Antifa (3 Viewers)

[RobF]

Going to start a thread for this one, as I think it may become a significant topic in its own right.

Trump announces he's designating antifa as a "major terrorist organization"

President Trump late Wednesday called for investigations into alleged funders of antifa.

www.cbsnews.com

Trump previously raised the idea, but it didn't go anywhere, as it still shouldn't. Hopefully it still won't, and this thread will just drop away. But we're in a different environment now.

The obviously flaw is that antifa isn't an organization - it's literally not organized - and is just generally people who are anti-facist. So banning 'antifa' is really targeting people protesting against fascism. Which is probably desirable from the point of view of the people being protested, but a really bad idea from the point of view of protecting democracy and, y'know, not becoming fascist.

 

[MT15]

Guess this can go here
=================


A sweeping report from the State Department on Cuba’s “sustained campaign of subversion” against the U.S. contains the names of more than 40 prominent American activists and elected officials, what appears to be the latest effort from Donald Trump’s administration to target left-leaning dissent.

The 100-page report claims Cuba’s government has “infiltrated the highest reaches” of U.S. government, “recruited and cultivated generations of American activists” and “backed an unprecedented wave of left-wing terrorism on American soil.” Cuba’s efforts have “turned America against itself,” according to the report, which approvingly cites Red Scare-era“blacklists” and the work of Rep. Joseph McCarthy.

The report — released days after the Trump administration’s summit on “political terrorism” and escalating efforts to investigate and prosecute left-leaning groups — goes on to directly name more than three dozen groups and political figures, including the Democratic Socialists of America, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Rep. Ilhan Omar, among others.……

Trump’s State Department labels US leftists as ‘front groups’ for communist Cuba

New report approvingly cites Red Scare-era tactics to crack down on dissent from leftists including elected officials and the DSA

www.independent.co.uk

People better wake up. They intend to put people in concentration camps over this shirt.

 

[camdudetenger2018]

Guess this can go here
=================


A sweeping report from the State Department on Cuba’s “sustained campaign of subversion” against the U.S. contains the names of more than 40 prominent American activists and elected officials, what appears to be the latest effort from Donald Trump’s administration to target left-leaning dissent.

The 100-page report claims Cuba’s government has “infiltrated the highest reaches” of U.S. government, “recruited and cultivated generations of American activists” and “backed an unprecedented wave of left-wing terrorism on American soil.” Cuba’s efforts have “turned America against itself,” according to the report, which approvingly cites Red Scare-era“blacklists” and the work of Rep. Joseph McCarthy.

The report — released days after the Trump administration’s summit on “political terrorism” and escalating efforts to investigate and prosecute left-leaning groups — goes on to directly name more than three dozen groups and political figures, including the Democratic Socialists of America, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Rep. Ilhan Omar, among others.……

Trump’s State Department labels US leftists as ‘front groups’ for communist Cuba

New report approvingly cites Red Scare-era tactics to crack down on dissent from leftists including elected officials and the DSA

www.independent.co.uk

marco rufio is a lost boy from neverland like in the 1991 film hook

 

[Incumbent]

People better wake up. They intend to put people in concentration camps over this shirt.

Bears repeating, Trump isn’t going to just give up power. He can’t and he knows it. The Republicans put all of their chips on the table with Project 2025 and there is no turning back for them. How will he accomplish it? How does any autocrat cling to power? Who is going to stop him? The military? Hegseth’s military? The FBI? Patel’s FBI? The courts? The Federalist Society courts?

Trump has a police force operating at his discretion, some sinister and powerful people backing him, and every incentive in the world to never again be on the wrong side of power.

This is far more likely to be much worse than we want to imagine than it is business as usual and we vote our way out of it. We’ll see if enough people can join together to repel this internal assault on our nation but the outlook is quickly growing dire.

 

[Incumbent]

And like many other people, I desperately look for hope wherever I can find it and do my best to try and stay tethered to a belief that we will somehow get to the other side of this. I’m not the smartest person in the room and I have moments where I’m as vulnerable to despair as anybody can be. I’d love to believe in a realistic way forward where we see justice prevail. (Lay it on me if you got it!) The closest I can come is hoping smarter people succeed in preventing him from accomplishing his power grab schemes. Or, the eighty year old man, in poor health, goes to sleep and doesn’t wake up one morning, leaving the parasites surrounding him to devour each other in the power vacuum.

 

[fooferdoggie]

Bears repeating, Trump isn’t going to just give up power. He can’t and he knows it. The Republicans put all of their chips on the table with Project 2025 and there is no turning back for them. How will he accomplish it? How does any autocrat cling to power? Who is going to stop him? The military? Hegseth’s military? The FBI? Patel’s FBI? The courts? The Federalist Society courts?

Trump has a police force operating at his discretion, some sinister and powerful people backing him, and every incentive in the world to never again be on the wrong side of power.

This is far more likely to be much worse than we want to imagine than it is business as usual and we vote our way out of it. We’ll see if enough people can join together to repel this internal assault on our nation but the outlook is quickly growing dire.

right the only thing going for us is trump is falling apart.

 

[TampaJoe]

Bears repeating, Trump isn’t going to just give up power. He can’t and he knows it. The Republicans put all of their chips on the table with Project 2025 and there is no turning back for them. How will he accomplish it? How does any autocrat cling to power? Who is going to stop him? The military? Hegseth’s military? The FBI? Patel’s FBI? The courts? The Federalist Society courts?

Trump has a police force operating at his discretion, some sinister and powerful people backing him, and every incentive in the world to never again be on the wrong side of power.

This is far more likely to be much worse than we want to imagine than it is business as usual and we vote our way out of it. We’ll see if enough people can join together to repel this internal assault on our nation but the outlook is quickly growing dire.

What is far more likely is that we will all wake up in late Jan 2029 with a new President and hopefully move forward.

 

[MT15]

What is far more likely is that we will all wake up in late Jan 2029 with a new President and hopefully move forward.

So you don’t find this alarming in the least? (Bolding mine).

You’re fine with this turn towards McCarthyism? From the US State Department no less? This isn’t some fringe group alleging this. It has the weight of the US Government behind it.

“The report makes “unfounded claims seeking to tar domestic movements for social change as agents of a foreign government,” according to Chip Gibbons, policy director of Defending Rights & Dissent, a nonprofit group supporting civil liberties.

“The report smears activists, organizations and even elected officials using guilt-by-association techniques,” he said in a statement shared with The Independent. “It appears designed to justify both domestic political repression and regime change in Cuba.”

The report does not provide any evidence that the figures or groups mentioned have received any directions from Cuba, only that they disagree with U.S. foreign policy and antagonistic relationship to Cuba’s government.”

It’s hard to ignore what this means. They intend to declare elected officials and activists working for change to be “terrorists”. And once they accomplish that - anything is okay. They can imprison anyone with that label without due process. We are already doing it.

 

[TampaJoe]

So you don’t find this alarming in the least? (Bolding mine).

You’re fine with this turn towards McCarthyism? From the US State Department no less? This isn’t some fringe group alleging this. It has the weight of the US Government behind it.

“The report makes “unfounded claims seeking to tar domestic movements for social change as agents of a foreign government,” according to Chip Gibbons, policy director of Defending Rights & Dissent, a nonprofit group supporting civil liberties.

“The report smears activists, organizations and even elected officials using guilt-by-association techniques,” he said in a statement shared with The Independent. “It appears designed to justify both domestic political repression and regime change in Cuba.”

The report does not provide any evidence that the figures or groups mentioned have received any directions from Cuba, only that they disagree with U.S. foreign policy and antagonistic relationship to Cuba’s government.”

It’s hard to ignore what this means. They intend to declare elected officials and activists working for change to be “terrorists”. And once they accomplish that - anything is okay. They can imprison anyone with that label without due process. We are already doing it.

Who is putting words in whose mouth? I never said any of that or anything close to that.

 

[bird]

Who is putting words in whose mouth? I never said any of that or anything close to that.

You had one chance and you blew it. Not surprising really.

All you had to say was either, yes, I find this concerning, or, no, I don’t find this concerning.

You couldn’t bring yourself to do either.

 

[MT15]

Who is putting words in whose mouth? I never said any of that or anything close to that.

I didn’t say you said it did I? My goodness! You seemed to be downplaying the threat in this report so I asked you if it alarmed you at all.

I think you willfully misrepresent what I say. I think you do it on purpose sometimes.

 

[TampaJoe]

You had one chance and you blew it. Not surprising really.

All you had to say was either, yes, I find this concerning, or, no, I don’t find this concerning.

You couldn’t bring yourself to do either.

I was replying to a post that mentioned no report whatsoever. I was not referring to or replying to whatever report MT seems to be referencing.

 

[TampaJoe]

I didn’t say you said it did I? My goodness! You seemed to be downplaying the threat in this report so I asked you if it alarmed you at all.

I think you willfully misrepresent what I say. I think you do it on purpose sometimes.

No. Not directly. I never mentioned the report. The post I was responding to didn’t reference a report. So my response to that post didn’t reference a report.

But to your point, you complain when someone sets up an “untenable position” and then implies that anyone who disagrees with you supports that untenable position. You call that putting words in your mouth. And here you are doing the same thing. So if you don’t care for the practice in others, I suggest you clean up your own act first.

For the record, I don’t support any overreach by government that unnecessarily limits individual liberty. That should concern us all.

Also for the record. These are your words “You’re fine with this turn towards McCarthyism?”. Question I assume was directed at me since you were responding directly to my post. The implication is clear.

 

[Dragon]

No. Not directly. I never mentioned the report. The post I was responding to didn’t reference a report. So my response to that post didn’t reference a report.

But to your point, you complain when someone sets up an “untenable position” and then implies that anyone who disagrees with you supports that untenable position. You call that putting words in your mouth. And here you are doing the same thing. So if you don’t care for the practice in others, I suggest you clean up your own act first.

For the record, I don’t support any overreach by government that unnecessarily limits individual liberty. That should concern us all.

Also for the record. These are your words “You’re fine with this turn towards McCarthyism?”. Question I assume was directed at me since you were responding directly to my post. The implication is clear.

The problem is that "individual liberty" isn't absolute. The moment your liberty restricts someone else's liberty, society has to decide where the balance lies.

Take one of the more difficult examples: you've argued that transgender people should be required to use the bathroom that matches the sex they were assigned at birth, even if they have medically transitioned and outwardly look no different from any other woman or man. That means forcing a woman who has breasts, no male genitalia, and is perceived by everyone around her as female into the men's restroom. In practice, that doesn't make anyone safer—it simply creates a new set of problems while denying that person's freedom to live their daily life.

The same principle applies elsewhere. My liberty to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. My freedom of speech doesn't include the right to threaten or defraud others. My freedom to drive doesn't give me the right to ignore traffic laws and endanger everyone else. My property rights don't allow me to dump toxic waste onto my neighbor's land. Rights have always existed alongside responsibilities because we all share the same society.

The real question isn't whether liberty should be protected—it absolutely should. The question is whose liberty is being protected, and at whose expense.

A society that values liberty has to protect everyone's rights as equally as possible, not just the rights of the majority or the people we happen to agree with. Otherwise, "liberty" simply becomes another word for privilege.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Who is putting words in whose mouth? I never said any of that or anything close to that.

Nobody is putting words in your mouth. MT clearly framed it as a question, not a statement. This is not the first time you have accused people of putting words in your mouth when they did no such thing. It feels like you do it because you are incapable of answering legitimate questions.

 

[TampaJoe]

The problem is that "individual liberty" isn't absolute. The moment your liberty restricts someone else's liberty, society has to decide where the balance lies.

Take one of the more difficult examples: you've argued that transgender people should be required to use the bathroom that matches the sex they were assigned at birth, even if they have medically transitioned and outwardly look no different from any other woman or man. That means forcing a woman who has breasts, no male genitalia, and is perceived by everyone around her as female into the men's restroom. In practice, that doesn't make anyone safer—it simply creates a new set of problems while denying that person's freedom to live their daily life.

The same principle applies elsewhere. My liberty to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. My freedom of speech doesn't include the right to threaten or defraud others. My freedom to drive doesn't give me the right to ignore traffic laws and endanger everyone else. My property rights don't allow me to dump toxic waste onto my neighbor's land. Rights have always existed alongside responsibilities because we all share the same society.

The real question isn't whether liberty should be protected—it absolutely should. The question is whose liberty is being protected, and at whose expense.

A society that values liberty has to protect everyone's rights as equally as possible, not just the rights of the majority or the people we happen to agree with. Otherwise, "liberty" simply becomes another word for privilege.

I think the key phrase is “protect everyone’s rights as equally as possible”. People can and will disagree on exactly where to draw that line and on what reasonable accommodations should be made.

 

[TampaJoe]

Nobody is putting words in your mouth. MT clearly framed it as a question, not a statement. This is not the first time you have accused people of putting words in your mouth when they did no such thing. It feels like you do it because you are incapable of answering legitimate questions.

I merely applied her logic to her post.

 

[Dragon]

I think the key phrase is “protect everyone’s rights as equally as possible”. People can and will disagree on exactly where to draw that line and on what reasonable accommodations should be made.

I agree that reasonable people can disagree about where to draw the line. But we should always drawn lines when one person's liberty creates a significant risk to others.

So let's take a concrete example: a child's right to be safe at school versus an 18-year-old's right to buy a firearm.

If those rights come into conflict, which should take precedence? The child's right to life and safety, or the adult's right to immediate access to a gun?

That's exactly the kind of balancing every society has to do. We already accept limits on liberty in countless areas when they protect other people's lives and freedoms. The real debate isn't whether there should be limits—it's where they should be drawn and what evidence supports drawing them there.

The current government has no problems with denying the legal rights to people they deem "enemies" But I guess you are ok with that.

 

[brandon]

For the record, I don’t support any overreach by government that unnecessarily limits individual liberty.

So, you don't support this particular overreach by government, then?