You've never heard of Anitifa? It doesn't need quotes.🔥 🔥 🔥
https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1976012161374900519?t=jcThFPrR3hOXE_j2bCv-PQ&s=19
Who is "Antifa?"
Seriously, who are they targeting?
Antifa is not an organized group with a list of members. Either this is just puffing up their chest to sound tough or a precursor to attacking political targets under the pretense that they are "antifa"
Which would be effectively declaring open season on political dissent and 1st amendment rights for anyone that doesn't side with Trump. and people like dbm cheer.
Do you think cartels have a list of members and are highly organized? They are not. Yes, Antifa people have cells (just like terrorist groups, by the way) and are loosely affiliated. But the notion that we don't know what we are referring to with the term is intentionally obtuse. Antifa is known for violent protesting. That kind of shit has to stop.You've never heard of Anitifa? It doesn't need quotes.🔥 🔥 🔥
https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1976012161374900519?t=jcThFPrR3hOXE_j2bCv-PQ&s=19
Who is "Antifa?"
Seriously, who are they targeting?
Antifa is not an organized group with a list of members. Either this is just puffing up their chest to sound tough or a precursor to attacking political targets under the pretense that they are "antifa"
Which would be effectively declaring open season on political dissent and 1st amendment rights for anyone that doesn't side with Trump. and people like dbm cheer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa:_The_Anti-Fascist_Handbook
"Carlos Lozada of The Washington Post commented that "the book's most enlightening contribution is on the history of anti-fascist efforts over the past century, but its most relevant for today is its justification for stifling speech and clobbering white supremacists".[3]"
Shallow thinkers, like many here, see the word "anti-fascists" and think "Oh, they must be the good guys," without realizing that antifa stands for illiberalism at its worst. Antifa isn't about peaceful protests--in fact, it is they who harm those who do stand for that. I think it's a splendid development if DOJ can identify the efforts to organize these people and either shame them or shut them down. I don't want them shot out the water, though, like we are doing with Venezuelan boats.
As for the silly notion that targeting Antifa will lead to "open season on political dissent and 1st amendment rights for anyone that doesn't side with Trump," care to put your money where your mouth is?
Do you think cartels have a list of members and are highly organized? They are not. Yes, Antifa people have cells (just like terrorist groups, by the way) and are loosely affiliated. But the notion that we don't know what we are referring to with the term is intentionally obtuse. Antifa is known for violent protesting. That kind of shit has to stop.You've never heard of Anitifa? It doesn't need quotes.🔥 🔥 🔥
https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1976012161374900519?t=jcThFPrR3hOXE_j2bCv-PQ&s=19
Who is "Antifa?"
Seriously, who are they targeting?
Antifa is not an organized group with a list of members. Either this is just puffing up their chest to sound tough or a precursor to attacking political targets under the pretense that they are "antifa"
Which would be effectively declaring open season on political dissent and 1st amendment rights for anyone that doesn't side with Trump. and people like dbm cheer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa:_The_Anti-Fascist_Handbook
"Carlos Lozada of The Washington Post commented that "the book's most enlightening contribution is on the history of anti-fascist efforts over the past century, but its most relevant for today is its justification for stifling speech and clobbering white supremacists".[3]"
Shallow thinkers, like many here, see the word "anti-fascists" and think "Oh, they must be the good guys," without realizing that antifa stands for illiberalism at its worst. Antifa isn't about peaceful protests--in fact, it is they who harm those who do stand for that. I think it's a splendid development if DOJ can identify the efforts to organize these people and either shame them or shut them down. I don't want them shot out the water, though, like we are doing with Venezuelan boats.
As for the silly notion that targeting Antifa will lead to "open season on political dissent and 1st amendment rights for anyone that doesn't side with Trump," care to put your money where your mouth is?
To be clear, @ohio-guy didn't ask "what" Antifa is. He asked "who" it is, in the context of "who" they are promising to target. That's a valid question. This isn't the UK where you can just proscribe a domestic organization and then arrest anyone who publicly voices support for said organization. Yes, Antifa has cells, but you can't simply raid the hangout of the Portland Antifa Cell because they dared to put Antifa on their Twitter handle. You have to have probable cause that the specific members of that specific cell committed, or conspired to commit, some sort of crime.
Yes, Cartels have organizations. There are even organizations charts, just like mafia families have organizations.Do you think cartels have a list of members and are highly organized? They are not. Yes, Antifa people have cells (just like terrorist groups, by the way) and are loosely affiliated. But the notion that we don't know what we are referring to with the term is intentionally obtuse. Antifa is known for violent protesting. That kind of shit has to stop.You've never heard of Anitifa? It doesn't need quotes.🔥 🔥 🔥
https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1976012161374900519?t=jcThFPrR3hOXE_j2bCv-PQ&s=19
Who is "Antifa?"
Seriously, who are they targeting?
Antifa is not an organized group with a list of members. Either this is just puffing up their chest to sound tough or a precursor to attacking political targets under the pretense that they are "antifa"
Which would be effectively declaring open season on political dissent and 1st amendment rights for anyone that doesn't side with Trump. and people like dbm cheer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa:_The_Anti-Fascist_Handbook
"Carlos Lozada of The Washington Post commented that "the book's most enlightening contribution is on the history of anti-fascist efforts over the past century, but its most relevant for today is its justification for stifling speech and clobbering white supremacists".[3]"
Shallow thinkers, like many here, see the word "anti-fascists" and think "Oh, they must be the good guys," without realizing that antifa stands for illiberalism at its worst. Antifa isn't about peaceful protests--in fact, it is they who harm those who do stand for that. I think it's a splendid development if DOJ can identify the efforts to organize these people and either shame them or shut them down. I don't want them shot out the water, though, like we are doing with Venezuelan boats.
As for the silly notion that targeting Antifa will lead to "open season on political dissent and 1st amendment rights for anyone that doesn't side with Trump," care to put your money where your mouth is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medellín_Cartel
ANTIFA is full of bad guys too, but I’ve not seen an ANTIFA organization.
Absolutely. My point is that Bondi assigning some task force to track down people who have caused violence at protests, or attacked law enforcement or govt buildings, and seeing if there is funding behind them at some level is a perfectly valid and desirable function of DOJ. Yes, I want them to follow the law in doing so.Yes, Antifa has cells, but you can’t simply raid the hangout of the Portland Antifa Cell because they dared to put Antifa on their Twitter handle. You have to have probable cause that the specific members of that specific cell committed, or conspired to commit, some sort of crime.
But there is also a definite pattern from people on the left gaslighting about whether or not something exists --"woke" (who can forget the tortured logic behind "oh you can't exactly define the word? Then obviously what you complain about doesn't exist"), DEI and CRT ("it's only in advanced graduate classes, no one teaches any part of it in K-12 public schools"), antiracism ("it just means being against intentional racism. How could you oppose that?"), etc.--and claiming it is just some made up right wing boogeyman. Ohioguy's question follows that pattern.
My point is that Bondi assigning some task force to track down people who have caused violence at protests, or attacked law enforcement or govt buildings, and seeing if there is funding behind them at some level is a perfectly valid and desirable function of DOJ.
Yes, but that's not remotely what she said they'd be doing, which is probably what got Ohio's hackles up.
I think that's what she is talking about.My point is that Bondi assigning some task force to track down people who have caused violence at protests, or attacked law enforcement or govt buildings, and seeing if there is funding behind them at some level is a perfectly valid and desirable function of DOJ.
Yes, but that's not remotely what she said they'd be doing, which is probably what got Ohio's hackles up.
I think that's what she is talking about.My point is that Bondi assigning some task force to track down people who have caused violence at protests, or attacked law enforcement or govt buildings, and seeing if there is funding behind them at some level is a perfectly valid and desirable function of DOJ.
Yes, but that's not remotely what she said they'd be doing, which is probably what got Ohio's hackles up.
After her performance in the Senate this week, I'm not inclined to interpret anything she says in a more positive light. I'm much more inclined to interpret her as a partisan hack with no respect for the objective application of the law.
She's all of those things. But she won't be running investigations, prosecutions, etc. She's a figurehead.I think that's what she is talking about.My point is that Bondi assigning some task force to track down people who have caused violence at protests, or attacked law enforcement or govt buildings, and seeing if there is funding behind them at some level is a perfectly valid and desirable function of DOJ.
Yes, but that's not remotely what she said they'd be doing, which is probably what got Ohio's hackles up.
After her performance in the Senate this week, I'm not inclined to interpret anything she says in a more positive light. I'm much more inclined to interpret her as a partisan hack with no respect for the objective application of the law.
She's all of those things. But she won't be running investigations, prosecutions, etc. She's a figurehead.I think that's what she is talking about.My point is that Bondi assigning some task force to track down people who have caused violence at protests, or attacked law enforcement or govt buildings, and seeing if there is funding behind them at some level is a perfectly valid and desirable function of DOJ.
Yes, but that's not remotely what she said they'd be doing, which is probably what got Ohio's hackles up.
After her performance in the Senate this week, I'm not inclined to interpret anything she says in a more positive light. I'm much more inclined to interpret her as a partisan hack with no respect for the objective application of the law.
We'll see. I'm not feeling particularly optimistic about the state of government at the moment.
...a perfectly valid and desirable function of DOJ. Yes, I want them to follow the law in doing so.
The highlighted desire of yours seems to be strongly at odds with the current administration.
The evidence? When Bondi was asked the direct, specific question as to whether orders of Federal Judges should be followed, she refused to answer, not just once but on more than one occasion. When DJT was asked the same thing he has given different responses on different days, but his usual answer has been along the lines of (paraphrasing) "it depends, we'll wait and see. Those whacked out liberal judges are out of control". This in his mind includes judges that he put on the bench, such as the one that halted guard deployment to Portland.
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
Im not inclined to look at anything said in a congressional hearing as being enlightening. The hearings are intended to be partisan shit shows and they are.
But just to bring me up to your speed what did she say you find troubling?
Going after left- wing violent $$ is one of the obvious DOJ objectives. We know that some “protesters “ appear in different cities to do their thing. Exposing the funding trail is important. The ANTIFA protests are almost always about obstruction and halting government activities. That is a crime, not a protest.