They operate through a nonprofit here in order to lobby for hate. It is an exceptionally huge problem. There’s a dude not 40 minutes from the capitol city with a warrant for his arrest and a militia and the government is just letting him do what he wants.
You know, something I’ve been wondering lately is how many 18650 batteries you’d need to boil water with a jerry-rigged magnetron and beam focuser if you’re 50ft~100ft away.
“someone reported seeing people loading into a U-Haul van like ‘a little army’ at a hotel parking lot in Coeur d’Alene”
That’s all you need to know to see how safe these guys felt in their actions. It literally didn’t occur to them to maybe hide all that, just a bit? FFS, when I’m loading up to go shoot at my camp, I keep it on the downlow. And this is a hyper conservative area.
This really shouldn’t surprise anyone. Trump himself said that if minorities vote, there will never be a Republican elected again. The GOP has taken this to heart, which is why they’re always trying to come up with ways to make it harder for minorities to vote, by like shortening voting times (limiting when polling stations can be open), restricting mail-in ballots, etc. So they find ways to fuck over minorities and change laws/bills to benefit Republicans.
It’s funny that whenever Republicans call foul and demand recounts, it’s always Republican supporters that are caught voting more than once.
The funny thing is if you go back to George Bush - they were conceivably on the path to have a permanent majority if they ever got their immigration reform plan done. Latinos y centroamericanos are overwhelmingly Catholic and to various degrees on the conservative side of things, and the Republicans threw it all away to be racist.
Isn't this that group that has more feds than real members? And that was entrapped by feds to kidnap some politician but the whole case was dismissed because... entrapment
Am I missing something, or is the president resigning over having hired someone who are for LGBTQ+ and other minority rights? Is that what people are outraged over? How conservative is the university board that this was ever considered an issue?
So much for the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. In my opinion, the state should never have the right to murder its citizens (or anyone for that matter), regardless of what they may have done. I know this is controversial, but death is never a moral or just solution to a legal issue, regardless of the severity of the issue.
But since we don’t live in my idealized version of society, states that murder their citizens under the law should at the very least be required to demonstrate that they do it instantly and painlessly. If they can’t do that, no legal murder for them.
Seriously. The attempt at “humane” execution via lethal injection is selfish and asinine.
The kindest way to kill someone is by shooting them, but that doesn’t look very nice.
Obviously neither should be allowed under the constitution, but it’s laughably selfish to force the death sentence via lethal injection because the people doing the killing would be traumatized otherwise.
Exactly. Especially because lethal injection goes wrong so damn often, and ends up being traumatic for everyone involved.
Killing with a needle while wearing a white coat is just theatre, meant to make us feel civilized when deep down we know it’s impossible to kill with civility.
TBF I think having more diversity in military leadership especially could lead to diversity of thought and help improve the US military as a whole, including pushing them towards a less war crime heavy future. I understand your point - I don’t even disagree, really - but I think this is also a genuinely good and newsworthy thing.
The problem is the system that creates this people, not what's in their pants, though. It's not like she's suddenly not going to be part of the military industrial complex cause she's got girl parts.
And even if that were true, one person being different isn't going to make that much of a difference.
the system that creates this people, not what’s in their pants
True, but the system treats women pretty poorly, from what I’ve read and heard from a friend of mine who’s a woman in the military. Everyone’s different, but I hope that spending years in such a sexist system would inspire them to make change.
one person being different isn’t going to make that much of a difference.
I don’t mean to imply they alone will turn the US military based or anything, but being on the joint chiefs and head of the Navy means they could do a significant amount of good.
Realistically I need to wait and see if she’ll actually be a net positive (assuming she actually gets the job) but I think it’s reasonable to see this as a good sign and approach it with cautious optimism - just as it’s reasonable to not care or roll your eyes.
I think it's less of an onus of "she will fix everything because she's a women" and more "a woman made it this far and thus things may change for the better". But the problem is, when such misogynist (or racist, or whatever other -ist you want to think of) system exists, people who are mistreated by that system often have to accept and often promote that kind of system just to get to a position of power.
It would definitely be nice if things changed for the better, but it's going to take a hell of a lot more than one person at the top to make that change. And, for all I know that change is already happening, and is part of why Admiral Franchetti has gotten to the place she has.
From the sounds of it, it sounded more like domestic terrorism, politically and hate motivated conspiracy to riot and inciting riot, as well as a plan to physically assault a large amount of people as a militarized terrorist cell.
Conspiracy to riot? What in the fuck get out of terrorism white nationalist bullshit is this? The USA is fucking fubar.
Literally this, actually. There is no such crime as “domestic terrorism.” It literally does not exist on the books. It’s an undefined term that has no statute attached to it.
That’s why you see so much stuff where white supremacists get charged with “conspiracy to riot” and such. It’s about creating double standards and propaganda through the law.
Often these disappointing charges have nothing to do with what makes sense. Prosecutors aim as high as they think they go. If they’re not aiming high enough, it’s because they don’t think they can win.
Also, when you dig past the headlines, and really see what came out in court, it’s often a FAR different story. One famous case, which escapes me, was a cop getting off for seemingly executing a black man on a traffic stop. Once the evidence and testimony were heard in court, well, it wasn’t what we all thought. Cop wasn’t justified BTW, but I can see why the jury voted not guilty.
Maybe this is such a case? They needed $X to hang them with terrorism, but $X wasn’t present or provable? And conspiracy to riot was a slam dunk?
So yeah, I’ll take a win against these dirt bags vs. a loss on a terrorism charge.
OTOH, there have been plenty of Americans convicted of terrorism on, seemingly, the thinnest of evidence. Prosecutors LOVE getting that terrorism conviction, looks good, so what’s up here?
I suspect it’s that American jurors won’t see “white” as “terrorist”, and that’s on us Americans, not the prosecutors. Pretty funny as, when I was a kid, it was the European terrorist factions that were prevalent. Baader-Meinhof Gang, Red Army Faction, IRA, all that.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.