Hodad

Got it. You argue that it has nothing to do with the EO it directly references. Okay... No, you didn't. Your creative interpretation reimagined the presidency as a benevolent dictator with unlimited authority to do anything he claims is in the best interest of the people. You didn't "find" that authority anywhere. 250 years of American history and jurisprudence will tell you you're full of it. No, he didn't. You absolutely cannot point to any such designation. You are lying. Does Antifa have any such thing? No? So WTF are you even talking about? It's not an organization. Don't tell me "nope." I'll quote it again for you. It's right there in black and white. Stop lying. (c) The JTTFs shall also investigate: (i) institutional and individual funders, and officers and employees of organizations, that are responsible for, sponsor, or otherwise aid and abet the principal actors engaging in the criminal conduct described in subsections (a) and (b) of this section;

Seriously, when have you ever been remotely interested in or constrained by facts? This is novel.

Oh? This EO has nothing to do with that? Is that why it's explicitly mentioned in this EO? "As described in the Order of September 22, 2025 (Designating Antifa as a Domestic Terrorist Organization) the groups and entities that perpetuate this extremism have created a movement that embraces and elevates violence to achieve policy outcomes, including justifying additional assassinations." Complete farking bullshit. You're saying that the POTUS has a blank check to do anything he wants if he argues it's under that blanket mandate. That's exactly what you are saying. Which is exactly how Trump is behaving. And you both are wrong. And that's why there are No Kings protests as we watch you people chip away at every check and balance. No, he did not. Not even close. You are outright and blatantly lying. -- And comically so. The idea that a devout Catholic designated his own faith a domestic terrorist group is insane. Again, you are lying. A) There has never been a designation as a domestic terrorist organization before because it's a power Trump just invented out of nowhere, so you don't know what the ramifications of that are. B. Groups so designated, at the whim of our corrupt president, DO in fact lose rights. The current standard for opening an investigation requires probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. This EO upends that protection, so that literally anyone can be investigated with an accusation of association with a designated group. Antifa is not an organization. There is no membership. It's simply an idea. So who is in it? Who has supported the organization? Anybody corrupt Trump wants investigated can be accused because he's defining the terms. Or for an easier example, if he designates Black Lives Matter as a "domestic terrorist organization" (which again, has no prior definition and no legal standard or standing, can anyone who donated to BLM be investigated? That's what this EO says. Again, it's HUAC on steroids. The communist party was at least a formal organization. This is anyone and anything Trump wants to target. 🤪Not targeting the left? Again: Common threads animating this violent conduct include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality. Civil disobedience is not an attempt to overthrow the government. Riotous disobedience is not an attempt to overthrow the government. You know what's an attempt to overthrow the government? A goddamn literal attempt to overthrow the government. -- The perpetrators of which have now been pardoned by the corrupt sociopath who you are saying--with a straight face--is concerned about political violence. No authority to seek out a single entity? You have GOT to read this thing you keep talking about. (c) The JTTFs shall also investigate: (i) institutional and individual funders, and officers and employees of organizations, that are responsible for, sponsor, or otherwise aid and abet the principal actors engaging in the criminal conduct described in subsections (a) and (b) of this section; and

Jeebus. This is not hard. 1. Is there any constitutional or statutory power assigned to the executive to designate individuals or groups as domestic terrorists? No. 2. Did Trump issue and EO that assumed the authority to designate domestic terrorist organizations? Yes. That is a contradiction. He is granting himself new legal authority--creating law--through EO. A. I did not say insurrection. I said political violence. B. Rejecting police authority is a protest, not an attempt to overthrow the government. Not an attempt to hunt (with an express goal of killing) our vice president and key legislators and overturning an election. And while some hodgepodge of various flavors of anarchism is vaguely political, it certainly not comparable to partisan violence. There were something like 75 arrests. Once would be good. Formatting is at your discretion. His "intent" is obvious. The language is plain. He did not address extremism in general. He did not address political violence in general. He explicitly listed things he doesn't "like." Common threads animating this violent conduct include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.

I know exactly what an EO is. You are the one espousing contradictory claims regarding that authority. I clearly articulated the contradiction. It's your problem if you can't reconcile the claims you must acknowledge that Trump is indeed illegally creating new executive powers: making law. Gaslighting over J6 is not going to work. How many times do you want me to quote it? Should I bold it more too? Jeebus. I can't read it for you too.

In fascist Trumpistan, terrorism is whatever he says it is. His handlers wrote a fairly extensive memo explaining that, if you can be bothered to read it. Dangerous talk "foments" violence must be quashed. And Trump decides what speech is dangerous. Anti-Muslim? Cool in his book. Anti-Christian? Uncool and subject to federal investigation.

On the one hand, you say that EOs don't create law, but on the other, you've just endorsed an EO which claims for the executive authority which has neither constitutional nor statutory basis. You might wanna figure that out. And someone whose lies and rhetoric incited the worst political violence since the civil war--and then pardoned the perpetrators--clearly is *not* concerned about divisive language as a whole. That's why the damn thing is written *specifically* to target his political opposition rather than to address all political speech. The opposition: that's who he's directing the government to investigate. It's naked fascism. There in black and white plain as day. Trump continues his quest to end the American experiment while you cheer him on.

You demonstrated the other day that you have no idea what the word means, but yes you are pro fascism. Here you go. You are supporting an executive order that illegally established a framework to investigate, harass and even imprison people for exercising a huge range of political speech and non-criminal actions. It's HUAC on steroids, aimed at chilling and criminalizing dissent. Under this illegal EO, I'm eligible for investigation simply for making this post. And you're applauding it. Yes, to are pro-fascist.

I'm not "making it harder" to designate terrorists. There simply is no legal mechanism to make that designation. Nor should there be. We have proof positive in the current occupant of the White House that a corrupt autocrat can be elected to the office and can then (try) to use such designations to persecute political opposition. The president shouldn't have such power. There's a reason why we have checks, balances and 3 branches of government rather than a dictator.

Because you are particularly dense, let's look at a hypothetical. You like to vociferously criticize Muslims and Islam, no? Imagine that your government announced that it would investigate people who used critical language under the pretense that such language would foment political violence. Or that you could be arrested for giving a water bottle to a protestor who was later deemed to be affiliated with a so-called "domestic terrorist" organization. Spooky idea no? Yet that's exactly the assault on free speech that has been mounted in the US. You're just not alarmed because you're pro-fascism.

A. The POTUS does not have legal authority to designate "domestic terrorist" groups. For obvious reasons. This is a massive overreach. B. This part is an open declaration of war on free speech, and a promise to use the force of government to stifle critical voices. There are common recurrent motivations and indicia uniting this pattern of violent and terroristic activities under the umbrella of self-described “anti-fascism.” These movements portray foundational American principles (e.g., support for law enforcement and border control) as “fascist” to justify and encourage acts of violent revolution. This “anti-fascist” lie has become the organizing rallying cry used by domestic terrorists to wage a violent assault against democratic institutions, constitutional rights, and fundamental American liberties. Common threads animating this violent conduct include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality. As described in the Order of September 22, 2025 (Designating Antifa as a Domestic Terrorist Organization), the groups and entities that perpetuate this extremism have created a movement that embraces and elevates violence to achieve policy outcomes, including justifying additional assassinations. For example, Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin engraved the bullets used in the murder with so-called “anti-fascist” rhetoric. The United States requires a national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts. Through this comprehensive strategy, law enforcement will disband and uproot networks, entities, and organizations that promote organized violence, violent intimidation, conspiracies against rights, and other efforts to disrupt the functioning of a democratic society. Never sure whether MAGA is too dumb to recognize how this is an egregious attack on the first amendment and political and cultural dissent, or whether they simply don't see any value in the first amendment--authoritarianism is great if it helps them consolidate political power. Likely a mix of the two.

Victimhood reflex so strong you needed to post this compelling news item in multiple threads? Impressive. Yawn.

That victimhood reflex is working overtime today, isn't it? Do you think you can count how many times Obama was burned or hanged (lynched) in effigy? Or the J6 mob changing to "Hang Mike Pence!"? Just before they stormed the Capitol to hunt Pence and Pelosi for real. Wonder what happened to those violent criminals who actually tried to follow through on their play-acted threats? Oh, that's right, Trump pardoned them, because they were doing his bidding. But I'll try to take some random kid attacking a pinata suuuuuuper seriously.

Sure, dummy, all the convictions are because juries were rigged, over and over and over again. Not to mention the hundreds of guilty pleas in which the jury played no part. You acknowledge that Trump is a convicted felon and you didn't even bother to deny that he's a sex criminal and rapist. That's progress for a belly-crawling bootlicker like you. Meanwhile, he continues to perpetrate deliberate, unlawful killings of individuals in international waters under dubious rationalizations, presenting no evidence to support any justification. And no, we should not simply take the word of a pathological liar. He has no credibility.

No, some of them are violent insurrectionists. Some of them are fraudsters. All are felons, tried in a court of law and convicted by a jury of their peers. Trump also happens to be a sex criminal, a rapist, and a murderer, though those are not the felonies of which he's been convicted.

Oh, sorry. I didn't realize you were only talking about the releasing the special convicted felons that you don't like. Soft on crime. Blue-pill hard for Trump!

Like the J6 insurrectionists? Like Paul Manafort? Like brother Santos. Like Trump himself? The Republicans seem to love freeing convicted felons.

No, your response was just more made up nonsense to justify your made up nonsense. There is nothing intellectual or logical about it. People with facts and logic have to correct your nonsense.

Bullshit. Study after study shows that undocumented immigrants are a net positive for the economy, commit crimes at lower rates than citizens, pay taxes into our system, and are not eligible for most social programs. Those are the facts. You simply reject them because MAGA doesn't like brown people. Brown people don't have any place in there MAGA vision for a white, Christian nationalism--with men dominating the power structure. That's not logic. It's emotion. An ugly one.

Nobody here supports Hamas, dumbass. Even in Palestine, support isn't particularly strong. Only about 30% of Palestinians were even alive when Hamas took power. Didn't stop Israel from killing tens of thousands of innocents.

You probably should have paid for an education, but at your age that's no longer a reasonable investment. Next best thing you should "pays fer" is rehab, because, holy fark, this unhinged rant wall-of-crazy post HAS to be the product of someone drunk early on a Saturday morning.

Lol. No, "we" do not have "warfighters" there. Again, random people working for companies abroad does not mean the United States is working for those companies. They aren't there on behalf of the US government. Again, completely asinine. US dollars fund humanitarian aid in Gaza. Does that mean we're in a war against Israel? US dollars fund military aid in Israel. Are we in a war against the Palestinians? Wait... Are we in a war with ourselves? Has the civil war begun?

US money is in Ukraine. The US is not in a war in Ukraine. US money is in Gaza. The US is not in a war in Gaza. That's an asinine assertion.

Oh boy. For decades (since 1977 when the NRA invented a novel reading of the 2nd amendment that proposed an individual right to bear arms) conservatives have been saying that the whole point of gun nuttery is for the people to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. But now that Don Lemon said it they're going to twist themselves up trying to figure out where they stand now.

Ho. Ly. Crap. Did you not read that naked link you posted? Or do you actually think that private citizens operating as paid mercenaries in foreign conflicts means that "we" the United States, are "in" wars? Seems preposterous that a person would think that. The generous interpretation is that you didn't read it. The more likely explanation is that you didn't care that it was a lie.