet again how thoroughly you reject pluralism.

                  See, THEIR concerns are just “leftist violence”. They don’t have “concerns” worth listening to. But YOUR concerns demand attention, so much so that attacking the Capitol is not that big of a deal.

                  For months half the country said this election is bullshit

                  What about the other half, Nardz? Actually, more accurately, what about the other 2/3rds? They have concerns too. They also have grievances. A lot of people upset by police brutality, whether they are a part of BLM or not, they think their issues are “completely ignored, covered up, or hand-waved away” as well. They too “won’t just shut up because you tell them to”. And, regrettably, sometimes “tempers get[] (mildly) out of hand”. The violence is wrong, the riots are wrong, the harm and violation of rights are all wrong, but the grievances are real, the concerns are real, and your team isn’t the only team that has grievances. The world doesn’t revolve around Team Red. If you want people to listen to you, maybe you should start by listening to others. But instead, instead of actually listening to what’s being said, you just threaten to murder them instead. You’d rather murder them than listen to them. It’s quite sad really.

                  1. You, not them. There is a difference.

              5. Paramilitary gear? What good is “paramilitary gear without a gun, Sally? What is the effective range of a piece of web gear?

                1. Hey now! They might have had paramilitary whiffle bats too! That would also stop ‘the peaceful transition of power’.

                  ZOMG!

                2. They were dressed scary, ipso facto, they were totes terrorists.

      3. No it was not nearly as bad as 9/11. Comparing it to that is just silly.

        Not just ‘not nearly as bad’, not in the same category and entirely incomparable. 9/11’s goal was to kill as many infidels as possible.

        The goal on January 6th was designed to disrupt and protest an election that, for better or worse, the protesters (and rioters) thought was unfair, fraudulent or invalid. Saying “not as bad as 9/11” can really best attributed to comparisons with the WTC bombing in 1993. Both had the same goals and directives, but one killed far fewer people than the other.

        Nothing on January 6th suggests, let alone can produce any evidence for, an attempt to kill as many Americans as possible.

        1. Yes, but it made senators uncomfortable.

          Totes comparable. Terrorism is terrorism.

          1. You better believe that sticking your boots up on Pelosi’s desk is worse than flying a plane full of screaming innocents into a skyscraper.

        2. For the last 9/11, I packed my kit and went to war. I felt the need to punish.
          For the next 9/11, I’ll be enjoying the show. I never fully appreciated the New York lefty lawyers trying to fly. This time around, I will thoroughly enjoy the show. We can only hope that next time, the plane headed for the Pentagon doesn’t fall short of it’s mark. Watching lefty Generals and Admirals burn would be an absolute pleasure.

          1. “I never fully appreciated the New York lefty lawyers trying to fly.”

            It was amazing, how the media of the day converted a bunch of bond traders into salt-of-the-earth types. Not that they should’ve been murdered by those fanatics, but let’s not pile the hagiography on too thick, O.K?

            1. We earned 1000 more 9/11s over the past 20 years. The people that are going to execute those strikes are not “fanatics”. They live by the “blood feud”. They will play the long game. They don’t need or value a timeline. We killed at least 100,000 people in Iraq for no reason other than to enrich the Generals, the politicians, and the war machine that is America.
              A US Air Force AC-130 gunship struck a “Doctors without Borders” hospital in Afghanistan. Nobody is punished so I am guessing it is OK. That is how much of the world views us now, certainly in the Muslim world. They don’t have B52s so airliners and dirty car bombs will have to do.
              Besides, those “fanatics” were from Saudi Arabia. We attacked two countries that had absolutely nothing to do with it.

              1. If you’re speaking of the Pashtun, they’re “sullen hillmen,” as Churchill described them when he campaigned against them near the turn of the 20th Century. They were pissed when Churchill’s Chitrali colonials killed a few of them, burned their shit, and knocked down their houses. And were told that if they kept raiding, the Lancers would come back and do it again. As everyone who has had to maintain the roads through the Hindu Kush has done.

                All of which is to say: if the ISI and their pets in the KP, and whatever remains of Afghanistan, want Round 2, we can do that. It might be with nukes, though.

      4. Don’t like the whataboutism (which goes against your panicky pants-shitting narrative about 20-to-1)?

        Then provide a real grown up concern. You posted:
        “…they did it with the intent of stopping the peaceful transition of power in a demonstration of mob rule.”

        Okay. Couple hundred MAGA hats in the Capitol Building on Jan 7th. Are they going “Neener neener neener Biden can’t get in!”??
        How do you propose that would ever work? The actual government of the actual USA isn’t like a freaking “Capture the Flag” session in a video game you fucking tard.

        Did you take a Fiverr class in “Rhetoric and Logical Argument” and they just told you “Keep repeating things, forever, and you win the argument.”?? Because the real glaring flaw in your concern about “domestic terrorism” is that you have absolutely NO path from “pushed their way into the Capitol Building” to “And then they put Trump back in the Presidency”.

        Jan 6th was much more like a fraternity flash mob taking over a convenience store than it was an actual insurrection, and your claims otherwise are ridiculous.

      5. Maybe after you’re ready to have an honest conversation about last years riots (heading into this year). Or is still just whataboutism to you? Because CRT backed killings have been happening for years now, see Houston police ambush. And you’ve defended every incident and refused to call any of it terrorism.

        So fuck right off.

      6. And the fire extinguishers! My god, the fire extinguishers!

        1. Don’t forget the most heinous charge of all: menacing with zip ties!!! [exclamation points required]

    3. Considering we attacked Afghanistan and Iraq when all the 9/11 killers were Saudi, I don’t see a very good outcome.
      Sooner or later, these assholes will cause a blood bath. We can only hope that the victims of bloodbath are the Politicians and their families who caused this with their rhetoric. I would like to see every current Woke General strung up around the beltway with their entrails dangling, it would be a good start. They forget that while they were hiding in Woke school and EO classes, non-Woke gunslingers were doing the hunting and killing.

      1. You and they can claim all you wish that they don’t value lives or timing, but they do. It’s a big lie to say they don’t, sort of like saying the US doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.

        FFS there are only so many of them and if enough of them die, the few left will find excuses to make different plans. Again, much in the same way that if a terrorist organization can either hurt the US enough or if a terrorists organization has something of substantial value, the US will negotiate.

    4. IIRC McVeigh was acting in response to state terrorism at Ruby Ridge and Waco. I am not inclined to violence at all but you couldn’t a better reason than the murder of an unarmed woman who posed a threat to no one by an agent of the federal government. The silence on the part of Reason is deafening. By treating the cold blooded murder of Ashli Babbit as somehow within normal parameters and a topic that can simply be memory holed, they are as complicit as AOC and John Brennan in what is to come.

      1. I disagree. Babbit was your typical coddled, over-entitled Air Force female. She misjudged the seriousness of her actions. She underestimated the threat she posed. If the capital cop let her through, it would have emboldened the pack of morons even further, just like the BLM vermin that were given “room to destroy”. Sooner or later, action was going to be taken. I don’t fault the officer. if you don’t want to get shot, don’t threaten a man with a gun and a job to do.
        As for McVeigh, there will be more. McVeigh showed the government that a moron can kill a whole lot of people. He just needs to be angry enough. Has anyone seen angry people lately?

        1. There’s a yawning void between, “shoot anyone who crosses this line,” and “let everyone on through.” The Capitol police officer needed to pick an option between the two, and there were plenty to choose from.

          McVeigh was a loser, but likely had a whole lot of help, and was likely allowed to run around free in the hope that he’d reveal links to who was helping him. Oops.

          Oh well, it helped turn Bill Clinton’s approval ratings around. Surely a blown-up daycare is worth that.

  5. >> More than two months after rioters stormed the Capitol,

    nope.

    >> Washington, D.C. is still occupied by National Guard troops

    I bet they’d rather not have their guns pointed at us

    >> and the police say they want to make the fencing that surrounds the Capitol building permanent.

    lol but no fencing in McAllen

    1. walls don’t work

      1. it’s the razor wire that gets ya

        1. Sort of, but the machinegun is what kills you when you are tangled.

        2. Especially if you just drive over it. Right? Where my armored vehicle drivers at?

          1. Not me, I was only issued unarmored vehicles to run around Baghdad in.

            1. But surely you’ve heard the bitching when the track’s crew has to stop whatever else they were doing, and starting cutting out a few hundred feet of concertina from the drive sprockets, because idiot thought, “Fuck you! I’m in a tank!” Or Brad, whatever. Case in point: https://tinyurl.com/yeqvvlh8

      2. Magic force fields do! And before anyone else tried that, i already called force fields.

    2. Can we make the fencing airtight and just not open it for a couple of months? I think that’d solve a lot of this country’s problems…

  6. https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1372232297022423043?s=19

    This is much more chilling than you might realize. It’s Soviet show trials stuff, where they can tack on accusations and hidden motivations that go directly against your own given testimony. This is what we’re sleepwalking toward. It’s been done before, always catastrophically.

    1. Could it be that the Atlanta guy was just a huge fan of the exploited song sex and violence?

    2. Yes, but the Russian populace are not armed to the teeth. Their cities are designed for putting down uprisings. US cities are not.

  7. “More than two months after rioters stormed the Capitol, Washington, D.C…”

    Man, that protest generated tons of purple prose!
    You’re full of shit.

    1. Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!

      So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…

      Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:

      Hi Fantastically Talented Author:

      Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.

      At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.

      Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reason.com .

      Thank You! -Reason Staff

      1. Flag, refresh. Outside of the handle, whatever ‘tard is writing ain’t getting read here.

      2. At this point I’m regarding any reference by you to Tim the Enchanter as spam, and flagging it. I mean, awesome movie, watched it again with my family just a couple days ago, but totally OT.

        Seriously, you’re starting to drift into Hihn territory with the TtE references.

        1. When Sevo stops its utterly inane thread-shitting, I will stop reminding Sevo of its utter worthlessness!!!

          1. I should think you would encourage thread shitting. More for you to eat.

      3. Spammer gets spamflagged.

  8. “We cannot crack down on people just because we don’t like their ideology,” Abrahms says. “Otherwise the government is going to turn into the thought police and that is going to spawn the next generation of terrorists.”

    As I have said before, the Constitution is a door whose strength is measured only by your neighbors’ unwillingness to kick it down. When people are standing on your porch and kicking down your door, appealing to the existence of the door as a reason for them to stop is an exercise in futility.

    Perhaps this would have been a good time for the writers at Reason to roll up their sleeves and discuss the troubling, ongoing prosecution of a man for the unspeakable “crime” of posting memes. He is now facing ten years in federal prison. If prosecutions like this are accepted by libertarians, then they will have no intellectual ammunition to object to further infringements by the government on the basis of ideology.

    If we want to keep the door on its hinges, averting our eyes and hoping for the best is not enough. If libertarians cannot be bothered to so much as object to one of the most naked displays of political persecution we have seen in our lifetimes, flagrantly violative of the First Amendment, then libertarians deserve to be ignored. And, if libertarians do not think they are next, they are sorely mistaken.

    1. If you want Reason to cover the Douglass Mackey case, you could actually present it in an intellectually honest manner. He wasn’t arrested for merely “posting memes”. That is a lie and you know it.
      He was arrested because he was trying to steal people’s votes, and his vehicle for his attempted theft were memes on social media. I wouldn’t mind them covering the story either, if for no other reason then maybe you’ll finally shut up about it. (Well, probably not, because they are unlikely to take your point of view on the matter and so you’ll just continue to whine about it.)

      This is what Mackey was arrested for:

      https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-ne-douglass-mackey-ricky-vaugh-arrest-20210127-ui2xxogekrchtffopez7jf5ply-story.html

      I get it, you just *know* that this prosecution represents your dystopian nightmare of Biden firing up the gulags for the purpose of imprisoning all conservatives who disagree with Team Blue, and just like when the TDS crowd would interpret everything that Trump did through the lends of “racism!” and “fascism!”, you are doing the same thing here, interpreting everything that Biden does through the lens of “he hates America!” and “communism!”. But you need to find a better schtick.

      1. “He was arrested because he was trying to steal people’s votes”

        That is a lie and you know it.

        1. So you tell me, GG. What is the honest, truthful, intellectually correct way to describe why Mackey was arrested?

          1. For posting memes whose content the government did not like. We have been through this a thousand times, so you can fuck right off with your sealioning.

            1. Bullshit. That is you deliberately trying to minimize what happened and gaslight people. He tried to steal people’s votes. Why can’t you even acknowledge that?

              1. There is no such crime as “trying to steal people’s votes.” You are a worthless fucking liar, dumb as shit to boot, and a shameless shill for authoritarianism in all its forms. Now get back in the water and swim your disingenuous sea lion ass into the depths until what little remains of your brain is crushed under the pressure.

                1. The actual crime, is depriving people of their right to vote. Which he tried to do. You have nothing but copypasta spam and insults because you do not like being called out for supporting a type of literal election fraud when it helps the people you don’t like.

                  1. “[A] type of literal election fraud ….”

                    And yet there is no charge of fraud you disingenuous piece of shit.

                    1. Well duh because the actual law is not about fraud it is about taking away people’s rights, such as the right to vote. It was a fraudulent act and you are defending it because it harmed people you don’t like. Don’t ever complain about “election integrity” again if you are going to continue to whine about how “unfair” it is that someone who literally tried to steal people’s votes is being punished for it.

                    2. And if the basis of your entire complaint is that “sure, he tried to steal people’s votes but in my view that’s technically legal so he should go ahead and keep doing it” then you are not at all in favor of “election integrity”, only in favor of making sure your team wins by whatever means necessary, including fraud if necessary.

                    3. “Well duh because the actual law is not about fraud ….”

                      No shit.

                      The law is not about fraud. It has never been about fraud. Mackey is not charged with fraud. It is also not about “stealing votes.” Mackey is not charged with stealing anything, let alone votes. There is nothing in the statute about theft or stealing.

                      What the statute prohibits is using physical threats and violence to prevent people from voting — you know, like lynching a black man on his way to the voting booth. And if you think posting a meme is the same as lynching someone, you are fucking idiot.

                    4. No, GG, if you take away my rights, you have most certainly injured me, even if it is not in a physical manner. You are interpreting it far too literally.

                      And once again, GG, you are trying to argue fine points of the law while missing the entire forest.

                      *He deliberately tried to depress turnout by trying to trick people into staying home on Election Day by fooling them into thinking that they had already “voted” via Twitter.*

                      Even if you don’t think that this particular law covers this particular act – IT’S STILL WRONG, and it is not the Impeding Biden Gulags to try to prosecute him for CONSPIRING to deprive people of their right to vote. He isn’t being prosecuted for “merely posting memes” as you continue to assert. He is being prosecuted for conspiring to take away people’s rights. Is that wrong, or isn’t it? Yes or no?

                    5. [Y]ou are trying to argue fine points of the law …

                      Who wudda thunk it? Arguing the fine points of the actual law rather than making up random shit in my head and pretending it applies.

                      Fuck off, sea lion.

                    6. “…You are interpreting it far too literally…”

                      No, you’re pulling definitions out of your ass, TDS-addled shit.

                    7. You’ve reached the spot where you’re basically just making shit up now, chemjeff.

                      Time to ask your boss for a new list of talking points.

                    8. Hey fatty, there is no actual ‘right to vote’. Although in your defense, you’re an idiot, and as you are also Canadian I can’t really expect much knowledge of American civics from you.

                  2. No he didnt retard. He posted a joke meme as has been done dozens of times. God damn you are anti 1a now too.

                    1. Mackey didn’t think it was a joke. He did it specifically to depress turnout among Hillary voters.

                    2. “Mackey didn’t think it was a joke.”

                      Did your tarot cards tell you that?

              2. “He tried to steal people’s votes”

                By posting memes… therefore, with speech?
                You’ve just made the assertion that all political advocacy is illegal.

                1. No, Nardz. It is not stealing someone’s vote to try to *persuade* them to vote for some other choice. That is the opposite of theft. That is the way political advocacy OUGHT to work. The theft part is tricking people into thinking they already voted, so that they don’t vote in a legally valid manner. Once again you are totally fine with this completely fraudulent behavior while in the very next breath are going to whine about ‘election integrity’ some more.

                  1. “The theft part is tricking people ….”

                    “Tricking” people is not theft.

                  2. You are way to unintelligent to be allowed to live unsupervised.

                  3. People are so stupid and easily “tricked”. It’s a good thing they’ve got virtuous folks like you looking out for them.

                    Give yourself a pat on the back.

                    1. Yeah I get it, those stupid people deserve to be tricked out of their vote.

                      It just reinforces more and more what I believe about what the Modern Right has come to: Only the worthy deserve to have their rights protected. The unworthy don’t. People who are deceived by what YOU think is an obvious joke, they are unworthy, and screw them if their rights are taken away. But if YOU are deceived, then that’s serious business, because YOU are worthy, therefore time to move Heaven and Earth to find the perpetrators..

                    2. It just reinforces more and more what I believe …

                      Nobody should be criminally prosecuted because of what you believe. Laws exist for a reason.

                      Having completely lost the legal argument (not that you ever had a chance of winning it), you have now pivoted to moral shaming and name-calling.

                      Do us all a favor and take the sanctimony with you back into the water. We are all tried of your barking, little sea lion.

                    3. “Nobody should be criminally prosecuted because of what you believe. Laws exist for a reason.”

                      It’s clear that Jeff has a little god-complex going on. People should be punished because he feels that they should be punished.

                  4. Jeffy, I’ve come to regard you as a sort of surrogate son. not a favourite son, obviously; more an illegitimate backstairs kind of sprog, who nobody really likes. Including, as it appears, everyone here but shit eater and maybe Kiddie Raper.

              3. Give us all a break. He’s being prosecuted for a joke anybody with an IQ above room temperature wouldn’t mistake for serious advice. If we now have to pitch our jokes to people too stupid to operate a toaster we’re in real trouble.

                1. So, blaming the victim.

                2. And it actually wasn’t a joke. If you read the complaint, it was an actual attempt to suppress voter turnout. He deliberately tailored his message towards demographics that he thought would vote for Hillary. It was not a mere joke. It was a real strategy.

                  1. “And it actually wasn’t a joke.”

                    Says you.

                    And, even if it wasn’t a joke, it still wasn’t a crime.

                    “He deliberately tailored his message towards demographics that he thought would vote for Hillary toward black people that I think are too stupid to understand a joke.”

                    Try being honest, sea lion. Everyone with a brain can see what you are really saying.

                    1. Sea lions have small, primitive brains.

                  2. Read the fucking complaint. He admits that the point was to depress turnout specifically among Blacks.

                    From p. 21:

                    Approximately two weeks later, on or about November 2, 2016, MACKEY tweeted the following: “Obviously, we can win Pennsylvania. The key is to drive up turnout with non-college whites, and limit black turnout.”

                    1. We get it. You don’t like his opinion, therefore he deserves to be in prison even if he did not break any laws.

                      You do realize you are advocating jailing people over …. what? Tweets now? Do you think you are making yourself sound better, or somehow less fucking insane?

                  3. “If you read the complaint, it was an actual attempt to suppress voter turnout.”

                    Right, the complaint alleges it wasn’t a joke. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t one, it just means that admitting it was one would not help the prosecutor’s case.

                    1. The government said it, therefore it must be true.

            2. And yes we have been over this before and I’m not going to let you get away with your bullshit. You are deliberately covering for a guy who tried to steal people’s votes, because you are fine with vote theft if it hurts the people you don’t like. That is wrong.

              1. There is no such crime as “trying to steal people’s votes.” You are a worthless fucking liar, dumb as shit to boot, and a shameless shill for authoritarianism in all its forms. Now get back in the water and swim your disingenuous sea lion ass into the depths until what little remains of your brain is crushed under the pressure.

                1. Good point. The criminal code has many, many, many crimes listed. You’d think Jeff could find one about specifically “stealing votes”. But given that the government couldn’t, I doubt Jeff can.

                  1. Why does the criminal code matter? Why do laws matter? Jeff has made it abundantly clear, on numerous occasions, that if he considers something to be morally wrong or objectionable, it should be immediately treated as a prosecutable offense and all violators should be arrested.

                    1. And shot if it happens on public property.

              2. You seem really concerned about making sure stupid people vote. Why is that?

                1. He doesn’t want stupid people to vote. What he wants is the unfettered power to imprison people that say things he doesn’t like.

                  1. What GG wants is for fraud that helps his team to go unpunished, but fraud that hurts his team to be punished to the nth degree.

                    ‘Election integrity’ evidently means ‘help Team Red win’

                    1. ‘Election integrity’ actually means not manufacturing and frauding votes, which you seem to have no problem with.
                      It doesn’t mean punishing a jokester for tweeting dank maymays, that only a functional retard could believe.

                    2. Let’s play a game of compare and contrast the bullshit.

                      Compare:

                      “What GG wants is for fraud that helps his team to go unpunished, but fraud that hurts his team to be punished to the nth degree.”

                      With ….

                      “Well duh because the actual law is not about fraud ….”

                      And ….

                      “We actually don’t know if anyone’s votes were stolen.”

                      Hmmm.

                      Apparently, what Chemchafe wants is for the government to arbitrarily prosecute people for crimes and “frauds” that, by his own admission, do not exist.

                    3. No, I want the government to prosecute people for violating people’s rights. And Mackey conspired to do that here, to take away people’s right to vote, by deceiving them and tricking them, using memes that looked very official and specifically targeted at groups that HE BELIEVED would be Hillary voters, to get them to “text their vote” to him in lieu of casting a legal valid vote.

                      It is all in the complaint. Go to pp. 21-22.

                      32. On or about November 1, 2016, the day before he sent the tweet suggesting the importance of limiting “black turnout,” MACKEY used MACKEY Account 2 to tweet a Deceptive Image. The picture featured an African American woman standing in front of an “African Americans for [the Candidate]” sign. The Deceptive Image included the following text: “Avoid the Line. Vote from Home. Text ‘[Candidate’s first name]’ to 59925[.] Vote for [the Candidate] and be a part of history.” The fine print at the bottom of the Deceptive Image stated the following: “Must be 18 or older to vote. One vote per person. Must be a legal citizen of the United States. Voting by text not available in Guam, Puerto Rico, Alaska or Hawaii. Paid for by [Candidate] for President 2016.” The tweet included the typed hashtags “#Go [Candidate]” and another slogan frequently used by the Candidate (together, the “Candidate Hashtags”).

                    4. That is a very fucking long winded way of saying you want the government to prosecute people for posting memes.

                      Glad you wiped your slate clean and we have to start from scratch. I don’t give a shit. I can do this 24/7 if it means even slightly inconveniences authoritarian fucks like you. You belong in the fucking ground and, trust me, you will be put there. 100% guaranteed. The people you are defending are going to put you in the ground.

                    5. Pedo Jeffy would likely have locked up everyone at Comedy Central from a prank that they pulled around 15 years ago. CC aired PSA’s that advised people to turn their clocks back for spring. A lot of people fell for the gag and they got thousands of angry calls

                      Clearly a serious crime.

            3. And then in the next breath you will probably prattle on about how important “election integrity”is.

              1. There is no such crime as “trying to steal people’s votes.” You are a worthless fucking liar, dumb as shit to boot, and a shameless shill for authoritarianism in all its forms. Now get back in the water and swim your disingenuous sea lion ass into the depths until what little remains of your brain is crushed under the pressure.

                1. Orange-dick-suckers will NEVER stop sucking orange dick!
                  Der TrumpfenFuhrer ***IS*** responsible for agitating for democracy to be replaced by mobocracy!

                  https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/24/politics/trump-election-warnings-leaving-office/index.html
                  A list of the times Trump has said he won’t accept the election results or leave office if he loses

                  Essential heart and core of the LIE by Trump: “ANY election results not confirming MEEE as Your Emperor, MUST be fraudulent!”

                  September 13 rally: “The Democrats are trying to rig this election because that’s the only way they’re going to win,” he said.

                  Trump’s constant re-telling and supporting the Big Lie (any election not electing Trump is “stolen”) set up the environment for this (insurrection riot) to happen. He shares the blame. Boys will be boys? Insurrectionists will be insurrectionists, trumpanzees gone apeshit will be trumpanzees gone apeshit, so let’s forgive and forget? Poor Trump was misunderstood? Does that sound good and right and true?
                  It really should immediately make us think of Krystallnacht. Hitler and the NAZIs set up for this by constantly blaming Jews for all things bad. Jew-haters will be Jew-haters, so let’s forgive and forget? Poor Hitler was misunderstood? Does that sound good and right and true?

                  1. Fuck off, Jeff/Sarc/WK.

                  2. “A list of the times…..”

                    Trump is still in office? Damn, he looks just like sleepy joe!

                  3. Remember to flag spambots, folks.

          2. I quoted the reason you posted for it.

            No threats. No intimidation.

            So it looks like he was arrested for, legitimately, no reason whatsoever.

            You could argue fraud…but the government did not.

            1. Hey Damiksec, damiskec, and damikesc, and ALL of your other socks…
              How is your totalitarian scheme to FORCE people to buy Reason magazines coming along?

              Free speech (freedom from “Cancel Culture”) comes from Facebook, Twitter, Tik-Tok, and Google, right? THAT is why we need to pass laws to prohibit these DANGEROUS companies (which, ugh!, the BASTARDS, put profits above people!)!!! We must pass new laws to retract “Section 230” and FORCE the evil corporations to provide us all (EXCEPT for my political enemies, of course!) with a “UBIFS”, a Universal Basic Income of Free Speech!

              So leftist “false flag” commenters will inundate Reason-dot-com with shitloads of PROTECTED racist comments, and then pissed-off readers and advertisers and buyers (of Reason magazine) will all BOYCOTT Reason! And right-wing idiots like Damikesc will then FORCE people to support Reason, so as to nullify the attempts at boycotts! THAT is your ultimate authoritarian “fix” here!!!

              “Now, to “protect” Reason from this meddling here, are we going to REQUIRE readers and advertisers to support Reason, to protect Reason from boycotts?”
              Yup. Basically. Sounds rough. (Quote damikesc)

              (Etc.)

              See https://reason.com/2020/06/24/the-new-censors/#comment-8316852

              1. Should looked down a bit and got a two-fer

              2. Remember to flag spambots, folks.

          3. This was discussed months ago yet your argument remains intact. Some idiot might have not voted because this dude posted a meme saying they could text their vote in. You see that as an offense of fraud punishable by imprisonment. I see it as an attempt at comedy that apparently some people that are too stupid to understand how we vote in this country took to heart.
            Should stupid really be the next level of crime for you Jeff?
            And just to be clear, as we discussed before at length, nothing was stolen. The person who believed they texted a vote, if they were again that moronic, could still go right down to the polling place and place their vote if they wanted.
            The real question would be, do you really want someone dumb enough to think they could text a vote in voting at all?
            I don’t.
            Call me old fashioned but some semblance of civic responsibility is to know how the process is done. Just like when I had to sign up for the draft when I was 18 years ago. It was my responsibility to find out how, where and when to do it.

            1. This was discussed months ago yet your argument remains intact.

              Because I’m still right and you’re still wrong.

              And no, justifying taking people’s rights away because “they’re stupid” and “they have it coming” is not at all an acceptable take on this matter. I don’t *want* stupid people to vote but I also don’t think they should be deceived into giving up their rights.

              1. Then lobby to pass a law that prohibits that. You don’t get to make up your own laws based on what you think the law should be and then prosecute people. Fucking twat.

              2. If I say “Mickey Mouse said to vote for Biden”, am I deceiving them into voting for somebody?

                At a certain point, you have to have SOME culpability for your decisions.

                1. By Jeff’s reasoning (if you can even call it that), two or more people advocating that voters should abstain from voting, regardless of whether they actually abstain from voting, are immediately guilty and should be imprisoned for ten years.

                  Take a team of podcasters and the following statement:

                  “You know, Joe, the corruption in this country is really unprecedented. Our electoral system is broken. You are better off not voting. Do yourself a favor, and do not vote.”

                  “I agree, Bill, people should not vote. That is our message to the people. Do not vote.”

                  Ten years in prison. Boom.

                  Just like that.

                  That is what Jeff wants.

                  1. Didn’t Lin Wood tell people to not vote in Georgia? He was quite explicit about it.

                    I notice a lack of charges about that.

                    1. That’s a tenner, in the parlance of Solzhenitsyn.

                  2. two or more people advocating that voters should abstain from voting, regardless of whether they actually abstain from voting, are immediately guilty and should be imprisoned for ten years.

                    No. If two or more people attempt to trick people into handing over their ballots to them, thinking that it is a valid means to cast a ballot, when in fact it is not, thereby taking away the voters’ right to vote, then that is the problematic conspiracy that ought to be prosecuted. You know, in the name of ‘election integrity’. It is not about trying to persuade anyone to vote for any specific person, or even trying to persuade people not to vote at all. It is depriving people of the right to vote itself through fraud.

                    But you know that, we have been through this many times, and so you are resorting to pushing these strawmen, about allegedly punishing people for mere speech, because you have to create an authoritarian bogeyman monster about Biden’s Gulags right around the corner. They can’t just be wrong, they must be *evil*! And so everything is framed in those terms. It can’t be that Biden’s DOJ is prosecuting someone for depriving people of their right to vote. No no, he is *prosecuting a guy for memes!* Everything is twisted into a menace. Nothing can be merely wrong, it must be the HARBINGER OF COMMUNISM. That is the demagogic narrative that Team Red continues to push and that is what you are doing here. You refuse to even acknowledge that the guy did anything wrong at all, instead it’s all authoritarian Biden punishing St. Mackey the Martyr for a simple meme! No, it isn’t, and you are just carrying water for Team Red with your nonsense.

                    1. “If two or more people attempt to trick people into handing over their ballots to them, thinking that it is a valid means to cast a ballot, when in fact it is not …..”

                      Mackey didn’t do that.

                      When you have to change facts of the underlying offense to something completely different than what is being charged, you are full of shit.

                    2. I didn’t say he did that, specifically. That is why I prefaced the sentence with the word “If”.

                      And we keep coming back to the central point: you are catastrophizing what is happening to Mackey to push a narrative of OMG BIDEN’S GULAGS ARE COMING. Making it seem far worse than it actually is in order to push the right-wing narrative.

                  3. “Making it seem far worse than it actually is ….”

                    Prosecuting people for the content of their speech is bad. Sure, it can get worse. And, it will get worse — just like you want. Why you think you are going to survive what comes next is completely beyond me.

                2. The issue is not about WHO to vote for. The issue is about WHETHER the vote is recorded at all. You morons deliberately choose not to see this. That is why this is not about “criminalizing speech” or some authoritarian bogeyman gulag waiting in the wings. It is prosecuting someone for conspiring to deprive people of their constitutional rights. It is attempting to trick people into thinking they had cast a lawful ballot when they had not, REGARDLESS of who it was they voted for. That is the problematic behavior here. You all are going to try to conflate it with other irrelevant issues, whataboutisms, whatever, because YOU LIKE the fraud he was committing because he was committing it against Hillary voters.

                  1. It is attempting to trick people into thinking … that is the problematic behavior here.

                    But wait … I thought he was conspiring? Or was he attempting? Or does it not make a difference at all to you because you have thoroughly given up trying to argue the law and are now emoting for lack of a cogent argument?

                    “[B]ecause YOU LIKE the fraud he was committing ….”

                    Fraud? Fraud? Just a little while ago you were assuring us:

                    ” [T]he actual law is not about fraud …”

                    What happened? Changed your mind? Got confused? Full of shit? I’ll go with the latter.

                    Get you baby nuts back in the water and swim away, sea lion. You are not equipped to have this discussion with adults.

                    1. I thought he was conspiring? Or was he attempting?

                      Umm, they’re not contradictory, you know.

                      And I believe he did commit a fraud even if he was not charged with the specific crime of fraud by the government. He posed as a representative of Hillary’s campaign with official-looking memes to try to deceive people into giving up their right to vote. I do not know if that follows the strictly narrow definition of fraud as a specific statute might define it. I do think it fits the broader definition of a fraud as the term is used more colloquially, as the dictionary would define it:

                      https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud

                      Definition of fraud
                      1a: DECEIT, TRICKERY
                      specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right
                      was accused of credit card fraud
                      b: an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : TRICK
                      automobile insurance frauds

                      That definition alone probably won’t get anyone convicted in any court, but I do think it fits what he did pretty well.

                    2. “Umm, they’re not contradictory, you know.”

                      Attempt is not the same as conspiracy, you worthless sack of ignorant shit. And the distinction does not matter, in this instance, because you cannot criminally conspire or attempt to commit an act that is not a crime. Dead stop. Fuck off.

                    3. “And I believe he did commit a fraud even if he was not charged with the specific crime of fraud by the government.”

                      You’ve really convinced yourself that this makes legal sense somehow, haven’t you?

              3. Youre actually wrong as usual.

              4. “…Because I’m still right and you’re still wrong…”

                No, you are still full of shit. Hasn’t changed.

              5. Because I’m still right and you’re still wrong.
                Nope. AND you are adding context that doesn’t exist except in your head.

                I’m not justifying taking their vote away. In fact, my response clearly states their ability to vote still exists, even if they believe they texted a vote in. I don’t want stupid people to vote, but I don’t advocate for them to be stopped. I do believe it is a citizen’s responsibility to understand the process of their civic participation. If they choose not to do that and then believe they can text a vote cuz they saw a meme on Twitter then, as I stated, maybe it is best they believe that they voted instead of actually voted.

                They are in no way disenfranchised – their vote still exists for them to execute.

                1. They are in no way disenfranchised – their vote still exists for them to execute.

                  But they believed they had already cast their vote via text, so they were disenfranchised when they chose not to show up on Election Day believing they had already voted. That choice was motivated by Mackey’s fraudulent behavior.

                  It is no different than if, say, someone stole your completed absentee ballot out of the mailbox. By putting your ballot in the mailbox, you believed you had exercised your right to vote. But the thief who stole your vote deprived you of your right to vote by literally throwing your vote away. So when Election Day rolls around, you would not normally think to vote in person, because you believed you had already voted. So the theft was more than just the physical ballot, it was the theft of your right to vote.

                  1. “But they believed they had already cast their vote via text, so they were disenfranchised when they chose not to show up on Election Day believing they had already voted. That choice was motivated by Mackey’s fraudulent behavior.”

                    Really? Because just a little while ago you were assuring us that …

                    “We actually don’t know if anyone’s votes were stolen.”

                    Well, which is it, little sea lion? It seems you have yet again lost track of your own bullshit. Get back in the water. Your skin is starting to crack.

                  2. “It is no different than if, say, someone stole your completed absentee ballot out of the mailbox.”

                    “Speech is violence!”

                  3. Nope.
                    The first choice, which supersedes the choice to not show up, is the choice to be responsible for one’s civic duty and understand how the process works. Whether they believe they texted their vote, transmitted it via telepathic waves or logged into the Church of SQRSLY to vote is their choice. Still not disenfranchised, their vote till exists for them. The first choice they made is to not know how to vote and put that responsibility in another’s hands.

                    It is no different than if, say, someone stole your completed absentee ballot out of the mailbox. By putting your ballot in the mailbox, you believed you had exercised your right to vote. But the thief who stole your vote deprived you of your right to vote by literally throwing your vote away. So when Election Day rolls around, you would not normally think to vote in person, because you believed you had already voted. So the theft was more than just the physical ballot, it was the theft of your right to vote.

                    Now you are talking about stealing the physical ballot of someone. Same argument you made last time. Still does not hold water. That would be illegal, as we all know. That is a physical ballot completed for voting. That is a legitimate way to vote. If you can’t see the difference I can’t help you.

                    1. The biggest problem with the prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 241 is that it is an inchoate crime layered over with a limitless layer of vagueness:

                      “If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person … in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States … [t]hey shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both[.]”

                      What does that mean? Aside from the fact that there is no “right to vote” (something that should doom the prosecution’s case) it means that Mackey could just as easily have been prosecuted under this statute for nothing more than agreeing with another person to post a meme, without ever posting the meme. It means that the government has no burden of proving that anybody was duped, or would have been duped, or could have been duped. Indeed, there is nothing in the statute that limits its application to misrepresentations about the mechanics of voting. It can just as readily be used to prosecute any two people that agree to make any statement to the public (as the statute does not require the targeting of any specific individual) that is determined after the fact to have been somehow false or deceptive.

                      If the government has its way with Mackey, the door will be open for the government to prosecute anyone it wants for political speech it deems to somehow, in some manner, “injure” or “oppress” other people in the exercise of their rights — any rights.

                      The only people that can defend this with any measure of genuineness are authoritarians, sociopaths, and truly evil people. Any libertarian that supports granting the government such an unlimited scope of power is absolutely lying to you about being a libertarian. The fact that Reason continues to completely ignore this prosecution is incomprehensible.

              6. “Taking people’s rights away”? Really?

                That’s retarded.

              7. What right was ‘taken away’?

                1. Professor Volokh has an excellent analysis, link below. His conclusion? This is a bullshit prosecution that attempts to rewrite a narrow statute in an overly broad manner and, given that there is no limit to the way the government is asking for the law to be applied, we should be very concerned since it could be used to criminalize virtually all political speech of which the government does not approve.

                  https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/douglass-mackey-ricky-vaughn-memes-first-amendment

                  Who knew that Volokh, of all people, was a Trump dick sucker?

              8. Here you go, Jeff.
                A simple google search. How do I vote in a US election. This is the top one.
                https://www.usa.gov/how-to-vote

          4. You can find dozens of examples on both sides with the same meme telling the other side to vote on the wrong day you retarded fuck. They are jokes.

            He was arrested over memes.

          5. Jeff, you’re a fucking retard.

            Scalia wrote his concurrence because, in the fraud statute at issue in Skilling, Congress tried to impose a hopelessly mushy obligation on the American people to deal honestly with each other (you know, like the way Congress deals with us). Lawmakers described this duty as “the intangible right to honest services.” Very nice as an aspiration, but unworkable overkill as a criminal law-enforcement matter. That is why the Skilling majority effectively rewrote the statute, holding that the mush could criminalize only bribery and kickback schemes — meaning: real fraud crimes, in which the accused has an actual fiduciary responsibility and betrays it for the clear, corrupt purpose of enriching himself. (While he agreed that Jeffrey Skilling’s honest-services fraud conviction had to be thrown out, Scalia’s well-taken objection was that it was not the Court’s job to rewrite an unconstitutionally vague statute, just to refuse to give it effect.)

            Obviously, what Mackey did was deceptive. But it was not actionable fraud because he had no fiduciary duty to people who read his social-media posts and he was not trying to enrich himself (i.e., whatever emotional lift he stood to get out of Clinton’s defeat, he was not trying to obtain property as fraud law construes that concept).

            https://news.yahoo.com/justice-department-ridiculous-voter-disinformation-174047295.html

            Democrats and comics have both made similar meme against Republicans and were not charged.

            We get it, you hate free speech.

            1. All that says is that he wasn’t charged with the crime of fraud, not that he didn’t engage in deceptive behavior. It says nothing about depriving people of the right to vote, which he most certainly tried to do, he even openly bragged about it.

              1. “It says nothing about depriving people of the right to vote ….”

                And why do you suppose that is, little sea lion?

                1. God damn. You point him to the actual legal argument and he doesn’t fucking understand.

                  1. He gets paid not to understand.

              2. If engaging I’m deceptive speech we’re a crime, you would be locked up for life or executed long ago.

                You’re a lying, sea lioning, fat little twat.

                1. That’s a bingo!

      2. “Mackey is accused of violating a U.S. statute that makes it illegal for people to threaten or intimidate others from exercising any right secured to them by the Constitution, such as the right to vote.”

        …there was, literally, zero threats or intimidation used.

        At all.

        1. That is crappy reporting on the part of the newspaper.

          Here is the actual complaint.

          https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1360816/download

          He was arrested under a law that makes it illegal to conspire to “injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate” someone from exercising their right, including the right to vote. He absolutely did try to take away people’s right to vote.

          1. Do you understand the meaning of the words “injure,” “oppress,” “threaten,” or “intimidate”? Or do you think those specific words were included in the statute just for fun?

            1. Gee, if you steal my vote, then you have most certainly caused me harm, i.e., injured me.

              1. Nobody stole anything, so once again you are wrong.

                1. There were people who actually did “text their vote” to the number that Mackey provided. How many of those people then did not vote on Election Day because they thought they had already voted? That is the theft.

                  Again why are you trying to rationalize this? If you believe in “election integrity” you should not be condoning crap like this.

                  1. “There were people who actually did “text their vote” to the number that Mackey provided. How many of those people then did not vote on Election Day because they thought they had already voted? That is the theft.”

                    Good question. Too bad the government did not bother to even try to answer it. Not that it makes a difference, because none of that constitutes “injuring,” “oppressing,” “intimidating,” or “threatening.”

                    When you have to make up your own elements, rather than tracking those in the statute, it means you are full of shit.

                    1. It was the CONSPIRACY to do so. Learn to read. You don’t actually have to be successful executing a crime in order to be guilty of conspiring to plan the crime. It seems pretty logical to assume that there were people who actually did fall for Mackey’s fraud. But even if no one did, it is still a conspiracy to commit the crime.

                      Once again, when am I going to hear from you anything about how wrong it is to try to steal people’s votes? All I see from you is trying to nitpick details about the law. It is plainly obvious what Mackey tried to do. I posted the actual complaint above. Do you deny that he and his buddies tried to deceive people into throwing away their votes?

                    2. It was the CONSPIRACY to do so. Learn to read. You don’t actually have to be successful executing a crime in order to be guilty of conspiring to plan the crime. It seems pretty logical to assume that there were people who actually did fall for Mackey’s fraud. But even if no one did, it is still a conspiracy to commit the crime.

                      In order to prove a conspiracy, you have to actually prove that there was not only an agreement, but an agreement to commit a crime.

                      Without a crime, there is no conspiracy. But at least you have finally come around to admitting that nobody’s vote was “stolen,” leaving you holding your dick and defending the prosecution of a man for “conspiring” to commit a non-existent crime.

                      Back in the water, sea lion.

                    3. We actually don’t know if anyone’s votes were stolen. It was certainly Mackey’s intent to TRY to steal people’s votes. That is all I have ever claimed. And yes it is a crime to try to take away someone’s right to vote. Read the complaint above, which you still haven’t read, preferring instead to read right-wing hateposts about how St. Mackey the Martyr represents the ominous coming of the Biden Gulags.

                    4. “And yes it is a crime to try to take away someone’s right to vote.”

                      Cite that exact statute that prohibits that.

                    5. It’s interesting to what length chemjeff will go to defend a narrative he objectively knows is a lie.

                      Unless you’re legitimately mentally handicapped, nobody is going to believe that you can text your vote . Anyone who did text the provided number, did so as part of the joke.
                      The prosecution for this is old-style Soviet intimidation of the general public technique and has nothing to do with the actual occurance.

                      Jeff knows this, but continues to push the ridiculous narrative because (1) he’s a sociopath, and (2) he’s paid to do it. He’s a fifty-center.

                    6. “And yes it is a crime to try to take away someone’s right to vote.”

                      Cite that exact statute that prohibits that.

                      That would be the same statute that Mackey is charged under.

                    7. That would be the same statute that Mackey is charged under.

                      No, it’s not.

                  2. This is the most totalitarian argument anybody, including Tony, has ever made on this site.

                    1. Oh and here we have another member of the ‘election integrity’ brigade come to defend Mackey’s very obvious attempts at fraudulent behavior with regards to the election.

                    2. Oh and here we have another member of the ‘election integrity’ brigade come to defend Mackey’s very obvious attempts at fraudulent behavior with regards to the election.

                      Oh, really? Because five minutes earlier your position was:

                      [T]he actual law is not about fraud ….

                      Fraud, but not fraud.

                      Christ, you are as stupid as they get.

                    3. Yes, fraudulent behavior, as in using an adjective to describe a particular type of behavior. When all you have is grammar pedantics, you have lost.

                    4. Yes, fraudulent behavior, as in using an adjective to describe a particular type of behavior. When all you have is grammar pedantics, you have lost.

                      Nah, motherfucker. If you are going to wade your baby nuts into the legal analysis end of the pool, you better learn to swim or drown. Legal terms have strict meanings, you ignorant fucking cuck.

                    5. No, you are imposing narrow technical meanings on words used in a broader colloquial sense. That is a fallacy, or otherwise known as, “GG lying again”.

                    6. “No, you are imposing narrow technical meanings using accepted legal definitions …

                      Fixed.

                      If you are going to casually disregard legal definitions until you arrive at the result you want — that result being the prosecution of people whose speech you do not like — you may just be a stupid authoritarian twat.

                      Keep barking, little sea lion.

                    7. No, you are insisting on using a narrow technical definition of fraud, when I am using the broader colloquial definition, otherwise known as “the dictionary definition”. That is just pettifoggery and a fallacy.

                    8. No, you are insisting on using a narrow technical the legally recognized definition of fraud ….

                      Fixed it for you … again.

                    9. Lol. If either of them ever had a sense of humor, it’s long gone.

                      Sad.

                  3. “There were people who actually did “text their vote” to the number that Mackey provided.”

                    Can we demonstrate that they did not vote any other way? Seems quite relevant to this case. If they “texted their vote” and still voted otherwise, seems absolutely harmless.

                    “How many of those people then did not vote on Election Day because they thought they had already voted? That is the theft.”

                    Again, people have no culpability at all for their decisions and choices in life?

                    “Some rando said to do this” seems like something that an idiot would do and few would empathize with that.

                    1. No, no.

                      You see, whether people did or did not ultimately vote is irrelevant. This is just a “conspiracy” case. So, Mackey is not even being prosecuted for posting the meme at all; he is being prosecuted for agreeing to post the meme with another person. The government actually does not have any proof of how people voted, or why. Kind of just wingin’ it, you know? Big deal. It’s only ten years.

                    2. “If your friends (or a stranger on the internet) told you to jump off a cliff……”

                      Haha. Jeff apparently would. Or at least wax sympathetic about the morons who did.

                  4. Well before the election there was no standing, after the election it was moot

              2. So the answer is “no,” you do not understand the meaning of specific words that serve as the critical elements of a criminal statute. You also do not understand the meaning of the word “steal.”

                You are a fucking lightweight. Go home.

                1. Once again all you have are insults and bad faith arguments, and in another week or so you’re going to whine some more about “poor Mackey who was arrested for the ‘crime’ of MERELY POSTING MEMES, OMG IT’S THE START OF THE BIDEN GULAGS” while lying to everyone about what Mackey *actually* did by pushing your DDS (Democrat Derangement Syndrome) nonsense about how this is the harbinger of the American Gulags. And then unironically you will then prattle on about the need for ‘election integrity’ in the next article.

                  1. So … the answer is “no,” you do not understand the meaning of specific words in a criminal statute and, therefore, are pretending they don’t exist.

                    Back in the water, sea lion.

                  2. “Once again all you have are insults and bad faith arguments,..”

                    When dealing with imbecilic TDS-addled shits, it comes to a point where there is no further good in attempting to explain basic logic to them.
                    Fuck off and die.

              3. Do you have any proof that anybody did that at all?

                If you give your car keys to some dude in a red jacket in front of a restaurant that has never offered valet parking and they steal your car, you cannot sue the restaurant.

              4. You have no right to vote. Even if you were American, it doesn’t exist.

          2. So that means every single gun grabber in congress will be arrested under the same code?

          3. He did not threaten. Injure. Oppress. Or intimidate. anybody.

            1. Depriving someone of their rights is an injury to the person.

              1. Do you understand what a “right” is?

                1. Sure. I have a “right” to have the government force other people to pay for my basic needs. And a few wants.

                  Right? Haha.

              2. No right to vote you tubby Canadian.

      3. Defending throwing someone in a cage for a meme, especially by saying “they were stealing votes” is about as genuine as forcing someone posting a “charge your iphone wirelessly in the microwave” to cover the cost of your dead phone after you did it. If you’re stupid enough to believe you can microwave your phone, or text your vote, that is not a “reasonable” belief, you’re just a fucking idiot.

        1. That is not even the extent of it. Chemtwat wants people imprisoned for simply posting the meme — without any consideration of whether anyone actually even did what the meme asked them to do.

          Just the posting of the meme is enough, in Jeff’s smegma brain, to lock someone up for ten years.

          1. Weird. I thought “no evidence of widespread fraud” was the standard now. Apparently not.

        2. What if the directions to “charge your Iphone wirelessly in the microwave” came from an official-looking manual with the Apple logo on it? Would you consider it fraudulent behavior then?

          1. “What if the directions to “charge your Iphone wirelessly in the microwave” came from an official-looking manual with the Apple logo on it? Would you consider it fraudulent behavior then?”

            Keep barking, sea lion. And then you can get back to admitting that Mackey is not being charged with fraud.

            1. I didn’t say he was. I said it was fraudulent behavior. As in, deceptive. You continue this impulse to not even label the behavior fraudulent, even if he’s not charged with fraud, because you actually agree with it.

              1. “You continue this impulse to not even label the behavior fraudulent, even if he’s not charged with fraud ….”

                I bet that sounded really smart in that baby brain of yours, didn’t it? You are definitely the dumbest person that posts here.

                1. And that’s saying something. Sadly, it likely qualifies him to WRITE for this publication. It would be more worthless than a really bad Shikha column though.

                  1. It’s quite simple, really. He believes that the government should be free to prosecute people for imagined offenses that are not actually crimes.

                    There is no reasoning with people like that so you can only expose them for the world to laugh at.

                    1. And torment them. Maybe he starts harming himself.

            1. “Sure looks pretty official-like.”

              If you have shit for brains, which you do. And, if you can point me in the direction of the federal statute that criminalizes the posting of memes that “look pretty official-like,” I’d appreciate it. Thanks. Asking for a friend.

              1. That meme puts to bed the lie that it was “just some meme”. It was an intentional deception that the DOJ complaint makes clear was intended to depress voter turnout. From its appearance it absolutely looks like it came straight from Hillary’s campaign. The law in question is about depriving people of their rights. In this case, conspiring to deprive people of their rights. Telling people to vote from home, or vote by social media, hoping that they would believe the fraudulent information and therefore fail to cast a legal vote on Election Day, is attempting to rob people of their right to vote in that election.

                The alert reader of this discussion will note that you have said absolutely nothing condemning Mackey’s actions; even if you do legitimately believe they are legal (which I doubt), they are highly deceptive and go beyond merely trying to convince people to vote for a different candidate.

                1. “From its appearance it absolutely looks like it came straight from Hillary’s campaign.”

                  If you have shit for brains, which you do.

                  “Telling people to vote from home, or vote by social media, hoping that they would believe the fraudulent information and therefore fail to cast a legal vote on Election Day, is attempting to rob people of their right to vote in that election.”

                  It is not. Mackey is not being charged with fraud, or theft of any sort.

    2. Shit, I’m just glad I made that joke 20 years ago on Livejournal and not 4 years ago on Twitter.

  9. What a load of hogwash.

  10. https://twitter.com/sairasameerarao/status/1372018827798581249?s=19

    A white man has just assassinated eight Asians in Atlanta.

    Instead of sending thoughts and prayers, white people need to dismantle the toxic whiteness that is killing us.

    Whiteness is terrorism.

    1. OH MY GOD! SOMEONE SAID SOMETHING STUPID ON TWITTER!

      1. Now do that Mackey guy…

        I mean, he did the same thing.

        1. Try to steal people’s votes?

          1. I see no proof he stole a single one.

            Nor even a serious attempt.

            I see a joke at worst.

            The OFFICIAL reason for his arrest involves intimidation or threats. Where, exactly, did those come into play?

            1. Of course all you “see” is a “joke” because you are not actually looking, only rationalizing.

              This is what Douglass Mackey did: he chatted with his loser buddies about how to convince Hillary voters to throw away their votes by convincing them to “vote” by text, so that they would not vote in a legally valid way. It is beyond just “posting memes”. It is trying to deceive people into throwing away their votes.

              1. Nope, once again you are completely wrong.

                1. That is literally from the DOJ complaint which I posted above.

                  1. It is literally not.

                  2. Lol. Appeal to prosecution is usually what autboritarians do.

                    Now cite the actual law.

                  3. The same DOJ that lied to a FISA court repeatedly to attempt to ruin somebody’s life?

                    Forgive me if “DOJ filed a complaint” does not hold a ton of water with me

              2. “It is trying to deceive people into throwing away their votes ….”

                Well, then everyone that convinced people to vote for Jo Jorgensen is guilty of the same crime. They threw away their votes.

                When you cannot stick to the elements of the statute in question, the charges brought, or the facts, it means you are full of shit.

                1. And now you are dishonestly conflating two dissimilar issues. Saying “don’t vote for that person because that person has no chance of winning” is not taking anyone’s right to vote away. Instead, doing what Mackey did, saying “here, I’ll record your vote for you so you don’t have to go vote on Election Day”, when he has no authority to do such, THAT is taking someone’s vote away.

                  1. Saying “don’t vote for that person because that person has no chance of winning” is not taking anyone’s right to vote away.

                    Yes, it is. If I believe you, and do not vote, or vote for someone else, based on your representations, then my vote has been stolen.

                    Instead, doing what Mackey did, saying “here, I’ll record your vote for you so you don’t have to go vote on Election Day”, when he has no authority to do such, THAT is taking someone’s vote away.

                    When you have to invent your own facts, rather than relying on the facts as alleged, it means you are full of shit.

                    1. Does Mangu-Ward write an article every year telling people not to vote?
                      10 years in Leavenworth!

                    2. Yes, it is.

                      No, it isn’t, because even if you are persuaded by my argument of who is the proper person to vote for, you still retain the RIGHT to vote regardless. The issue with Mackey isn’t about telling people who to vote for, it is TRICKING people into thinking they had already voted when they hadn’t.

                      You obviously haven’t read the complaint, all you have read is right-wing garbage about Mackey, because it says literally in the complaint that him and his buddies – that’s the conspiracy – plotted ways to target what they believed to be Hillary demographics with memes that would deceive them into throwing away their vote “by text” and therefore not vote on Election Day. They bragged about it. That was their whole goal.

                    3. “No, it isn’t, because even if you are persuaded deceived by my argument of who is the proper person to vote for, you still retain the RIGHT to vote regardless.”

                      Fixed that for you. Hope that makes it easier for you to understand (I know it won’t, because you are a disingenuous fucking twat)

                    4. It doesn’t matter either way, whether it is persuasion or deception that I vote for a different person, I still RETAIN THE RIGHT TO VOTE either way. Your deception in this case is about who I should vote for, not about whether I cast my vote in the first place. That is why you are wrong and you know it.

                    5. “I still RETAIN THE RIGHT TO VOTE either way”

                      Everyone that saw the meme and believed it (assuming such people even exist) still retained their right to vote.

                      Nothing happened to their right to vote, sea lion.

                    6. Everyone that saw the meme and believed it (assuming such people even exist) still retained their right to vote.

                      They THOUGHT they had already exercised that right to vote when they “voted by text”, when they hadn’t. So their right to vote was taken away from them.

                      When are you going to get around to condemn what Mackey did in trying to take away people’s rights to vote?

                    7. Telling someone a false option of voting IN NO WAY DEPRIVES ANYBODY OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE.
                      You are totalitarian scum.

                    8. “They THOUGHT they had already exercised that right to vote ….”

                      Cite the precise statute that makes that a crime.

                    9. Does Mangu-Ward write an article every year telling people not to vote?
                      10 years in Leavenworth!

                      No, Nardz, because again that is an appeal to persuade people not to vote. It does not take people’s votes away from them who are otherwise inclined to vote. If KMW said “hey I will take your vote from you and vote on your behalf” and then threw your vote in the trash, that would be taking someone’s vote away from them. That would not be persuading people not to vote. That would be deceiving people into thinking that they had voted, when they really had not. Get it now?

                    10. …[T]hen threw your vote in the trash, that would be taking someone’s vote away from them. That would not be persuading people not to vote.

                      Is that what Mackey did? No.

                      Fuck off.

                  2. “Instead, doing what Mackey did, saying “here, I’ll record your vote for you so you don’t have to go vote on Election Day”, when he has no authority to do such, THAT is taking someone’s vote away.”

                    Isn’t that ballot harvesting, which Democrats support and employ and wish to make a legal obligation?

              3. It is trying to deceive people into throwing away their votes.

                Shit, in that case, better lock up all the … politicians, pundits, lawyers, judges, regulators, commentators, Youtubers, memers, gamers, posters, hosts, authors, comedians, podcasters, and religious leaders because those motherfuckers are all lying, depending on who you ask of course.

                The reason I constantly complain about the prosecution of Mackey being an authoritarian assault on liberty is because that is exactly what it is. When you stretch the meaning of a criminal statute beyond its elements such that it can encompass all of human conduct, you are engaging in an act of authoritarian construction.

                The fact that you are supporting this shit, repeatedly, eagerly, with gusto, proves that the best place for you, my friend, is in the fucking ground. And you can rest assured that the people that are going to put you there are the same ones whose actions you are defending as we fucking speak.

                1. No, GG, you are deliberately distorting what happened and creating authoritarian bogeymen monsters in order to generate unwarranted fear. Because that is basically all that Team Red does now.

                  The problematic part is not about persuading people WHO to vote for. It is tricking people into thinking that they had ALREADY voted, REGARDLESS of who that vote was cast for. You are deliberately and dishonestly claiming otherwise.

                  I mean the term “throwing one’s vote away” in a literal sense – literally having your vote taken from you. Not in the metaphoric sense that you are trying to conflate it with – i.e., a vote for Candidate X is a poor choice, or some such. Even if I vote for a candidate that you or someone else regards is a poor choice, I STILL VOTED. That is not the same as not having my vote recorded at all because you deceived me into thinking I had already cast a legal vote when in fact I had not.

                  And do not dare complain again about ‘election integrity’ when you cannot bring yourself to condemn fraudulent behavior by people up to no good trying to trick people into not voting on Election Day because they thought they were otherwise casting a legal vote.

                  1. “It is tricking people into thinking that they had ALREADY voted.

                    Cite the precise statute that makes that, and exactly that, criminal.

                    1. There you go. Mr. ‘Election Integrity’ defends tricking people out of voting.

                    2. So, you can’t cite the statute? I thought so. You can go fuck off now.

                    3. “tricking people out of voting”

                      LOL

                  2. The media just got found to have pushed a false narrative regarding trumps call to Ga officials the day before the senate run off. We know GOP votes were driven down due to this false report. I hope you remain consistent and call for charges against most of the major newspapers for “stealing votes.”

              4. “his is what Douglass Mackey did: he chatted with his loser buddies about how to convince Hillary voters to throw away their votes by convincing them to “vote” by text”

                Again, even if true (the lack of evidence is duly noted), there still is not a crime. There are plenty of ways to vote and tons of information on how to do so. If you vote based on memes alone, that is a “you” issue. Not a legal one.

                “It is beyond just “posting memes”. It is trying to deceive people into throwing away their votes.”

                Again, we’ve informed people, in excruciating detail, how to vote. If they STILL won’t do it, hardly my concern.

          2. There is no such crime as “trying to steal people’s votes.” You are a worthless fucking liar, dumb as shit to boot, and a shameless shill for authoritarianism in all its forms. Now get back in the water and swim your disingenuous sea lion ass into the depths until what little remains of your brain is crushed under the pressure.

            1. Jeffy really does ruin any possibility fo a substantive discussion with his endless threadshitting, doesn’t he?

              1. Sea lions have one objective, and only one. Jeff is a perfect example. He asks palpably stupid questions and, when provided with an answer, continues asking more and more and more stupid questions. In the process, he pretends not to understand the answers and/or deliberately mischaracterizes the answers in order to … ask more stupid questions.

                This becomes painfully obvious after a few exchanges and, sensing he is a troll, people tell him to fuck off. He then cries about being misunderstood and unfairly attacked, while accusing people of being irrational and/or unreasonable for not playing his endless game.

                The best way to deal with him is to ignore him, or club him over the head.

      2. “OH MY GOD! SOMEONE SAID SOMETHING STUPID ON TWITTER!”

        According to you, chemjeff, that is justly illegal and should result in 10 years imprisonment.

        1. Was the “stupid stuff” a type of fraud trying to steal people’s votes?

          Haven’t you spent the last 6 months whining about ‘election integrity’? When are you going to get around to condemn crap like this? Oh I know – never.

          1. You’re an imbecile

            1. Not nice to actual imbeciles.

      3. And you say hundreds of stupid things here, every day.

    2. A woke and white woman. Teaching us all how it is done….sigh

  11. The Democrats seemed determined to destroy American with their “good works”.

  12. I bet most of these cases get dropped anyway. They aren’t going to survive appeals. Maybe the guy who stole the podium and some idiots who threw punches will get some more time. But anyway notice how suddenly reason doesn’t seem to care about cash bail or no bail in this circumstance.

    Oh and jeff is wrong once again, nobody stole any votes.

  13. https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1372290989096845313?s=19

    Definitely possible that racial animus motivated the spree shooting in Atlanta, but it’s weird that people seem to desperately WANT racial animus to have been the true motive (even in the absence of evidence to that effect) because it validates their knee-jerk narrative fixations

    1. It wasn’t.

    2. Don’t say people. Say “woke” people. We need to be clear.

      1. Don’t say “woke” people either.

        Their humanity is sketchy at best.

    3. Well, they desperately want it to be racial animus FROM A WHITE GUY. Because all the assaults on Asians in SF and LA have been by black people. So the turn to “White Nationalism” when talking about racism against Asians has been more of a jarring non-sequitur than a logical point.

      This will help with that.

  14. Every single year the military made the troops sit through an entire morning of their bullshit Equal Opportunity classes. Every single time, a black male taught it. Every single year, the idiot would forget the most important part of the entire training. And every year we would remind his stupid ass. One of us would stand up and teach it for him.
    It is not illegal to be a racist. It is not immoral to be a racist. Nobody can tell you who to like, nobody can tell you who to hate. If they start to tell you who to like and who to hate, we have a real problem. That is in the book, but they always “forgot” to teach it. They also have an entire portion that “explains away” affirmative action. It is ludicrous to lie about something so firmly established. Look at that fat piece of shit Lloyd Austin. Do you think that he was promoted to General on merit? He was so fat he had to wear maternity BDUs.
    After the stupid classes we would all go to the chow hall and sit with people of our own race, as usual, unless you worked together. There were no racial issues in any unit that I served in during my 21 years. All the races agreed to the same thing, EO classes were a waste of precious training time, they did not achieve anything.
    Nowadays, they do lots and lots of EO classes, even in combat. It is a complete waste of tax dollars. If these Woke shits think that the combat arms troops are buying their bullshit, they have another thing coming.
    This “blame whitey” crap isn’t new. They have been testing it on soldiers since the 80s. The military cable television AFRTs, has always used diversity in every public service message. There is never a homogenous group or couple.

    1. I know, right? It was just last year, I had an absolute epiphany: “Wait. When did racism become worse than anything else? Like murder, rape, theft, etc.? Who decreed this, and how is “what I think” about some other group of people worse than what I DO to said group?”

      I just don’t care any more. If somebody develops psychosomatic symptoms of actual physical harm from what they think I think…they need therapy or medication.

  15. No, this new war on “terror” won’t be ‘just as’ disastrous as the original.

    The original was targeted at people who could plausibly be considered terrorists.

    This one is targeted at Americans based on our politics.

    It’s going to be twenty times worse.

    1. If your “politics” consist of, “when I don’t win an election I’m entitled to change the election results at the US Capitol by force if necessary”, then maybe you ought to rethink your politics.

      1. Haha. The word “if” is doing a lot of work in that long, retarded non sequiter.

  16. I take it that the President brought a bunch of new acquaintances to the democratic table. For example, Ukrainian leaders and North Korean feds.

    Thus, now the 25,000 figure jibes with what the conspiracy theorists have to work with.

    Now, how many foreign conflicts did the previous presidency initiate, again?

  17. Its not a new war on terror – its the same one we’ve been fighting. Its just been expanded to a new theater.

  18. Abrahms believes that the mainstream media and the government are attempting to weaponize some of the legitimate fear that has resulted from the events of January 6 in order to marginalize those on the political right, “including those who have quite reasonable views.”

    The man is obviously a member of Qanon.

  19. https://twitter.com/kirkacevedo/status/1372283385721188353?s=19

    When White people are having a bad day they kill 8 individuals at a massage parlor.

    When white people have a good day they enslave Black people and kill off the American Indian?

    Looks like a whole different set of rules for white people.

    #KidVicious????

  20. https://twitter.com/LeonydusJohnson/status/1372321520354258945?s=19

    The woke are really good at talking out of both sides of their mouth and pretending like all of the cognitive dissonance and inconsistent garbage they spew is entirely consistent and cannot ever be challenged.

    1. Being a prog means simultaneously accepting two contradictory premises or arguments.

  21. https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1372238096541048841?s=19

    The Biden administration has imposed an information blackout on the border. They do not want the public to know what is happening there. From NBC:

  22. Critical theory is (post) modern Nazism

    https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1372328016739594241?s=19

    Seems like a good time to remind everyone that West Point military academy is teaching critical race theory as part of its leadership program.

    1. Marxism. Specifically Frankfurt School Marxism.

      Not that there is any practical difference between Marxists and Nazis…

  23. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/would-you-buy-automobile-designed-woke-engineer

    Klainerman takes issue with a shocking document financed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and endorsed by various State of California educational entities, entitled, ‘A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction, Dismantling Racism in Mathematics Instruction.’ The very first paragraph gives away the entire scheming plot:

    “This tool provides teachers an opportunity to examine their actions, beliefs, and values around teaching mathematics. The framework for deconstructing racism in mathematics offers essential characteristics of antiracist math educators and critical approaches to dismantling white supremacy in math classrooms by visibilizing the toxic characteristics of white supremacy culture.”

    1. “Visibilizing”?

  24. We are not afraid of terrorism, we have the protection of FBI, no one needs to be afraid .
    https://www.gdvn8.com

  25. https://listoffullforms.com/

    When White people are having a bad day they kill 8 individuals at a massage parlor.

    When white people have a good day they enslave Black people and kill off the American Indian? Looks like a whole different set of rules for white people.

  26. What terrorism problem? All the bombings we have had lately…oh there haven’t been any? Just another fanciful lie from the media.

  27. Seriously, the word “Terrorism” has been so overused it means almost nothing. It is like when someone calls someone else a “Nazi”. Why do we need a word that basically just calls political violence other than your own violence bad? It is all bad unless defensive in nature.

  28. Reminder: The Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution [a wartime governing charter] were created to prevent and counter the tactics of the 18th Century Redcoats.

    American officials shouldn’t behave like Redcoats.

  29. Since someone mentioned Nazis. What really separates America from despotic regimes is our government officials supreme and superseding loyalty oath – Oath of Office.

    The American police, FBI, CIA, NSA, military, etc. all take an “indirect” loyalty oath to a constitutional rule of law that protects individual rights and individual liberties. It basically means the “ends” NEVER justify unconstitutional “means”. We reach our end goal through constitutional due process (where the Judicial Branch courts draw the “constitutional out-of-bounds”).

    Germany is a great nation today with a great leader, but during WW2 German officials swore supreme loyalty to “one person”. During the Cold War, Germans swore supreme loyalty to a political party (led by the former Soviet Union).

    Agencies like the FBI and other national security agencies have strayed away from the American system over the decades, subverting constitutional due process.

    Today our national security agencies are acting more like a Cold War era “Stasi” (a secret thought police that punishes legal political speech through blacklisting and illegal searches).

    Not a Trump fan, but what should disturb most Americans is that many of his followers seem to embrace that WW2 German style loyalty oath (loyalty to a single person) instead of loyalty to the American constitutional rule of law system. That’s the real danger here!

    National security agencies not supporting their constitutional Oath of Office only makes matters worse.

  30. Seriously, the word “Terrorism” has been so overused it means almost nothing. It is like when someone calls someone else a “Nazi”. Why do we need a word that basically just calls political violence other than your own violence bad? It is all bad unless defensive in nature.

Please to post comments