Two Senators want Antifa labled domestic terrorists

[Estanglia]

As an antifascist (as all truly moral and ethical people should be), this is simply a transparent attempt to eliminate political opposition. First its us, tomorrow it will be the rest of you.

Also, how the fuck can antifa be a "terrorist organization" when its not even a fucking organization?

It is not an attempt to eliminate political opposition. It is an attempt to reduce domestic terrorism.

Even if antifa isn't an "organization", it can still be considered terrorists.

You just admitted that it's not an organisation. So how exactly are you going to consider it terrorists?

Disclaimer: I only read the OP

Frankly, antifa is turning into a domestic terrorist organization. There is nothing political behind this. Whether you are conservative or liberal, hell even if you are anti-fascist or fascist, you can agree that antifa has gone too far too many times in the past, and has disrespected the keepers of the peace.

Unless you are fine with the use of violence to achieve leftist change, then there is no way you can support Antifa’s actions.

Agreed.

Remember, throwing milkshakes at people is the worst terrorism possible.

It's rude, disrespectful, and unwarranted. Anyone with common sense knows this.

Rude and disrespectful, sure. Unwarranted, not necessarily.

[Diopolis]

It is not an attempt to eliminate political opposition. It is an attempt to reduce domestic terrorism.

Even if antifa isn't an "organization", it can still be considered terrorists.


Veterans protect our nation from enemies. They risk dying and never seeing their families again so that we would be free. World War II veterans fought Nazi Germany to prevent Hitler from expanding his totalitarian, murderous government to the rest of the world.

Veterans should be respected.

You don't see how labelling something as nebulous as "Antifa" a domestic terrorist group can be abused to suppress dissent?

This idea among the left that Trump actually plans on instituting a dictatorship which suppresses dissent and rules with an iron hand is the rough equivalent of the rightist idea that Obama was personally going to go to the house of every gun owner and force them to attend a coke fueled gay sex orgy to celebrate the birth of Karl Marx.

[Strahcoin]

Yeah. Here is my belief...
If you don't like the best country on Earth, the United States of America, then fucking leave faggot.

Eh, I mean, free country. You can dislike it.

In fact, we (as a nation) have a time honored tradition of protest involving buying an American flag and burning it when we’re (again as a nation) are upset about something.

But that’s burning an inanimate object, not beating the carriers of it. Burning a flag harms no one. Beating a flag carrier harms someone.

While I agree that beating a flag carrier is worse than burning a flag, I still think it should be illegal.

The flag of the United States represents not the government, but the Constitution. The Constitution granted our freedom of speech, and people died for it. Burning the American flag essentially implies contempt for the freedom of speech. Of course, without the freedom of speech, flag burners could easily be arrested.

Therefore, burning the American flag is disrespectful and hypocritical to say the least. If someone doesn't like America, there's no reason why he/she can't emigrate.

[Highever]

Eh, I mean, free country. You can dislike it.

In fact, we (as a nation) have a time honored tradition of protest involving buying an American flag and burning it when we’re (again as a nation) are upset about something.

But that’s burning an inanimate object, not beating the carriers of it. Burning a flag harms no one. Beating a flag carrier harms someone.

While I agree that beating a flag carrier is worse than burning a flag, I still think it should be illegal.

The flag of the United States represents not the government, but the Constitution. The Constitution granted our freedom of speech, and people died for it. Burning the American flag essentially implies contempt for the freedom of speech. Of course, without the freedom of speech, flag burners could easily be arrested.

Therefore, burning the American flag is disrespectful and hypocritical to say the least. If someone doesn't like America, there's no reason why he/she can't emigrate.

How does exercising the rights given by the constitution disrespect the constitution?

[Strahcoin]

It is not an attempt to eliminate political opposition. It is an attempt to reduce domestic terrorism.

Even if antifa isn't an "organization", it can still be considered terrorists.

You just admitted that it's not an organisation. So how exactly are you going to consider it terrorists?

Agreed.


It's rude, disrespectful, and unwarranted. Anyone with common sense knows this.

Rude and disrespectful, sure. Unwarranted, not necessarily.

1. First of all, I was considering a hypothetical. I did not "admit" that antifa is not an organization. I said "even if". Second of all, not all terrorists belong to organizations. Lone terrorists exist, just as lone murderers or thieves exist.
2. The victim is often an innocent. If throwing a projectile at an innocent isn't unwarranted, nothing isn't.
(Not to mention the milkshake may ruin their clothing, or nobody made sure the victim wasn't lactose intolerant.)

[Strahcoin]

Yeah. Here is my belief...
If you don't like the best country on Earth, the United States of America, then fucking leave faggot.

Best country on Earth is somewhat debatable. One thing making it not the best country on Earth is that you can still get beat up for carrying its flag.

Oh yeah, and the mass shootings.

Mass shootings exist in many other places.

"Hate speech" can result in jail time in other nations (such as Canada). Of course, since there's no official definition for "hate speech", people in social "democracies" could be arrested for saying things "minority groups" simply don't like (which, I suspect, includes burning flags representing their cultures).

And, of course, authoritarian nations will attempt to suppress all forms of dissent.

[Strahcoin]

You misunderstand. Criticising is not hating per se. I fucking hated Obama, but I respected him as President. If you dont then no, leave.

What has Trump done to earn our respect?

• Reduced unemployment levels to record lows
• Defeated ISIS
• Lowered taxes
• Started building the wall and consequently protecting honest American citizens from illegal immigrants
• Did not attempt to appease the fake news media
• ...And more, all while donating nearly all of his salary from being president.

There's a list here, in case you're curious.

[Estanglia]

You just admitted that it's not an organisation. So how exactly are you going to consider it terrorists?



Rude and disrespectful, sure. Unwarranted, not necessarily.

1. First of all, I was considering a hypothetical. I did not "admit" that antifa is not an organization. I said "even if". Second of all, not all terrorists belong to organizations. Lone terrorists exist, just as lone murderers or thieves exist.
2. The victim is often an innocent. If throwing a projectile at an innocent isn't unwarranted, nothing isn't.
(Not to mention the milkshake may ruin their clothing, or nobody made sure the victim wasn't lactose intolerant.)

1) My question still stands. Antifa isn't an organisation, at best it's a group of antifascist organisations. How exactly are you gonna label Antifa terrorists?
And if it's actually an organisation, prove it.

2) Hence the not necessarily. I wouldn't call it entirely unwarranted when a total jackass takes a milkshake to the face.

[Galloism]

Eh, I mean, free country. You can dislike it.

In fact, we (as a nation) have a time honored tradition of protest involving buying an American flag and burning it when we’re (again as a nation) are upset about something.

But that’s burning an inanimate object, not beating the carriers of it. Burning a flag harms no one. Beating a flag carrier harms someone.

While I agree that beating a flag carrier is worse than burning a flag, I still think it should be illegal.

The flag of the United States represents not the government, but the Constitution. The Constitution granted our freedom of speech, and people died for it. Burning the American flag essentially implies contempt for the freedom of speech. Of course, without the freedom of speech, flag burners could easily be arrested.

Therefore, burning the American flag is disrespectful and hypocritical to say the least. If someone doesn't like America, there's no reason why he/she can't emigrate.

Um, please explain how exercising freedom of speech implies contempt for freedom of speech.

[Proctopeo]

While I agree that beating a flag carrier is worse than burning a flag, I still think it should be illegal.

The flag of the United States represents not the government, but the Constitution. The Constitution granted our freedom of speech, and people died for it. Burning the American flag essentially implies contempt for the freedom of speech. Of course, without the freedom of speech, flag burners could easily be arrested.

Therefore, burning the American flag is disrespectful and hypocritical to say the least. If someone doesn't like America, there's no reason why he/she can't emigrate.

Um, please explain how exercising freedom of speech implies contempt for freedom of speech.

You can exercise your freedom of speech to directly express contempt for freedom of speech. Exercising it in such a way that implies such contempt is definitely possible.

[Highever]

Um, please explain how exercising freedom of speech implies contempt for freedom of speech.

You can exercise your freedom of speech to directly express contempt for freedom of speech. Exercising it in such a way that implies such contempt is definitely possible.

I would argue that trying to dissuade people from exercising their rights in certain ways shows far more contempt for freedom of speech than flag burning.

[Strahcoin]

It is not an attempt to eliminate political opposition. It is an attempt to reduce domestic terrorism.

Even if antifa isn't an "organization", it can still be considered terrorists.


Veterans protect our nation from enemies. They risk dying and never seeing their families again so that we would be free. World War II veterans fought Nazi Germany to prevent Hitler from expanding his totalitarian, murderous government to the rest of the world.

Veterans should be respected.

You don't see how labelling something as nebulous as "Antifa" a domestic terrorist group can be abused to suppress dissent?

No, I don't see how labeling a violent group that attempts to forcibly silence opposing views can be abused to suppress dissent.

You don't see how labelling something as nebulous as "Antifa" a domestic terrorist group can be abused to suppress dissent?

No chance at all Trump supporters in government will hand out Antifa labels like Oprah.

Well, Trump and the vast majority of his supporters (myself included) value the freedom of speech and oppose fascism...

While I agree that beating a flag carrier is worse than burning a flag, I still think it should be illegal.

The flag of the United States represents not the government, but the Constitution. The Constitution granted our freedom of speech, and people died for it. Burning the American flag essentially implies contempt for the freedom of speech. Of course, without the freedom of speech, flag burners could easily be arrested.

Therefore, burning the American flag is disrespectful and hypocritical to say the least. If someone doesn't like America, there's no reason why he/she can't emigrate.

How does exercising the rights given by the constitution disrespect the constitution?

While I agree that beating a flag carrier is worse than burning a flag, I still think it should be illegal.

The flag of the United States represents not the government, but the Constitution. The Constitution granted our freedom of speech, and people died for it. Burning the American flag essentially implies contempt for the freedom of speech. Of course, without the freedom of speech, flag burners could easily be arrested.

Therefore, burning the American flag is disrespectful and hypocritical to say the least. If someone doesn't like America, there's no reason why he/she can't emigrate.

Um, please explain how exercising freedom of speech implies contempt for freedom of speech.

I'll give you an analogy:

Supposes a parent decides to give his/her three children some more freedoms. He/she decides to remove the curfew previously set upon the children. The first child doesn't exercise this new freedom and instead stays home at late-night. The second child does exercise this new freedom, but thanks his/her parent for it. The third child exercises this new freedom, but continues to call the parent "restrictive" and "unreasonable", and the freedom "not enough". Assume that the parent has been reasonable in all other aspects.

The first child would be the American who doesn't criticize his/her government. These kinds are rare, for the government consistently fluctuates in ideology. There is no need to revoke his/her freedom.
The second child would be the America who criticizes his/her government, but not the Constitution's First Amendment. These kinds are more common, ranging from reasonable liberals to reasonable conservatives. Assuming the second child does not cause, inflict, or recieve harm with the new freedom, the parent should not revoke it.
The third child would be the flag-burner: directly using given freedoms to attack them. It wouldn't be unreasonable for the parent to re-institute the third child's curfew.

[Proctopeo]

You can exercise your freedom of speech to directly express contempt for freedom of speech. Exercising it in such a way that implies such contempt is definitely possible.

I would argue that trying to dissuade people from exercising their rights in certain ways shows far more contempt for freedom of speech than flag burning.

Definitely, but there is something to be said that burning a flag shows contempt for the country that the flag represents, and its values. It shouldn't be banned, but depending on the values of the country, it can be a really important red flag about the person.

[Highever]

You don't see how labelling something as nebulous as "Antifa" a domestic terrorist group can be abused to suppress dissent?

No, I don't see how labeling a violent group that attempts to forcibly silence opposing views can be abused to suppress dissent.

No chance at all Trump supporters in government will hand out Antifa labels like Oprah.

Well, Trump and the vast majority of his supporters (myself included) value the freedom of speech and oppose fascism...

How does exercising the rights given by the constitution disrespect the constitution?

Um, please explain how exercising freedom of speech implies contempt for freedom of speech.

I'll give you an analogy:

Supposes a parent decides to give his/her three children some more freedoms. He/she decides to remove the curfew previously set upon the children. The first child doesn't exercise this new freedom and instead stays home at late-night. The second child does exercise this new freedom, but thanks his/her parent for it. The third child exercises this new freedom, but continues to call the parent "restrictive" and "unreasonable", and the freedom "not enough". Assume that the parent has been reasonable in all other aspects.

The first child would be the American who doesn't criticize his/her government. These kinds are rare, for the government consistently fluctuates in ideology. There is no need to revoke his/her freedom.
The second child would be the America who criticizes his/her government, but not the Constitution's First Amendment. These kinds are more common, ranging from reasonable liberals to reasonable conservatives. Assuming the second child does not cause, inflict, or recieve harm with the new freedom, the parent should not revoke it.
The third child would be the flag-burner: directly using given freedoms to attack them. It wouldn't be unreasonable for the parent to re-institute the third child's curfew.

And how exactly does burning the flag cause or inflict harm from burning a flag beyond you not personally liking the sentiment? This basically sounds like "theres freedom of speech until I dont like what they're saying", and that is hardly freedom of speech.

[Estanglia]

You don't see how labelling something as nebulous as "Antifa" a domestic terrorist group can be abused to suppress dissent?

No, I don't see how labeling a violent group that attempts to forcibly silence opposing views can be abused to suppress dissent.

Because there isn't one Antifa. At best, Antifa is a group of organisations referred to with one name because they all have the same goal: stop fascism. Here is where it can be abused because you can just chuck an antifascist group under the Antifa umbrella and call them terrorists even when they have done nothing wrong.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

You don't see how labelling something as nebulous as "Antifa" a domestic terrorist group can be abused to suppress dissent?

No, I don't see how labeling a violent group that attempts to forcibly silence opposing views can be abused to suppress dissent.

No chance at all Trump supporters in government will hand out Antifa labels like Oprah.

Well, Trump and the vast majority of his supporters (myself included) value the freedom of speech and oppose fascism...

How does exercising the rights given by the constitution disrespect the constitution?

Um, please explain how exercising freedom of speech implies contempt for freedom of speech.

I'll give you an analogy:

Supposes a parent decides to give his/her three children some more freedoms. He/she decides to remove the curfew previously set upon the children. The first child doesn't exercise this new freedom and instead stays home at late-night. The second child does exercise this new freedom, but thanks his/her parent for it. The third child exercises this new freedom, but continues to call the parent "restrictive" and "unreasonable", and the freedom "not enough". Assume that the parent has been reasonable in all other aspects.

The first child would be the American who doesn't criticize his/her government. These kinds are rare, for the government consistently fluctuates in ideology. There is no need to revoke his/her freedom.
The second child would be the America who criticizes his/her government, but not the Constitution's First Amendment. These kinds are more common, ranging from reasonable liberals to reasonable conservatives. Assuming the second child does not cause, inflict, or recieve harm with the new freedom, the parent should not revoke it.
The third child would be the flag-burner: directly using given freedoms to attack them. It wouldn't be unreasonable for the parent to re-institute the third child's curfew.

Don't you think that assuming the parent is reasonable in all other aspects is kind of breaking the analogy here? The American government, in many ways, isn't reasonable nor fair to its own citizens. A more apt analogy would be the parent removing the curfew but then putting secret surveillance devices in the children's possessions.

[Strahcoin]

1. First of all, I was considering a hypothetical. I did not "admit" that antifa is not an organization. I said "even if". Second of all, not all terrorists belong to organizations. Lone terrorists exist, just as lone murderers or thieves exist.
2. The victim is often an innocent. If throwing a projectile at an innocent isn't unwarranted, nothing isn't.
(Not to mention the milkshake may ruin their clothing, or nobody made sure the victim wasn't lactose intolerant.)

1) My question still stands. Antifa isn't an organisation, at best it's a group of antifascist organisations. How exactly are you gonna label Antifa terrorists?
And if it's actually an organisation, prove it.

2) Hence the not necessarily. I wouldn't call it entirely unwarranted when a total jackass takes a milkshake to the face.

1. Simple. Every "person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims" should be labeled as one, just as sexual assaulters are labeled as "sexual assaulters". Increasing the police budget would help finding those people.
2. True... However, the few times bad people are attacked do not justify the many times innocents* are. Besides, calling the police to apprehend the bad person and give him/her a trial would be more just and fair.

*"Innocent" used in this context means a person who has not committed a crime or other immoral act.

[Estanglia]

1) My question still stands. Antifa isn't an organisation, at best it's a group of antifascist organisations. How exactly are you gonna label Antifa terrorists?
And if it's actually an organisation, prove it.

2) Hence the not necessarily. I wouldn't call it entirely unwarranted when a total jackass takes a milkshake to the face.

1. Simple. Every "person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims" should be labeled as one, just as sexual assaulters are labeled as "sexual assaulters". Increasing the police budget would help finding those people.

So, not the 'group' Antifa, just violent antifascists.

2. True... However, the few times bad people are attacked do not justify the many times innocents* are. Besides, calling the police to apprehend the bad person and give him/her a trial would be more just and fair.

*"Innocent" used in this context means a person who has not committed a crime or other immoral act.

Sure.

[Vassenor]

What has Trump done to earn our respect?

• Reduced unemployment levels to record lows
• Defeated ISIS
• Lowered taxes
• Started building the wall and consequently protecting honest American citizens from illegal immigrants
• Did not attempt to appease the fake news media
• ...And more, all while donating nearly all of his salary from being president.

There's a list here, in case you're curious.

>Defeated ISIS



>Lowered Taxes

For the rich. The average American hasn't actually benefited from the Cut Cut Cut Act.

>Started building The Wall

Uh, no, he hasn't, but keep telling yourself that.

>Did not attempt to appease the fake news media

If by that you mean screamed like a spoiled toddler every time some outlet said anything even slightly negative about him.

So no, not a whole lot to be worth repsecting.

[Vassenor]

Remember, throwing milkshakes at people is the worst terrorism possible.

It's rude, disrespectful, and unwarranted. Anyone with common sense knows this.

That doesn't make it terrorism.

[US-SSR]

Am I the only one seeing the irony in the fact that two Senators who think anyone who feels in the least threatened has the absolute right to shoot anyone else dead want to label people whose offenses amount to harassment and fisticuffs "domestic terrorists?"

[Greater vakolicci haven]

• Reduced unemployment levels to record lows
• Defeated ISIS
• Lowered taxes
• Started building the wall and consequently protecting honest American citizens from illegal immigrants
• Did not attempt to appease the fake news media
• ...And more, all while donating nearly all of his salary from being president.

There's a list here, in case you're curious.

>Defeated ISIS



>Lowered Taxes

For the rich. The average American hasn't actually benefited from the Cut Cut Cut Act.

>Started building The Wall

Uh, no, he hasn't, but keep telling yourself that.

>Did not attempt to appease the fake news media

If by that you mean screamed like a spoiled toddler every time some outlet said anything even slightly negative about him.

So no, not a whole lot to be worth repsecting.

Read linky, make better arguments.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

>Defeated ISIS



>Lowered Taxes

For the rich. The average American hasn't actually benefited from the Cut Cut Cut Act.

>Started building The Wall

Uh, no, he hasn't, but keep telling yourself that.

>Did not attempt to appease the fake news media

If by that you mean screamed like a spoiled toddler every time some outlet said anything even slightly negative about him.

So no, not a whole lot to be worth repsecting.

Read linky, make better arguments.

It is a Trump propaganda site. Not every fact there is going to be accurate. He did do some good things, but that man far from walks on water.

[Union of Sovereign States and Republics]

Read linky, make better arguments.

It is a Trump propaganda site. Not every fact there is going to be accurate. He did do some good things, but that man far from walks on water.

At least he made peace with North Korea, the boogeyman of our time.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

It is a Trump propaganda site. Not every fact there is going to be accurate. He did do some good things, but that man far from walks on water.

At least he made peace with North Korea, the boogeyman of our time.

It won't last as there really wasn't a deal. He also seems to love Kim's dictatorial rule, which is not a characteristic that should be welcomed in a U.S. President.