Senate Going Postal: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

I agree. That label is thrown around to various people, as Carlin said, who were not terrorists. I mean, I would say that Bush was more of a terrorist than bin Laden because Bush slew more innocent civilians. But that's my subjective perception of the word. Most use it for people who are trying to affect change. Now, believe it or not, people would call Gandhi one who inspired terror by using his anarcho-pacifism to free India (then merged with Pakistan and Bangladesh, before the separations of culture) from the yoke of the British Empire. So, yeah. Churchill would say crap like that about Gandhi when Gandhi was using both anarchism and pacifism to free a country. Weird af.

Social terrorism is fighting against a system that is unjust. It's best to use pacifism, either constitutional pacifism like MLK would utilize, or anarcho-pacifism like Gandhi and his successors would. That's my take on the matter. I, for one, prefer relative pacifistic socialism. I don't like violent revolution. But violent revolution is sometimes necessary to overthrow a system so polluted that it neglects and abuses its own citizens. That's the only manner in which I would surmise it would be justifiable.

 

Its a means to target gangs, gang violence, and drugs. So what negatives stem from these things? Do you think gangs, gang violence, and drugs affect the youth? Do you think you involved in these things jeopardize their futures? Do you think without these distractions, young adults could focus on bettering themselves instead of being pressured into continuing a vicious cycle? Police corruption? Less guns on the streets? Safer neighborhoods? Etc etc etc etc even things like groups being stereotyped based on the area they are living, this could have a profound effect on. Oh, less deaths? Less communities being ruined by drugs?

The pandemic which has been politicized?

-is it legal to carry there?
-does a free country have the right to force someone to wear a mask? The issue people are having with that is making it a law. Theyre fighting for their rights as citizens and feel that *forcing* is overstepping boundaries. Im not sure how you compare this to gang violence.

The economy has to open. People have businesses, kids need schooling, etc. The hospitals are no longer overflooded. Theres zero reason for places to remain closed, other than the paranoia the media has created regarding safety. Studies show theres like a 99 percent survival rate and the risk goes up with age, but that is true for most things. What do people expect, a magical cure for nature and force every human on the planet to take it? Lol cmon now.

 

Your points are noted.

However, storming a state capitol armed to the teeth with high powered assault rifles isn't exactly what I would consider the right way of going about expressing those concerns. That is a completely disproportionate response to the lockdown measures or mask mandate.

You were also referring to terrorists. Pull up some pictures of that incident, and compare those images to pictures of actual terrorists around the world. There really is no difference.

 

Those magical cures are called vaccines. They’re miracles in that we gave them to basically everyone on Earth and they wiped out diseases like polio and smallpox for decades.

 

Comparing gang violence to people upholding their rights as citizens? Not at all similar.

 

I think it shows how psychologically damaged some of those people may be, if they either feel they really need high-powered assault rifles to petition the government, or if they're doing it just to "own the libs"

 

I guess this thread has been liberals vs. leftists and leftists vs. leftist (damn leftists; they ruined leftism) for too long.

The better question is to ask, what makes people turn to gangs and drug use? Is it a failure of "young people" to "better themselves" or a society and economy that have failed them? Why am I overusing rhetorical questions?

Yes. It should be the job of the state to protect the public welfare. There is no good reason for it to exist otherwise.

 

They stormed a federal building, with assault rifles... street gangs don't even do that. wtf are you talking about?

 

Who is forcing anybody? People want to work.

Also the virus is blown out of proportion. I dont think anyone would argue its been politicized.

Never heard of a plandemic video.

The gangs. They destroy communities. The drugs they sell. They ruin lives.

I know it is more complicated than that but the point is gangs create chaos and corruption.

You mean like.........deaming gangs terrorists?

People deserve their freedoms. If someone wants to eat McDonald's 24/7 that's on them.

Because they felt their rights were being infringed upon.

Lol I can't believe you are drawing a comparison here, or defending gangs.

People can get infected with a number of things. People die from the flu. People should use their best judgement and be respectful of others. Studies show, again, that the survival rate is incredibly high. And, there have also been reports of deaths being cataloged for covid that had nothing to do with covid.

 

Made her, legally? How so?

 

#BLM protesters also feel their rights are being infringed upon. Are you saying they should storm federal buildings with assault rifles?

 

Given the topic you're discussing, you might want to be a bit less confrontational, perhaps.

 

You work, or you can't pay the rent. Die from the virus, or die on the streets. Or both, when the virus keeps you from working. You don't seem to understand that someone doesn't have to be holding a gun to your head in order to force you to do something.

 

Most gangs and gang members are not terrorists (some are). They don’t have political aims, which is what Lowbacca was asking. The reason he asked is because the definition of terrorism usually involves acts taken to accomplish political or religious goals. Gangs are not trying to achieve political ends. Most of them aren’t trying to accomplish anything politically. They’re trying to make money and survive. They’re immoral businessmen who sell illegal products and are willing to use violence, intimidation, and coercion, like a lot of businesses.

The Michigan protesters were using threats of violence to intimidate people in order to achieve their political goals (ie, to end the statewide lockdown), and people, political leaders, were legitimately afraid for their lives.

Some terrorists think they’re upholding their rights as citizens as they defend their homelands from foreign invaders. They’re still terrorists.

 

This is complete bull****, and you know it. People have returned to work because they have to-- if they don't they will go hungry.

As for "defending gangs," what's wrong with that? Most gang members are in because they feel (and rightfullt so) they have no other options. Our society has failed to give them viable options. If you actually took some time to talk to even one of them, you'd likely find they want different. Are you seriously this ignorant, or are you trolling?

 

Gangs don't come from nowhere. Take MS-13 for example. The Salvadoran Civil War, fed by the United States funding of death squads, drove thousands of Salvadorans to seek refuge in the U.S. itself. Facing racial discrimination and little economic opportunity, those refugees and their sons formed a fraternity of sorts that eventually evolved into a gang. Most gangs have similar origins.

I don't think you realize just how arbitrarily law enforcement determines "gang affiliation," or maybe you don't care.

Yes, people have the Freedom to be fed processed junk food by a multibillion-dollar company whose business model has profoundly affected U.S. and world society for the worse. It's only loosely connected to wearing a mask to protect people from a deadly virus, though.

 

I'm sure you meant "I'm sorry to hear that, maybe what I said was insensitive".