I just talked to my Trumpy neighbor, and the issue of election fraud came up. I told her that I cannot find any evidence, anywhere, that the election was rigged. She mentioned one woman in Arizona, presumably an official of some kind, who claims that Trump won. So the vast majority of officials in Arizona say the election was fair, but she is going to believe the wing-nut who says the opposite. I asked her who the person is, and of course she doesn't know.
I told her I am always open to the TRUTH, and if there's actual evidence of fraud, I want to know about it. She claims that she wants to know the truth also, but rather than investigate anything with any form of objectivity, she simply latches onto fringe ideas. She also believes that Georgia's election was "stolen" because of a video of people taking boxes out from under a table--even though the Secretary of State and other election officials explained that this was completely innocent.
Her favorite saying is, "It's all going to come out soon." Sure, Jan.
Well, that doesn't sound very neighborly. Per that article, it sounds like Gaetz is a popular target these days (two potential assassins means you're popular, right?), although no reference to him actually being hunted in Florida, as per the OP.
after 911 happened, a couple of recent medical graduates were at a restaurant somewhere in the southeastern US on their way to Florida for an internship and noticed someone eavesdropping on their conversation which they attributed to looking Arab or Pakistani/Indian/Bengali so they started talking as if they were planning some "terroristic" activities. The popo were called and hijinx ensue and the hospital where they were to train fired them because of the death threats they were getting. I figured that maybe they should have investigated the death threats rather than fire the clowns who were stupid enough to instigate this
The Oath of Office of Federal soldiers and agents includes words to the effect that "I will obey the lawful orders of the President of the United States and officers appointed under him." We need to remember that TFG was the Commander in Chief when the coup attempt was perpetrated. Vastly harder for even decent-minded folks in uniform to beat down on people who are acting under the orders of the President. I surely hope that the next time (and there will be a next time) the defenders of our institutions will channel Uncle Billy and school the Junior Johnny Rebs the same way he did their traitorous ancestors.
Last I knew Colorado had was what was called a "Fighting words" law. Kind of like stand your ground... on steroids. If someone uttered a threat you deemed believable you could respond with force, even deadly force.
Thanks for the link. These two passages from the article really make me depressed...
In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"
Holmes wrote in Abrams that the marketplace of ideas offered the best solution for tamping down offensive speech: "The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out."
Seriously, if the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market we are all well and seriously fucked.
The problem here is the focus. They are looking at threats as "incitement," rather than threats as "intimidation." They are deluging officials with threats, none especially credible by itself but taken in total rightfully and reasonably creates fear in the target.
This technique was perfected with Gamergate. Everybody who paid attention to that dismal chapter has been screaming that better protections are needed.
I just talked to my Trumpy neighbor, and the issue of election fraud came up. I told her that I cannot find any evidence, anywhere, that the election was rigged. She mentioned one woman in Arizona, presumably an official of some kind, who claims that Trump won. So the vast majority of officials in Arizona say the election was fair, but she is going to believe the wing-nut who says the opposite. I asked her who the person is, and of course she doesn't know.
I told her I am always open to the TRUTH, and if there's actual evidence of fraud, I want to know about it. She claims that she wants to know the truth also, but rather than investigate anything with any form of objectivity, she simply latches onto fringe ideas. She also believes that Georgia's election was "stolen" because of a video of people taking boxes out from under a table--even though the Secretary of State and other election officials explained that this was completely innocent.
Her favorite saying is, "It's all going to come out soon." Sure, Jan.
Hands too big, gut too small, sorry! Mushroom too normal looking...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Most of these so-called Patriots have one regret: They never saw real combat. Well, they should be grateful they didn’t. I know.
Ask about the procedure or work at the polls?
I thought it was the oyster stew.....
Well, that doesn't sound very neighborly. Per that article, it sounds like Gaetz is a popular target these days (two potential assassins means you're popular, right?), although no reference to him actually being hunted in Florida, as per the OP.
A professional armorer explains the procedures:https://www.usatoday.com/st...
after 911 happened, a couple of recent medical graduates were at a restaurant somewhere in the southeastern US on their way to Florida for an internship and noticed someone eavesdropping on their conversation which they attributed to looking Arab or Pakistani/Indian/Bengali so they started talking as if they were planning some "terroristic" activities. The popo were called and hijinx ensue and the hospital where they were to train fired them because of the death threats they were getting. I figured that maybe they should have investigated the death threats rather than fire the clowns who were stupid enough to instigate this
The Oath of Office of Federal soldiers and agents includes words to the effect that "I will obey the lawful orders of the President of the United States and officers appointed under him." We need to remember that TFG was the Commander in Chief when the coup attempt was perpetrated. Vastly harder for even decent-minded folks in uniform to beat down on people who are acting under the orders of the President. I surely hope that the next time (and there will be a next time) the defenders of our institutions will channel Uncle Billy and school the Junior Johnny Rebs the same way he did their traitorous ancestors.
Warn all of us. Blech, blech... spit, hacchk. Lunch is ruined.
Last I knew Colorado had was what was called a "Fighting words" law. Kind of like stand your ground... on steroids. If someone uttered a threat you deemed believable you could respond with force, even deadly force.
Turn the tables, threaten a GOPer & LOOK OUT!!!!
Thanks for the link. These two passages from the article really make me depressed...
In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"
Holmes wrote in Abrams that the marketplace of ideas offered the best solution for tamping down offensive speech: "The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out."
Seriously, if the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market we are all well and seriously fucked.
What do you think the point of free speech is? Why do you think it needs protections?
The problem here is the focus. They are looking at threats as "incitement," rather than threats as "intimidation." They are deluging officials with threats, none especially credible by itself but taken in total rightfully and reasonably creates fear in the target.
This technique was perfected with Gamergate. Everybody who paid attention to that dismal chapter has been screaming that better protections are needed.