Did this really just happen?

[_honorentheos]

You can't help misrepresenting my comment, can you? If I don't agree with describing it as advocating for death squads - a branding choice that is hyperbolic and damaging because it is a branding choice with all that entails - then I'm a victim of soft-pedaling the claim as little more than police activity rather than agreeing it is advocating for something that is illegal (posse comitatus) and includes violent military action in it's implications.

This gets to something else I've been mulling over with regards to how ones media sources may irreparably interfere with civil discourse. You seem unable to see how the reference to death squads becomes a problem in it's own right. I suspect this stems from certain subtext you bring that makes this a reasonable comment because the hyperbole it contains was already baked into your view...so my argument is by necessity attacking the entire premise rather than the attempt to overextend and thereby damage the message what Gaetz said is legitimately concerning. All you see there apparently is my concern is lower than yours and the dial on your outrage-o-meter doesn't have a mark between "Obama deploying Seal Team Six and Pinochet sending out death squads are the same, bro" and, "Quit hyperventilating, bro. Nothing to see here."

So, you know. Extremist.

[_EAllusion]

Is it your view that referring to what Americans did to Al Qaeda as "death squads" is hyperbole? What, exactly, do you think the term should be circumscribed to? Normally, death squads just refers to extrajudicial killing of people for purposes of political assassination, repression of political views, revolution, genocide and the like. That's what we did both with ISIS and Al Qaeda and saying that should happen to "Antifa" is advocating for death squads for Americans. It's not an exaggeration. But you reject the plausible interpretation of what he's saying, adopt a strained defensive reading of his comments that's still bad, but not as bad as it actually is, then use that posture to declare both sides as unreasonable while you sit above it with your cool, rational approach. Only, you're not the one being rational about it. You're gaslighting the people who are.

[_EAllusion]

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/t ... r-n1221456

*pretends to be shocked*

[_Gadianton]

CNN has a question, "Can Trump legally deploy US troops to US cities?"

Paging ldsfaqs!

The way I remember it, the second amendment per the religious right is to protect ourselves from the day when the Federal government bears down on the people with guns. But up until today, they never imagined a scenario where it would be a Republican doing it?

[_honorentheos]

Federal troops? Against the law. Not disputable.

[_EAllusion]

I've been of the position that if Donald Trump loses the election, he'll be a malcontent about it and try to declare the election a fraud, but aside from sporadic violence, he'll transition out of power. Attacking the fairness of the election is what we need to be worried about. Eye on the ball. 

After tonight's episode, I have an easier time seeing how it might be more than just sporadic violence he could foment. 

[_honorentheos]

Is it your view that referring to what Americans did to Al Qaeda as "death squads" is hyperbole? What, exactly, do you think the term should be circumscribed to? Normally, death squads just refers to extrajudicial killing of people for purposes of political assassination, repression of political views, revolution, genocide and the like. That's what we did both with ISIS and Al Qaeda and saying that should happen to "Antifa" is advocating for death squads for Americans. It's not an exaggeration. But you reject the plausible interpretation of what he's saying, adopt a strained defensive reading of his comments that's still bad, but not as bad as it actually is, then use that posture to declare both sides as unreasonable while you sit above it with your cool, rational approach. Only, you're not the one being rational about it. You're gaslighting the people who are.

Heh. Plausible equals necessary because extremist propoganda printer goes brrr.

Death squads is a branding choice, EA. You insert it in to describe military activities on the part of the US government where only certain anti-government, anti-military extremists would use it. Then you slide that right over to describing what Gaetz was calling for because you and I both know it carries explicit connection to dictatorial behaviour and political terror squads. That's a branding choice intended to paint the statement a certain way.

That isn't even in question. What is, in my opinion, is if you can even see clearly enough to recognize that and this is all part of the game of internetz. Or it truly is baked into your worldview such that you can't see it for the overextended reference it is, or why that does damage to the very cause I think we commonly believe in here. It's...well. it's something.

[Guest]

I think this needs said here. The conservative Right is the crap show it is now because of right-wing extremists pushing everyone hard to the far right. There was no room for moderate voices because either you agreed that calling out the equivalent of the moment death squads was the necessary interpretation or you were on the side of the enemy. So we ended up where we are today.

“F” that. The end becomes inevitable and horrific if that also consumes the political left. Facts matter. Restraint in conveying them accurately matters.

“F” the EAs of the world demanding we all assume their so called plausible extremism is the necessary view or else one is aiding the fall of Democracy that they also proclaim to be inevitable. They are also among the monsters of our time. “F” them.

[_Jersey Girl]

Question: Is there anyone who can legally pull Trump down off the ceiling and if so, who and how?

[_Gadianton]

Federal troops? Against the law. Not disputable.

Shouldn't the religious right go get their guns and defend their soil?

Sure, they celebrate now because it's people they don't like, but this isn't about consistency, but the slippery slope.

If the precedent gets established, then next time, when the Democrat is in office, what will they do? Maybe that gun roundup one of my right-wing friends fears will really happen?