Is MAGA A Terrorist Organization ?
- Thread starter 57Brave
- Start date
sturg33
I
Discourse of MAGA Twitter would indicate that us DeSantis traitors are the first targets
chop2chip
Well-known member
sturg33
I
The empty house and "for sale" sign is their version of a strung up body as a warning to the rest of us
Runnin
Well-known member
How about this question: Are people who willingly spread big lies guilty of a kind of terrorism? Of course, that's why they do it, but for decades right wing radio and Faux News has been engaged in it. Now almost half the country is in a cult and seems beyond help.
It feels like this election is going to bring it all to a head. I hope you all have a good time.
It feels like this election is going to bring it all to a head. I hope you all have a good time.
chop2chip
Well-known member
First amendment terrorists
57Brave
Well-known member
Rural people reluctant to show Harris-Walz signs in their yards due to threats of reprisal..
Pretty sure that in itself checks a box.
And of course trump pours gasoline with thinly veiled calls to arms.
I believe it is referred to as Roy Cohn taught, " plauable deniability "
Pretty sure he threatened violence towards our last VP, which I notice our MAGA friends have conveniently forgotten.
So yeah, Pretty text book. Those that advocate terror are in the rest of the world labeled " terrorists"
Pretty sure that in itself checks a box.
And of course trump pours gasoline with thinly veiled calls to arms.
I believe it is referred to as Roy Cohn taught, " plauable deniability "
Pretty sure he threatened violence towards our last VP, which I notice our MAGA friends have conveniently forgotten.
So yeah, Pretty text book. Those that advocate terror are in the rest of the world labeled " terrorists"
sturg33
I
I dunno though recent history suggests being a republican make you a threat to be assassinated so I might not be too worried about delusional right wing violence that you've made up.
Meanwhile, I suspect businesses in cities across the country will be boarding up the doors once again in case the Don pulls it off
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
What Republican? Trump is a Trumpocrat. The letter next to his name means nothing. He was a Democrat like 6 years before running on the Republican ticket. And again, you support the second amendment until someone actually uses it. We have a right to free elections. Anyone who tries to deny us that right is subject to the second amendment.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
t\
I couldnt agree more, killing people with bombs dropped from airplanes and drones is just fine. Thats not terrorism. Thats happy fun time violence. An Israeli solider shoots a 6 year old who wandered into a no go area is just fine. Not terrorism. Palestinians fight back and kill a 6 year old and thats terrorism. The Palestinian situation really highlights for me how much of a hero Martin Luther King Jr was. Black people had all the moral right to fight back. We would be a in really bad place as a country if thats the path we went down as a country.
Tapate50
Well-known member
Whew
Runnin
Well-known member
Yes, it's quite a phenomenon, but words can be used as weapons, as DJT clearly knows. That's all he's really got - lies, lies and more lies. It's interesting to see how as he has become more panicked at the thought of prison time, he has started lying more and more brazenly. But we all know he's a liar. What is sad is when normal citizens who know better start doing it.
Tapate50
Well-known member
Which case is he going to prison for?
57Brave
Well-known member
By Robert A. Pape
Dr. Pape is a professor of political science at the University of Chicago who has studied political violence for 30 years.
........
As we approach the presidential election next month, our election sites and officials may be in considerable physical danger — and the safety of the ballots and the integrity of the vote count could also be at risk.
Over the past four years, an alarming number of election officials and workers nationwide have been intimidated or threatened by people who appear to believe the widespread lies about voter fraud and rigged voting machines that supposedly helped steal the 2020 presidential election from Donald Trump. Since 2021, the Department of Justice has charged more than a dozen people across the country with threatening election workers. President Biden said on Friday that while he was confident that the election would be “free and fair,” he was not sure that it would be “peaceful.”
The good news is that local officials and the Justice Department have taken some steps to address the problem. There are sporadic reports of election directors in this or that town who have increased security, for instance by enlisting additional police protection. And last month Attorney General Merrick Garland, citing the “unprecedented spike in threats” against those who administer our elections, announced the convening of a task force to “aggressively investigate and prosecute threats” to election workers.
The bad news is that these commendable efforts are not enough. Election officials are not law enforcement professionals; they lack the resources to adequately provide for their own security. And while federal prosecution is essential, it is not the same thing as protection.
State governors, especially in the seven swing states, need to provide more for the physical security of election workers and the ballots themselves, not just on Election Day but also through the tabulation of the vote and its certification by Congress on Jan. 6, 2025. If the election is as close as current polls suggest, the destruction of even a small percentage of ballots in a swing state — be it deliberate destruction or inadvertent damage by rampaging protesters — might jeopardize our ability to determine the winner of the election.
In addition to the “unprecedented spike in threats” that Mr. Garland cited, there is other worrisome evidence suggesting the possibility of violence. At the Chicago Project on Security and Threats, a research institute that I run at the University of Chicago, we have been conducting quarterly national surveys of Americans’ attitudes toward political violence since the summer of 2021.
In our most recent survey, conducted from Sept. 12 through Sept. 16, we found disturbingly high levels of support for political violence. Notably, this attitude was bipartisan. Nearly 6 percent of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the “use of force is justified to restore Donald Trump to the presidency.” A little over 8 percent agreed or strongly agreed that “the use of force is justified to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president.”
These results reflect a relatively stable pattern over the past year. And in this area, public attitudes can become reality: Historically, the higher the level of support for political violence, the more likely actual political violence is. To be sure, people often have their own unique psychosocial reasons for acting violently. But public support for violence can nudge people to act by making them believe their violent act would be popular (as seems to have been the case, for example, with the would-be assassins of Mr. Trump).
If you’re wondering what “use of force” means to our respondents, for more than half of them it means serious violence. In a special survey we conducted in July after the first Trump assassination attempt, we found that 38 percent of those who supported the use of force against Mr. Trump meant, in so many words, his “assassination,” “murder” or “killing,” while another 30 percent meant Jan. 6-style violent protests or other efforts to overturn a Trump government.
Stolen-election fears were prominent in our most recent survey. We found that about 40 percent of Republicans still believe the 2020 election was stolen from Mr. Trump, about 20 percent of Republicans agree or strongly agree that “the people who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 to stop the certification of the 2020 election results are patriots,” and about 9 percent of Democrats and about 11 percent of Republicans “would attend a protest against an election unfair to my preferred presidential candidate, even if it might turn violent.”
Republican and Democratic governors of the seven swing states should do two things. First, they should make a joint public statement, disseminated widely on video, condemning all political violence — especially violence against election officials and counting facilities — stressing that it is illegal, immoral and anti-American. Just as public support can foster political violence, public condemnation can diminish it.
Second, the governors should order the relevant agencies under their jurisdictions to conduct detailed security assessments of their election sites and provide the resources necessary to ensure their safety. This should include a police presence at precincts on Election Day (while being mindful to avoid anything that feels like voter intimidation) as well as protection for election officials and ballots at centralized tabulation centers during the official counts that follow. To increase the confidence of the public and of election officials, the governors should make some of these security efforts transparent.
If we had not recently witnessed some of the worst election-related violence in modern American history — the Jan. 6 riot, the attempted kidnapping of Speaker Nancy Pelosi before the 2022 midterms and the two attempted assassinations of Mr. Trump — it might make sense to take more modest precautions. But the past four years have shown that we live in a dangerous new world.
-NYT 10/10/2024
Dr. Pape is a professor of political science at the University of Chicago who has studied political violence for 30 years.
........
As we approach the presidential election next month, our election sites and officials may be in considerable physical danger — and the safety of the ballots and the integrity of the vote count could also be at risk.
Over the past four years, an alarming number of election officials and workers nationwide have been intimidated or threatened by people who appear to believe the widespread lies about voter fraud and rigged voting machines that supposedly helped steal the 2020 presidential election from Donald Trump. Since 2021, the Department of Justice has charged more than a dozen people across the country with threatening election workers. President Biden said on Friday that while he was confident that the election would be “free and fair,” he was not sure that it would be “peaceful.”
The good news is that local officials and the Justice Department have taken some steps to address the problem. There are sporadic reports of election directors in this or that town who have increased security, for instance by enlisting additional police protection. And last month Attorney General Merrick Garland, citing the “unprecedented spike in threats” against those who administer our elections, announced the convening of a task force to “aggressively investigate and prosecute threats” to election workers.
The bad news is that these commendable efforts are not enough. Election officials are not law enforcement professionals; they lack the resources to adequately provide for their own security. And while federal prosecution is essential, it is not the same thing as protection.
State governors, especially in the seven swing states, need to provide more for the physical security of election workers and the ballots themselves, not just on Election Day but also through the tabulation of the vote and its certification by Congress on Jan. 6, 2025. If the election is as close as current polls suggest, the destruction of even a small percentage of ballots in a swing state — be it deliberate destruction or inadvertent damage by rampaging protesters — might jeopardize our ability to determine the winner of the election.
In addition to the “unprecedented spike in threats” that Mr. Garland cited, there is other worrisome evidence suggesting the possibility of violence. At the Chicago Project on Security and Threats, a research institute that I run at the University of Chicago, we have been conducting quarterly national surveys of Americans’ attitudes toward political violence since the summer of 2021.
In our most recent survey, conducted from Sept. 12 through Sept. 16, we found disturbingly high levels of support for political violence. Notably, this attitude was bipartisan. Nearly 6 percent of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the “use of force is justified to restore Donald Trump to the presidency.” A little over 8 percent agreed or strongly agreed that “the use of force is justified to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president.”
These results reflect a relatively stable pattern over the past year. And in this area, public attitudes can become reality: Historically, the higher the level of support for political violence, the more likely actual political violence is. To be sure, people often have their own unique psychosocial reasons for acting violently. But public support for violence can nudge people to act by making them believe their violent act would be popular (as seems to have been the case, for example, with the would-be assassins of Mr. Trump).
If you’re wondering what “use of force” means to our respondents, for more than half of them it means serious violence. In a special survey we conducted in July after the first Trump assassination attempt, we found that 38 percent of those who supported the use of force against Mr. Trump meant, in so many words, his “assassination,” “murder” or “killing,” while another 30 percent meant Jan. 6-style violent protests or other efforts to overturn a Trump government.
Stolen-election fears were prominent in our most recent survey. We found that about 40 percent of Republicans still believe the 2020 election was stolen from Mr. Trump, about 20 percent of Republicans agree or strongly agree that “the people who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 to stop the certification of the 2020 election results are patriots,” and about 9 percent of Democrats and about 11 percent of Republicans “would attend a protest against an election unfair to my preferred presidential candidate, even if it might turn violent.”
Republican and Democratic governors of the seven swing states should do two things. First, they should make a joint public statement, disseminated widely on video, condemning all political violence — especially violence against election officials and counting facilities — stressing that it is illegal, immoral and anti-American. Just as public support can foster political violence, public condemnation can diminish it.
Second, the governors should order the relevant agencies under their jurisdictions to conduct detailed security assessments of their election sites and provide the resources necessary to ensure their safety. This should include a police presence at precincts on Election Day (while being mindful to avoid anything that feels like voter intimidation) as well as protection for election officials and ballots at centralized tabulation centers during the official counts that follow. To increase the confidence of the public and of election officials, the governors should make some of these security efforts transparent.
If we had not recently witnessed some of the worst election-related violence in modern American history — the Jan. 6 riot, the attempted kidnapping of Speaker Nancy Pelosi before the 2022 midterms and the two attempted assassinations of Mr. Trump — it might make sense to take more modest precautions. But the past four years have shown that we live in a dangerous new world.
-NYT 10/10/2024