Trump promises to deport all the Haitians to Venezuela.

[Ana the Ist]

I'm a strong supporter of the First Amendment and the Constitution. I took an oath in 1985 to defend it, and I still uphold that oath today.

Then quit labeling free speech "terrorism". You're simply helping those who want to remove our rights.

I have two questions for you. A simple yes or no for each will do.

Ok.

Has Trump ever used vilifying or dehumanizing language towards Muslims, immigrants, election workers, his political opponents, or the media?

I have no way of knowing everything Trump has said and that's a highly subjective question.

Have there been any threats or acts of violence towards Muslims, immigrants, election workers, Trump's political opponents, or the media since the time he first ran for office and today?

I'm sure there has....in fact, I'm sure all those folks have had threats and acts of violence towards them long before Trump ever began campaigning. The Black Panthers were rather notorious for voter intimidation on election days well before Trump.

I have a proficient understanding of terrorism and I do not defend or support terrorist of any kind.

Ok....well, sometimes life just hands you some lemons....let's see if you can make lemonade out em.

Here's the words and likely motive for yesterday's attempted assassin of Donald Trump.

He thinks "Democracy is on the ballot" and apparently believed himself some sort of democracy savior. Imagine that. Let's see if any "stochastic terrorists" have been saying "democracy is on the ballot", shall we?

Professor at a college in Pomona.

Is Democracy on the Ballot in This Fall’s Election? | Pomona College in Claremont, California - Pomona College

Susan McWilliams Barndt, professor of politics at Pomona College, teaches and writes on political theory and the history of political thought. She shares her reflections on democracy as an issue of concern to voters in the coming election.

www.pomona.edu

A majority of US adults....

Majority of US adults say democracy is on the ballot but they differ on the threat: AP-NORC poll | The Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) — Roughly 3 in 4 American adults believe the upcoming presidential election is vital to the future of U.S. democracy, although which

www.ap.org

Teachers unions

Union News: Democracy is on the ballot

“Democracy is on the ballot,” say the pundits and the president, and it is frighteningly true. Never in our lifetimes have we seen such an open attack on the institutions of democracy, through restrictions on the right to vote, attempted outright theft of a presidential election and the actions...

massteacher.org

President Joe Biden

Remarks by President Biden on Standing up for Democracy | The White House

Columbus Club, Union StationWashington, D.C. (November 2, 2022) 7:01 P.M. EDT THE PRESIDENT: Good evening, everyone. Just a few

www.whitehouse.gov

The New York Times

Opinion | Harris Shouldn’t Forget That Democracy Is Still on the Ballot

And there are still voters who care about it.

www.nytimes.com

Kamala Harris

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1804269861222195256

I can draw a pretty straight line between the words of all these people and actual political violence against someone.

So here's a couple of questions for you...

1. Do you condemn all these people as "stochastic terrorists"?

2. What should we do about all these stochastic terrorists?

I'm assuming you said "yes" to number one since you don't want to admit you just want to censor certain people....you claim this is a real thing/problem. There's far more evidence of their words influencing political violence than anything Trump said about pets and Haitians.....so obviously they're all guilty of stochastic terrorism in your eyes.

Can't wait to see those answers.

Do you condemn these professors, unions, news outlets, the current president, the vice president running for office....and the many others I didn't bother listing?

And what should we do about these "word terrorists"?

Remember that oath you took.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm a strong supporter of the First Amendment and the Constitution. I took an oath in 1985 to defend it, and I still uphold that oath today.


I have two questions for you. A simple yes or no for each will do.

Has Trump ever used vilifying or dehumanizing language towards Muslims, immigrants, election workers, his political opponents, or the media?

Have there been any threats or acts of violence towards Muslims, immigrants, election workers, Trump's political opponents, or the media since the time he first ran for office and today?


I have a proficient understanding of terrorism and I do not defend or support terrorist of any kind.

Also...you're definitely defending terrorists here by equivocating them and the IDF and pretending that because so few Palestinians living today voted for them, they don't somehow represent the Palestinian people.

Hamas is a terrorist group, what do you expect from them?


Hamas' control of Gaza came by force.

Hamas only received 44.45% of the vote in 2006, but it gave them a majority of 74 seats in the 132 seat Palestinian Legislative Council at that time. Less than 15% of Gazans alive today voted for Hamas. In 2007, Hamas violently took control of Gaza.

Hamas gunmen seized military control of the Gaza Strip on Thursday, executing Fatah rivals and provoking the collapse of their power-sharing Palestinian Authority government.

As Fatah’s last security command centers fell after four days of fighting, Hamas military men in black masks moved unchallenged across Gaza City, hunting down foes, blowing up homes and dragging the body of a top Fatah militant through the streets.

Firing mortars, grenade launchers and automatic weapons, Hamas fighters captured the Gaza City headquarters of the Preventive Security, Intelligence and National Security agencies Thursday afternoon, and executed some of their captives. The Presidential Guard compound fell late in the evening. All were controlled by Fatah.

Earlier in the day, Hamas overran the main Fatah compound in the southern city of Rafah, giving it full control of the border with Egypt, a source of the smuggled weapons that have expanded the movement’s arsenal in recent months.

Hamas fighters overran the headquarters amid mortar rounds and gunfire. They raised green Hamas flags over the shattered two-story compound, kneeled to the ground in prayer and marched handcuffed Fatah gunmen into the streets, some shirtless or in their underwear.

Hamas wins the battle for Gaza control

With his Fatah forces driven from the strip, Abbas dissolves the Cabinet but the Islamist premier vows to stay.

www.latimes.com

There have not been negotiations between Hamas and Israel for a two state solution. Hamas is a terrorist group and is not the representative government of the Palestinian territories.


Again, Hamas is a terrorist group. Terrorist groups are often spoilers when it comes to attempts to achieve peace in times of conflict. Israel has a right to defend itself against terrorists.



The government of Israel is also guilty of human rights abuses.

With respect to Israeli security forces in the Occupied Palestinian Territories: arbitrary or unlawful killings; enforced disappearance; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; harsh and life-threatening prison or detention conditions; arbitrary arrest or detention; political prisoners or detainees; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; punishment of family members for alleged offenses by a relative; serious abuses in a conflict, including widespread civilian deaths or harm, enforced disappearances or abductions, forcible transfers of civilian populations, torture, physical abuses, conflict-related sexual violence or punishment; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, including violence or threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, and censorship; serious restrictions on internet freedom; substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, including overly restrictive laws on the organization, funding, or operation of nongovernmental and civil society organizations; restrictions on freedom of movement and residence and on the right to leave the occupied territories; serious government restrictions on or harassment of domestic and international human rights organizations; and crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting Palestinians.

With respect to Israeli civilians against Palestinian civilians in the West Bank: unlawful killings; physical abuses; crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting Palestinians.

Israeli security forces (ISF) and settlers killed 509 Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, including at least 121 children during the year, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The UN office noted that this was the deadliest year for Palestinians in the West Bank since UNOCHA began recording casualties in 2005.

A July report from the NGO Save the Children found the majority of the 228 former child detainees it surveyed from across the West Bank experienced physical and emotional abuse in Israeli detention, including being beaten (86 percent), threatened with harm (70 percent), and hit with sticks or guns (60 percent). The NGO found some children reported sexual violence and abuse, including being hit or touched on the genitals, and 69 percent reported being strip searched. According to the report, 70 percent said they suffered from hunger while in detention, and 42 percent of children reported they were injured by Israeli security forces during their arrest.

Technical Difficulties

Now....maybe you're just ignorant of the fact that the reason so few living Palestinians voted for Hamas is because Hamas murdered their political opponents and suspended further elections.

Maybe you're also ignorant of the fact that many Palestinians given the right to work in Israel actually helped plan for the October 7th Hamas attack.

These aren't exactly well known facts....just facts that would require a little digging.

However, your attempt to distance Palestinians from Hamas is something easily found false.

Poll: Hamas Remains Popular Among Palestinians

Palestinian support for Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza remains high, according to a Palestinian poll released on March 20. That support has increased since the Iran-backed terrorist...

www.fdd.org

Hamas is extremely popular in Palestine and amongst Palestinians.

They're so popular in fact.....that Palestinians in Gaza helped plan October 7th.

Israel Gave Work Permits, While Palestinians Planned Oct. 7 Massacre

Prior to the October 7 massacre, more than 170,000 Palestinians were working in Israel, constituting an important source of income for the Palestinian economy.... The Palestinians from the Gaza Strip who were permitted to work in Israel received many of

www.gatestoneinstitute.org

Supt. Micky Rosenfeld to TML: Palestinian Workers in Israel Aided Hamas Terrorists in Planning October 7 Infiltration - The Media Line

In a temporary police station in the city […]

themedialine.org

Even UN workers in Gaza helped plan these attacks.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.timesofisrael.com/unrwa-sacks-staffers-who-allegedly-participated-in-oct-7-attack-us-halts-funding/amp/

Sad as it may seem....since 75%+ Palestinians support and directly aid Hamas....there's no way of picking out and supporting the 25%- or less of Palestinians who don't support Hamas.

Supporting Palestinians is at least 75% support for terrorists.

Perhaps if you genuinely don't want to support terrorists, you should inform yourself about the facts, understand that the vast majority of Palestinians openly support Hamas, many directly help Hamas, and there's no realistic way to aid the people in Gaza without also aiding terrorists....and stop defending them.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The only people responsible for political violence are the people calling for political violence or perpetrating it.

Tell it to @JosephZ . He's the one call8ng people terrorists for engaging in free speech.

It's the political left in general that's been trying to justify censorship by equivocating words with violence. They even try to equivocate silence with violence.

This nation wouldn't be so politically divided if everyone held the groups they support to the same standards as those they don't support.

 

[JosephZ]

Then quit labeling free speech "terrorism".

I haven't.

Ok....well, sometimes life just hands you some lemons....let's see if you can make lemonade out em.

Here's the words and likely motive for yesterday's attempted assassin of Donald Trump.

If you take the time to read more of Ryan Routh's posts on social media and listen to interviews he has given in the past, it becomes quite clear that his motivation to atempt an assasination of Trump is most likely due to Trump's position on Ukraine. We will have to wait and see if that turns out to be the case, but I would say the chances are better than 90% that it is.

He thinks "Democracy is on the ballot" and apparently believed himself some sort of democracy savior. Imagine that. Let's see if any "stochastic terrorists" have been saying "democracy is on the ballot", shall we?

Those are not examples of stochastic terrorists.

So here's a couple of questions for you...

1. Do you condemn all these people as "stochastic terrorists"?

2. What should we do about all these stochastic terrorists?

Using your understanding of stochastic terrorism:

Donald Trump Says President Biden a Threat to Democracy, Quotes Putin and Orban

Donald Trump Calls President Biden a "Threat to Democracy"

Do you condemn Trump as a "stochastic terrorist"?

What should we do about Trump's stochastic terrorism?

 

[variant]

Tell it to @JosephZ . He's the one call8ng people terrorists for engaging in free speech.

It's the political left in general that's been trying to justify censorship by equivocating words with violence. They even try to equivocate silence with violence.

This nation wouldn't be so politically divided if everyone held the groups they support to the same standards as those they don't support.

The correct response to free speech we don't like is condemnation by our own speech and action.

We do bare responsibility for what we say, not ultimately, as if we are responsible for anyone who might act in a way we don't support, but for what we're adding to the world.

I would suggest that If anyone wants to tone down the rhetoric, they are also free to do so themselves and lead by example.

 

[RileyG]

I sometimes feel like I'm living in 1984.

I don't know what to think anymore.

 

[BPPLEE]

The only people responsible for political violence are the people calling for political violence or perpetrating it.

x.com

x.com

 

[Ana the Ist]

I haven't.

You absolutely have...

No, Trump by definition regularly engages in stochastic terrorism.

You're literally calling free speech "terrorism".

We all know why.

If you take the time to read more of Ryan Routh's posts on social media and listen to interviews he has given in the past, it becomes quite clear that his motivation to atempt an assasination of Trump is most likely due to Trump's position on Ukraine.

And he clearly thinks Trump is somehow a threat to Democracy. Notice he doesn't say this about Harris....just Trump. He's repeating left wing rhetoric and it's led to violence.

Those are not examples of stochastic terrorists.

We have more evidence for them influencing a real act of violence....a real act of terrorism....than anything Trump has said about Haitians.

Using your understanding of stochastic terrorism:

No....my understanding of "stochastic terrorism" is it's a term used by people who want to silence political speech they don't like.

Obviously I knew you would defend it when it's coming out the mouths of people you support.

That's because it's only "terrorism" when the people who you disagree with say it.

Now quit dodging the question.

What should we do with all these "stochastic terrorists"?

 

[Ana the Ist]

In the UK at least there is such a thing as a database of police intelligence. So the immigration authorities can investigate at a later date.

We don't really have that.

I think people here in the US think there's a database of citizens that can be checked when elections roll around....it doesn't exist.

The database of illegals doesn't track their movements in the US either....which is why a Venezuelan tied to an international criminal organization was able to do crimes in NYC, leave to Georgia, and murder a nursing student.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The correct response to free speech we don't like is condemnation by our own speech and action.

I'm not sure what "condemnation by action" means but I definitely agree with the first part.

We do bare responsibility for what we say, not ultimately, as if we are responsible for anyone who might act in a way we don't support, but for what we're adding to the world.

Ok.

There's mention of a trend awhile back....that Gen Z or millennials or some such group was complaining about. I recall the complaints...but don't recall any research backing it up. Ergo, I'm uncertain about the validity of it....but as I think it makes a good example of what you might be talking about here....I'm going to offer it up as a real question....

Suppose employers who notice someone putting their "preferred pronouns" in their resumes or job applications tend to be the sort of employee they don't want. It doesn't matter what the pronouns are (it could be a guy putting "he/him" for example) they simply reject those employees outright as part of a political perspective that they see as either lazy or tending to cause trouble. As a result, those resumes go in the trash.

This is, of course, completely legal...as pronouns have nothing to do with any protected characteristics under the law. Any employer can easily discriminate against anyone for putting their "preferred pronouns" in their resumes.

Does this fall under "condemnation by action" in your mind? Is this the sort of thing you mean?

I would suggest that If anyone wants to tone down the rhetoric, they are also free to do so themselves and lead by example.

They're only shooting at one candidate. I'm not for political violence but I'm not going to pretend that it's something that's genuinely a problem on both sides either.

I think Oregon finally threw a felony on an Antifa anarchist....and they've put a RICO case on the ones in Georgia but really....it's one side of the aisle engaging in a lot of the political violence when we consider everything like riots and property damage and not just shootings.

 

[variant]

I'm not sure what "condemnation by action" means but I definitely agree with the first part.

I mean that speech itself isn't enough, but rather, we should walk the walk and live within the principles we espouse.

Ok.

There's mention of a trend awhile back....that Gen Z or millennials or some such group was complaining about. I recall the complaints...but don't recall any research backing it up. Ergo, I'm uncertain about the validity of it....but as I think it makes a good example of what you might be talking about here....I'm going to offer it up as a real question....

Suppose employers who notice someone putting their "preferred pronouns" in their resumes or job applications tend to be the sort of employee they don't want. It doesn't matter what the pronouns are (it could be a guy putting "he/him" for example) they simply reject those employees outright as part of a political perspective that they see as either lazy or tending to cause trouble. As a result, those resumes go in the trash.

This is, of course, completely legal...as pronouns have nothing to do with any protected characteristics under the law. Any employer can easily discriminate against anyone for putting their "preferred pronouns" in their resumes.

Does this fall under "condemnation by action" in your mind? Is this the sort of thing you mean?

It depends on what principle the employer is trying to espouse and live by I suppose. What do you think it is here?

I wouldn't think flat prejudice is a good one personally. I try to give people a chance and let them disappoint rather than just going ahead and discriminating like that. The opposite would also draw criticism from me for the same reason, and I knew a friend who was not hired because they said what they thought about being required to introduce themselves via specific pronouns.

But yes, flatly if you think this is a principled way of acting, you could in fact criticize and act in such a way.

What I had more in mind though was something like the topic where, if we don't believe in violence as a proper political principle, we can condemn those calling for violence and oppose them by living and acting in non violent ways as much as possible.

They're only shooting at one candidate. I'm not for political violence but I'm not going to pretend that it's something that's genuinely a problem on both sides either.

Actual assassination attempts are quite rare 11 attempts with 4 successes since 1835.

We're operating under a recency bias because we just lived through 2 thankfully failed attempts, though I am definitely concerned that the FBI security details don't seem up to the task as of late.

I don't actually know the reason for the two shooters wanting to assassinate Trump, like any attempted assassins, they both seem to be quite troubled, the latest one seemed quite crazy and devoted to the issue of Ukraine, which, is hard to fathom he was directly radicalized by the rhetoric surrounding Ukraine coming out of the left.

Or, rather, I find it hard to draw a direct causal link without just assuming one, and a bunch of info that I don't actually have.

I think Oregon finally threw a felony on an Antifa anarchist....and they've put a RICO case on the ones in Georgia but really....it's one side of the aisle engaging in a lot of the political violence when we consider everything like riots and property damage and not just shootings.

You should bring that up with anyone supporting such activities.

 

[variant]

x.com

x.com

That one got taken down before I got to see it.

Elon took down a joke about political violence that he made himself earlier today.

I guess X's moderation is working.

 

[BPPLEE]

That one got taken down before I got to see it.

Elon took down a joke about political violence that he made himself earlier today.

I guess X's moderation is working.

The link still works for me

 

[Hans Blaster]

That one got taken down before I got to see it.

Elon took down a joke about political violence that he made himself earlier today.

I guess X's moderation is working.

It didn't open for me, but it was from the feed of some random Indian. Not sure what the relevance to this thread could be.

 

[RileyG]

They don't get medical benefits except in ERs when they are in life-threatening condition.
True story: 25 y/o immigrant develops kidney problems. Goes to.ER hoping for dialysis. Doctor says:You're not sic k enough. Leave. Eat this, and then come back.
He eventually returned to Mexico which has a national healthplan. SMH.
If you are know any immigrants, ask them about their alleged "benefits." They will set you straight.

That’s sad.

 

[BPPLEE]

It didn't open for me, but it was from the feed of some random Indian. Not sure what the relevance to this thread could be.

It was video of Democrats calling for violence. The link works fine for me

 

[variant]

The link still works for me

Weird. I get a "no page here".

 

[JosephZ]

You absolutely have...

You're literally calling free speech "terrorism".

Again, I'm not labeling free speech as terrorism, I am describing Trump's actions.

"Trump by definition regularly engages in stochastic terrorism."

And here is my original statement that you replied to:

Trump engages in stochastic terrorism and his dangerous rhetoric will end up with people being killed. He is the one who went in front of 67 million people and intentionally dehumanized the Haitians in Springfield knowing full well that it would cause division and conflict. I hope those who support him realize what they're enabling.

What Trump says and the words he uses are protected by the First Amendment, which makes stochastic terrorism protected speech.

If I would have said Trump should be arrested or something similar for engaging in stochastic terrorism, then that would give your unfounded claim that I want to censor free speech merit.

And he clearly thinks Trump is somehow a threat to Democracy. Notice he doesn't say this about Harris....just Trump. He's repeating left wing rhetoric and it's led to violence.

The jury is still out on Routh's motive. In all likelihood, it's related to Trump's position on the war in Ukraine and the fear of what policies Trump would enact concerning Ukraine if he were to win the election in November.

No....my understanding of "stochastic terrorism" is it's a term used by people who want to silence political speech they don't like.

Then your understanding is incorrect.

Now quit dodging the question.

What should we do with all these "stochastic terrorists"?

I'm not dodging the question, I gave you an answer already. Your examples do not meet the elements required to be considered stochastic terrorists.

Stochastic terrorism requires all of the following elements:

• Incendiary rhetoric from an influential figure;
• an audience primed and easily provoked into action;
• language use which has plausible deniability;
• and an actual security threat as the outcome.

 

[Fantine]

I'm a little confused. The party that wants to ban books in schools and libraries and censor teachers also supports incendiary political speech throwing a city of 60,000 into dangerous chaos?
Seems inconsistent, don't you think?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Along with all the other multiple millions from all over the world pouring in. Who have no intention of only staying here temporarily.

Perhaps we should deport Lady Liberty back to France. We clearly don't want her and her leftist talking points like,

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,"

-CryptoLutheran