Trumps latest Executive Order NSPM-7 makes "Anti-American Views" a Crime; Joe McCarthy redux.

[robosmith]

11 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Lol...you dont understand life or common sense. 

I understand American life and elite sense FAR BETTER THAN YOU, dropout.

How many psychology courses did you take before you gave up? LMAO

I took THREE which was one more than I was supposed to for ENGINEERING.

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Oh horseshit you are. Nothing you've posted here qualifies as domestic terrorism as outlined in that EO. Stop being such an alarmist. You're embarrassing yourself.

Be a normal person, dont threaten political violence or engage in it...and you'll be left alone to post your silly ideas.

IF you've read the EO (I doubt it) POST IT HERE in the NEXT 5 minutes. If you don't, we'll know you have NOT read it. 

[Nationalist]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

I understand American life and elite sense FAR BETTER THAN YOU, dropout.

How many psychology courses did you take before you gave up? LMAO

I took THREE which was one more than I was supposed to for ENGINEERING.

Blah blah blah...I dont believe a word.

[Nationalist]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

IF you've read the EO (I doubt it) POST IT HERE in the NEXT 5 minutes. If you don't, we'll know you have NOT read it. 

Still having trouble reading huh?

[gatomontes99]

7 hours ago, Hodad said:

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. 

You clearly don't know what an executive order is. 

7 hours ago, Hodad said:

And someone whose lies and rhetoric incited the worst political violence since the civil war--

WTF are you talking about? The CHAZ was a left wing thing. 

 

7 hours ago, Hodad said:

That's why the damn thing is written *specifically* to target his political opposition rather than to address all political speech.

Prove it. I literally quoted the entire EO in the second post. Your lazy ass doesn't even have to click on a link. Just quote the part that proves your statement. 

 

7 hours ago, Hodad said:

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 need help. 

[Hodad]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Oh horseshit you are. Nothing you've posted here qualifies as domestic terrorism as outlined in that EO. Stop being such an alarmist. You're embarrassing yourself.

Be a normal person, dont threaten political violence or engage in it...and you'll be left alone to post your silly ideas.

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. 

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

You clearly don't know what an executive order is. 

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.

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Prove it. I literally quoted the entire EO in the second post. Your lazy ass doesn't even have to click on a link. Just quote the part that proves your statement. 

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.

[gatomontes99]

14 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I know exactly what an EO is. You are the one espousing contradictory claims regarding that authority. I clearly articulated the contradiction.

What you typed was not a contradiction. It was a diatribe of code words that expressed feelings. It did not accurately depict my position or any realistic description of an EO. 

 

15 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Gaslighting over J6 is not going to work.

You said the worst insurrection since the Civil War. I would say burning down a police station, driving out all government officials and holding that ground for days is for worse that a couple of hours of rioting in the capitol. In fact, the second worst would be the day Antifa tried to over take the Whitehouse and managed to set a church on fire. 

 

17 minutes ago, Hodad said:

How many times do you want me to quote it?

Once would be good.

17 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Should I bold it more too

Formatting is at your discretion. 

 

18 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Jeebus. I can't read it for you too.

I already read the whole thing. It is short and not that wordy. I, however, didn't use my biases to prescribe intent. I read it for the actual intent. You should do the same. 

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

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. 

Dude...you're just not that important and nothing you've said here makes you that important. 

Get over yourself.

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

What you typed was not a contradiction. It was a diatribe of code words that expressed feelings. It did not accurately depict my position or any realistic description of an EO. 

 

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. 

 

Quote

You said the worst insurrection since the Civil War. I would say burning down a police station, driving out all government officials and holding that ground for days is for worse that a couple of hours of rioting in the capitol. In fact, the second worst would be the day Antifa tried to over take the Whitehouse and managed to set a church on fire. 

 

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. 

 

 

Quote

I already read the whole thing. It is short and not that wordy. I, however, didn't use my biases to prescribe intent. I read it for the actual intent. You should do the same. 

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.   

[gatomontes99]

14 minutes ago, Hodad said:

1. Is there any constitutional or statutory power assigned to the executive to designate individuals or groups as domestic terrorists? No.

Yes there is, but this EO has nothing to do with that. This EO covers incitement of violence. 

As for the claim that he doesn't have the power in the Constitution, that is not true. He is required, by oathe, to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Within that mandate to protect and defend the Constitution is the implication that actions to protect voters from political violence and voter suppression are warranted. In so doing, identifying and targeting groups that engage in such activities is not only authorized, but mandatory. 

FYI, Biden designated several groups as domestic terrorists, including the catholic church. Link

Just because a group is labeled a DTO, doesnt means  they lose rights or that new laws are in play. Like I said above, this EO tells the FBI and others law enforcement entities, to enforce the laws if a DTO is involved. You have heard of prosecutorial discretion? This removes that. If someone calls for people to kill or harm another group of people, they must be prosecuted, per the EO.

In this EO, the section that talks about ANTIFA (and other groups) is not policy forming. Rather, it is defining the need for the EO. Starting with section 2, the what is prescribed. The what says "any" political violence, intimidation, voter suppression, etc. 

This EO is not targeting the left or political enemies of the administration. This EO targets those that are trying to  change election outcomes through voter suppression and intimidation. I'm sprry your side is going to be disproportionately targeted, but that is only because your side has become bat shit crazy. 

47 minutes ago, Hodad said:

B. Rejecting police authority is a protest, not an attempt to overthrow the government

What? How did....what? 

Are you mental? The police are the enforcement mechanism to the law. They are literally the government. Overthrowing the police is over throwing the government. 

50 minutes ago, Hodad said:

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.   

There is no authority given to just seek out a single entity. Those are examples used in section 1 to illustrate the need for the EO. What law enforcement can do is laid out in the subsequent sections. In those section they use words like any and all to describe acts and people that must be prosecuted. 

 

[WestCanMan]

These left4rds feel like it's ok to throw people in the UK in jail for a FB post that tells the truth, but they want hate speech and incitement of violence to be protected in America...

They're just sick, worthless cultists.  

[WestCanMan]

@Greg

The thread title is clearly misleading: "anti-American views" are not being criminalized, yet the thread title is in the form of a declarative statement to that effect.

The only thing being criminalized is "slander and libel, at the extent that they become incitement of violence". 

I'm not interested in being the speech police, and saying what the title needs to be changed to, but we're two days into this convo now, and the title, as it stands, is just a pure fabrication.  

 The forum rules preclude a second thread about the exact same subject with a more reasonable title, so can we get this one changed?

Maybe give robo the option of choosing a more honest and accurate title himself, and if it's beyond him, then choose the nuclear option. 

Edited October 22, 2025 by WestCanMan

[robosmith]

13 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Blah blah blah...I dont believe a word.

You have BUPKIS. It doesn't matter what you believe, it matters what can be PROVEN, which for you is BUPKIS.

13 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Still having trouble reading huh?

I can read your naked links just fine, and they don't PROVE ANYTHING. Duh

[robosmith]

7 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Dude...you're just not that important and nothing you've said here makes you that important. 

Get over yourself.

Nothing you EVER say makes you important because it's ALLWAYS BUPKIS.

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

@Greg

The thread title is clearly misleading: "anti-American views" are not being criminalized, yet the thread title is in the form of a declarative statement to that effect.

Yes they are:

NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM/NSPM-7

Quote

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;

Antifa does NOT "support for the overthrow of the United States Government;" it fights FASCISM in the US Government. Like the FASCIST that is currently tearing down part of the WHITE HOUSE with NO AUTHORITY TO DO SO after clearly declaring he would NOT.

[Nationalist]

49 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Nothing you EVER say makes you important because it's ALLWAYS BUPKIS.

Yes dear...

[gatomontes99]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Yes they are:

NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM/NSPM-7

Antifa does NOT "support for the overthrow of the United States Government;" it fights FASCISM in the US Government. Like the FASCIST that is currently tearing down part of the WHITE HOUSE with NO AUTHORITY TO DO SO after clearly declaring he would NOT.

Except, ANTIFA has already over thrown a portion of the government in the past. Remember CHAZ? CHOP? Whatever they called it. 

[WestCanMan]

So, clearly Trump hasn't criminalized "anti_American speech", yet the thread title still stands. 

Is that the new normal here? We just write whatever we want in a thread title, facts be damned?

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

So, clearly Trump hasn't criminalized "anti_American speech", yet the thread title still stands. 

Is that the new normal here? We just write whatever we want in a thread title, facts be damned?

EVIDENCE the title is true has been posted in ADDITION to the EVIDENCE in the OP.

And you keep pushing the fantasies you hear on FOS LIES imagining they are "facts."

[Hodad]

On 10/22/2025 at 2:10 PM, gatomontes99 said:

Yes there is, but this EO has nothing to do with that. This EO covers incitement of violence. 

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."

On 10/22/2025 at 2:10 PM, gatomontes99 said:

As for the claim that he doesn't have the power in the Constitution, that is not true. He is required, by oathe, to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Within that mandate to protect and defend the Constitution is the implication that actions to protect voters from political violence and voter suppression are warranted. In so doing, identifying and targeting groups that engage in such activities is not only authorized, but mandatory. 

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.

On 10/22/2025 at 2:10 PM, gatomontes99 said:

FYI, Biden designated several groups as domestic terrorists, including the catholic church. Link

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. 

On 10/22/2025 at 2:10 PM, gatomontes99 said:

Just because a group is labeled a DTO, doesnt means  they lose rights or that new laws are in play. Like I said above, this EO tells the FBI and others law enforcement entities, to enforce the laws if a DTO is involved. You have heard of prosecutorial discretion? This removes that. If someone calls for people to kill or harm another group of people, they must be prosecuted, per the EO.

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. 

On 10/22/2025 at 2:10 PM, gatomontes99 said:

In this EO, the section that talks about ANTIFA (and other groups) is not policy forming. Rather, it is defining the need for the EO. Starting with section 2, the what is prescribed. The what says "any" political violence, intimidation, voter suppression, etc. 

This EO is not targeting the left or political enemies of the administration. This EO targets those that are trying to  change election outcomes through voter suppression and intimidation. I'm sprry your side is going to be disproportionately targeted, but that is only because your side has become bat shit crazy. 

🤪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. 

 

On 10/22/2025 at 2:10 PM, gatomontes99 said:

What? How did....what? 

Are you mental? The police are the enforcement mechanism to the law. They are literally the government. Overthrowing the police is over throwing the government. 

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. 

On 10/22/2025 at 2:10 PM, gatomontes99 said:

There is no authority given to just seek out a single entity. Those are examples used in section 1 to illustrate the need for the EO. What law enforcement can do is laid out in the subsequent sections. In those section they use words like any and all to describe acts and people that must be prosecuted. 

 

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

Edited October 23, 2025 by Hodad

[Hodad]

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

So, clearly Trump hasn't criminalized "anti_American speech", yet the thread title still stands. 

Is that the new normal here? We just write whatever we want in a thread title, facts be damned?

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

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

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."

You proved me correct. This EO had nothing to do with declaring ANTIFA a DTO. This EO recognized that DTOs and other groups are using hatred, vitriol and violence. That is a massive threat to our republic. As such, law enforcement should not ignore such actions in the event that they are a violation of the law.

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

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.

All I got from this is that you are mad that I found the authority. 

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

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. 

Biden did it before Trump. Bush considered it. The only thing that is new is your outrage.

 

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

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. 

When did ideas need bank accounts, handbooks and donars? 

 

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

🤪Not targeting the left?

Nope. Read the action items in sections 2 and 3. 

 

[Hodad]

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

You proved me correct. This EO had nothing to do with declaring ANTIFA a DTO. This EO recognized that DTOs and other groups are using hatred, vitriol and violence. That is a massive threat to our republic. As such, law enforcement should not ignore such actions in the event that they are a violation of the law.

Got it. You argue that it has nothing to do with the EO it directly references. Okay...

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

All I got from this is that you are mad that I found the authority. 

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.

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Biden did it before Trump. Bush considered it. The only thing that is new is your outrage.

No, he didn't. You absolutely cannot point to any such designation. You are lying.

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

 

When did ideas need bank accounts, handbooks and donars? 

Does Antifa have any such thing? No? So WTF are you even talking about?  It's not an organization. 

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

 

Nope. Read the action items in sections 2 and 3. 

 

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; 

[gatomontes99]

15 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Got it. You argue that it has nothing to do with the EO it directly references. Okay...

No. You claimed this EO made groups DTOs. It does not and you proved that to be true.

17 minutes ago, Hodad said:

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.

It is your contention that the President shouldn't direct law enforcement to stop people from killing each other over politics? Are you saying the president can't pursue terrorism groups just because they are in our borders? Is that what you want hang your ideological identity on?

 

20 minutes ago, Hodad said:

No, he didn't. You absolutely cannot point to any such designation. You are lying.

https://cdn.mrc.org/2023-05/DHSTVTPReport.pdf

23 minutes ago, Hodad said:

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; 

I missed the part where they listed a specific group. Thanks for proving me correct...again.