In case you do not own a dictionary or can’t use the internet

Terrorism: “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.”

36 thoughts on “In case you do not own a dictionary or can’t use the internet

  1. As always, America survives despite itself. Mid-terms and 2024 should be, how shall I say, interesting. 😛

    btw, I’m an OH poll worker ~ wish me luck!

    Yielding back the balance of my time …

  2. Fuck the terrorism word and concept.

    The coup was a coup. It’s goal wasn’t terror. It’s goal was the murder of several specific elected officials and the disruption of the democratic process to install Trump as a president for life. Period. Nothing more, nothing less. Calling it anything else robs it of meaning and weight. It was not a riot, a protest, terrorism, or an attack. It was a coup attempt.

    1. Those concepts are not mutually exclusive. Terrorism is often one of the tools employed to effectuate a coup.

      In addition, there is at least an open debate about whether it was a coup attempt, but is clearly terrorism, cut and dried. Despite Tucker Carlson’s bizarre pronouncements to the contrary, it is not an open question. It meets the very textbook and legal definitions of terrorism. (Terror need not be the goal. The requirements are (1) violence (2) against civilians (3) for a political purpose.)

  3. The goal of the “march” on the capitol was to send a message to Mike Pence and members of congress. That message was that they wanted Pence to not count ballots from states that Biden won but that Trump dishonestly claimed he would have won but for the Democrats cheating. That was clearly a political objective and therefore the “march” became a terrorist attack when it became violent and stormed the capitol. That is not to say it wasn’t also am attempted insurrection as events like that can meet multiple definitions. Of course, if the march/riot was a terrorist attack, that would make the man who instigated the attack, Trump, the January 6th version of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or Osama Bin Laden.

    In my opinion, January 6th was both not nearly as bad as 9/11 and in many ways far worse. It wasn’t as bad because the loss of life was so much less. But it was worse because a sitting president tried to retain his office with violence after losing a free and fair election. For that reason, Donald Trump cemented himself as the worst president in U.S. history. Hopefully, he retains that distinction permanently as I do not want our country to ever have a worse one. But the U.S. can no longer say we have an unblemished record of peaceful transitions of power.

    The Democrats have been trying to use the anniversary of January 6th to push for their version of voting reform. But voting really isn’t the problem they try to make it out to be. The 2020 election saw record numbers of people voting. What this country urgently needs is reform of the Electoral Count Act of 1887. To his credit, Mike Pence refused Trump’s request/command to throw out Democratic ballots. It needs to be clear and unequivocal that the Vice-President does not have the power to unilaterally refuse to count certain ballots, just in case a future vice-president isn’t as honorable as Mike Pence. It should also require more than 1 Senator and 1 Rep. to object before an objection needs to be debated and voted on. There may be other changes that would improve the law and make another attempt to impede an honest counting much less likely. A reform of the ECA could get broad bipartisan support. But Chuck Schumer is refusing to consider ECA reforms separately from the voting bills. Gridlock thy name is Congress.

    1. As I’ve noted before, the former Republican party has a brilliant long term strategy to overcome a challenge they have identified. As a former strategic planner, I have to admire their absolute textbook approach to the problem:

      The obstacle: their ranks are an ever-shrinking minority
      The challenge: how to retain power with that shrinking minority

      The strategy:
      1. Gerrymander the congressional districts and the state legislative regions.
      2. Suppress the vote for the youth and minorities, including mail-in.
      3. Control the counting of votes by installing Trumpist-friendly election supervisors
      4. Control the certification of votes through the Secretaries of State by running Trumpist candidates for those jobs.
      5. If all other voting tricks fail, pass laws that will allow the state legislatures to override the popular selection of the slate of electors.
      6. If the electoral college still fails, use the Vice-President to reject electors.
      7. If all other steps fail, claim fraud and use violence.

      They were not quite ready in 2020. The pandemic foiled their voter suppression techniques. They did their best to screw up mail-ins, but the people protested their subversion of the post office. The Republicans in control of vote-counting or vote certification insisted on honesty. The state legislatures had not yet passed any laws that allowed them to override the selection of electors. Mike Pence refused to play along with the scheme. The attack on the Capitol failed to prevent the congress from completing the certification of Biden.

      But they have been working on every step of this process (except #6 of course). When 2024 comes around, they will be ready.

      1. Michael McChesney says “The Democrats have been trying to use the anniversary of January 6th to push for their version of voting reform.”

        Yes, I suppose they have. The Republicans have been using it to push for their version, which is described in steps 1-7 in Uncle Scoopy’s post above. Of the two, I prefer the Democratic one. How about you?

      2. You left out: stack the judiciary with lackeys who will allow all these things to happen.

        1. Trump did a very poor job of stacking the judiciary with lackeys, considering judges at multiple levels in multiple states ,including Trump appointees, rejected the “evidence” of voter fraud put forward by his legal team. It’s hard to be too cynical when it comes to Trump. I don’t know if there is any conduct so low that Trump wouldn’t engage in it if he thought it was in his best interest. But fortunately, he was undone (at least in terms of lackey judges) by the bargain he struck with conservatives to select judges and justices that were approved by the Federalist Society. There is a world of difference between a principled intellectual conservative and a “Trumpist.” That is not to say that no intellectuals supported Trump, but anyone willing to condone his attempted coup could not be described as principled. Fortunately, Trump’s nominees were principled and most likely also smart enough to see that if Trump succeeded in stealing the election it could lead to the destruction of the United States as a single nation.

          1. The jury is still a long ways out on those judges. As Scoop said, we’re talking about 2024 now, and voter suppression, vote oversight/certification, and vote overturning are the new norm for Republicans.

          2. I forget if it was the Georgia or the Texas voting laws that “made Jim Crow look like Jim Eagle.” But the fact is that both of those “voter suppression laws” that threatened our democracy allow no reason absentee mail in ballots which something not permitted under NY State election law. Those laws also more days of early voting than are permitted in NY.

            As for the jury still being out on Trump appointed judges, I think that really depends on the question. Are you worried that the judges that didn’t support Trump’s attempted coup in 2020 may decide support one in 2024? Or do you mean that not all judges were called on to rule on Trump’s allegations? While I have no reason to think any of those judges would have ruled differently, it is of course possible, however unlikely, one or more might have ruled differently. But at least you can rest assured that the all of Trump’s appeals to the Supreme Court were rejected. Or do you mean the jury is still out on how they will rule on the broad range of issues that will come before them? If so, there is a huge difference between honest disagreements about judicial philosophy and interpretation and partisan corruption.

            I will say this again, while Democrats and Republicans have strong disagreements about voting reform, there is broad bipartisan agreement on the need to reform the Electoral Count Act. That law needs to be changed so no future vice-president or Congress can reject electoral ballots because they didn’t like the outcome of the election. If you believe that Republicans have a secret (or not so secret) plan to rig the counting of ballots in future elections, that is all the more reason reform the ECA to make the counting process clear and unambiguous. Chuck Schumer shouldn’t refuse to reform the ECA because the GOP won’t agree to outlaw voter ID laws.

          3. Michael McChesney said: “There is a world of difference between a principled intellectual conservative and a ‘Trumpist.'”

            Yes, there is. The most important single difference that occurs to me is that one has real political power, and the other lives mainly in some cloud-cuckoo land of theory. Guess which one is which?

            Still wouldn’t ming a short answer on the Dem-or-GOP voting rights preference, if you had to choose one. And I don’t mean the voting rights of the Electoral College. But I also don’t want to be mean spirited this early in the new year, so it’s OK if you don’t want to answer a question you think is wrong to start with.

            Reminds me of the kind of question Trump’s people called a “perjury trap”. I think they meant that answering virtually ANY question about him truthfully would incriminate him somehow. What a guy!

          4. I apologize for saying that principled conservatives live in a cloud cuckoo land of theory. They have a valid vision of how society could be, one that I used to believe in myself. But now I beleive in democratic socialism, and that is equally a cuckoo dream in the USA of today.

            I should have simply said that the principled conservatives lack any political power

          5. Voter suppression is not some kind of principled/both-sides-can-disagree talking point and giving state legislatures the power to overturn elections is not some wonky technicality, and pretending they are is disingenuous.

            Does anyone doubt that the Trump-tainted judicial appointees were put there precisely to protect these actions?

            Electoral College reform would be nice, but if the other bullshit goes through, it won’t matter at all, and talking about it is just a diversionary tactic.

          6. I remember my criminal law professor said that Susan McDougal was smart to refuse to answer questions in front of the Whitewater grand jury (and go to prison for contempt) because it was a perjury trap. Of course, I live in the cloud-cuckoo land of theory, but I only think it is a trap if you are unwilling to tell the truth,

            Principled conservatives used to have a lot more power and influence in the Republican party than they have had in the last few years. I certainly hope the pendulum swings back the other way.

            I am not sure what you are asking about GOP versus Dem voting rights preference. My own preference is that all eligible voters be allowed to vote and no ineligible voters be allowed. I am in favor of voter ID laws and/or laws that require a state ID # be affixed to a mail in ballot. Early voting is a good thing, but I think 2 to 3 weeks is probably long enough. Laws against ballot harvesting seem like a good idea to make it harder to cheat and/or illegally pressure/bribe people to fill out ballots in front of the collector. As I have mentioned here before, someone voted using my Dad’s name the year he died. Voter fraud happens and when it does it erodes the voting of all of us.

            The Democrats voting “reforms” would nationalize all elections. If New York State, currently controlled by Democrats, wants to have more restrictive voting laws than Georgia and Texas (which it does even after the changes that threatened democracy and caused such an outcry) that should be the choice of NY voters. Whenever a state has passed a law requiring a government ID to vote, Democrats have claimed it is motivated by a desire to suppress turn out. That has been true even when the laws made free IDs available as well as allowing people to cast a provisional ballot at the polls if they did not have ID. What I have never read or heard about is Democrats bringing forth people after an election who wanted to vote but who were prevented from doing so because of a change in voting laws supported by Republicans. Maybe that’s happened somewhere and I am just not aware of it. But if it hasn’t, that might be saying something.

        2. Tell me exactly what problem is being fixed with Voter ID laws, other than the “problem” of too many darkies voting. Despite convenient anecdotes, voter fraud is simply not a significant concern, as supported by multiple studies. Funny how conservatives believe in limited government regulation, except when there really isn’t a need for regulation.

          I notice you completely avoided discussing legislatures overturning elections.,

          Despite the claimed disavowal Trump by “principled” Republicans, he in fact was their extremely useful tool for implementing the game plan enumerated by Scoopy, ensuring they will stay in power even as their numbers dwindle.

          1. I understand why shifting election oversight to state legislatures is concerning. But I don’t think Congress could pass a law to change that. In fact, if a legislature decided to outright overturn an election, I am not there is anything that could be done about it. Other than voting those legislators out of office of course. But that would be after the fact.

            The U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 provides in relevant part “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.”

            If a legislature decided that they would choose the electors instead of the voters, any federal law to the contrary would probably be unconstitutional. I am honestly not sure if the legislature changing the manner of choosing after an election had already been held would survive a Constitutional challenge though. But what is likely to prevent an outright theft of the election by a state legislature is the voter anger it would create. Then again maybe I am too naive. Maybe the hyper partisanship in this country has reached the point that people would actually reelect a legislator that voted for something like that.

            The thing is that many people say we are a 50/50 country, with neither party having a significant edge. But the reality is we are more of a 33.3/33.3/33.3 country with a significant portion of the electorate describing themselves as independents. Those independants are the reason the party in control of Washington flips back and forth every 4 to 8 years. Though “in control” is probably overstating it. While I am sorry to say many or even most partisan Republicans might support stealing an election, I have to believe (or at least hope) the independents necessary for a majority would be outraged.

          2. I believe you are correct. There is nothing in the original Constitution that says the electors must be determined by the popular vote, and the Constitution is very clear that the state legislatures are free to determine how the electors are to be determined. It appears that they don’t have to hold an election at all, if that is their choice. In fact, that would be a less controversial move than letting the public vote, then throwing out their choice.

            The Federal Government seems to have an out in the 14th Amendment. The courts allowed the Feds, for example to lower the voting age for Presidential elections without consulting with the states. And more dramatically, based on the second clause of that amendment, it appears that the Feds can say – “if zero percent of the population is involved in the election of presidential electors, then the state is reduced to zero electors.” But of course that has never been tested, and even the right of Congress to set the voting age snuck through the Supremes on a 5-4 decision, so who knows how the current court would rule?

          3. On the subject of voter suppression, why is it that so many people on the left believe that people of color are incapable of securing a photo ID? Who are these people that want to vote, but feel obtaining an ID is too much work? Voter ID laws usually provide a way to obtain a free ID. Considering all the things you need an ID to do in this country, why wouldn’t they get one?

          4. The problem is the same one created by having only one voting booth or one drop-off for the city of Houston. The laws are designed to make it as difficult as possible to obtain an ID for people who live in cities, have to work odd shifts, and have to use public transportation. Frankly, if I had to take time off from work, walk a mile to a subway stop, then transfer to a bus, then walk another quarter mile to the public building where they issue IDs, I wouldn’t vote either.

            When I lived in the Bronx, I was terrified to register for the draft, but even if I had not been afraid to walk through that neighborhood, the federal courthouse was really only open during school hours, Monday through Friday, and getting there required me to walk to the El, ride the train though some shit neighborhoods with the expected dangerous characters, then walk through a really shit neighborhood. If registering had not been legally required, for example if I had been registering to vote, I would not have done it.

            (IRRELEVANT ANECDOTE: As it turns out, I was lucky. I took time off from school in the early morning, and rode down to the South Bronx in a terrible snow storm. Both the 3rd Avenue El and the streets of the South Bronx were totally deserted, and when I got back I found out I hadn’t even missed any classes because it was a snow day!)

            But I have no problem with Voter ID laws if they come with provisions that make it equally easy for everyone to get one. For example, libraries used to have bookmobiles that would park in remote towns every so often, where people could borrow and return books on a convenient schedule. Voter ID mobiles could do the same thing. Park them in downtown neighborhoods, leave them open extended hours, them move on to the next neighborhood so that everyone is eventually within 15 minutes of getting an ID.

            Of course, there is also the point made elsewhere in this thread that there really doesn’t seem to be a problem that requires passing those laws. If the laws are not designed to fix a problem, then it is reasonable to assume their only real purpose is to keep some people from voting. Gee, I wonder who those people might be.

      3. Rome declined and fell when men began to care more about their personal power than the institutions of the Republic.

        Sound familiar?

    1. Well, in the pure sense of taking action only against clearly defined terrorists, no.

      But if you don’t care about collateral damage to innocent civilians, then yes.

    2. It can be, but usually is not. Tapping a terrorist’s telephone fulfills none of the requirements of the terrorism definition.

    1. Maybe. Some of it is, but it varies case-by-case. In order for the act to be terrorism, it must have a political objective and violence must be directed against innocents.

      If it is for personal gain, or is lawbreakers fighting other lawbreakers, then it is simply defined as “violent crime.” A gang war, for example, is crime, not terrorism, even if innocents are collateral damage.

      Violence against civilians for personal gain is crime
      Violence among lawbreakers is crime
      Violence for the sake of violence is crime. (Hate crime is a subset)
      Violence for a political objective is terrorism.
      Violence between non-civilian combatants is war.

      There are gray areas. If a guy goes into a school or a theater and starts shooting, it may be terrorism, it may be hate crimes, or it may be the crimes of homicide, depending on the objectives and state of the mind of the shooter(s).

      The most difficult distinction is between terrorism and hate crimes. These sometimes kind of overlap. Were the Nazi death camps terrorism, or hate crimes, or both?

      It is also often difficult to distinguish between terrorism and war. The bombing of civilian populations during a declared war, for example, could be considered terrorism if there was no clear military objective. The firebombing of Dresden in WW2, for example, is really on the borderline. Was it a legitimate military action or was it just state-sponsored terrorism? It is possible to argue either way. History is generally written by the winners, but if the allies had lost the war, there could have been grave repercussions for those involved in that decision (and others).

      But debates aside, if a given act meets three criteria, it is terrorism:

      1. It has a political objective.
      2. It is violent.
      3. Violence is directed against civilians.

        1. I think many (most?) would argue that religious violence is exactly the same as political violence. When is it not?

    2. Whataboutism. How adorable.

      We know: “Let’s Go Brandon! FJB!”

      That’s all just your feelings, you pathetic snowflakes. Crawl back under your rocks.

    3. I think you mean Salem. Mike Nearman got booted out 6 months ago. Its time you got over it.

      1. Dream on. His side still hasn’t gotten over losing the Civil War (oh, pardon me, “the War of Northern Aggression”).

        1. Now look, he saw a Facebook post that clearly showed a photo of people dressed in terrorist clothes doing mean things to people in police clothes that was captioned “Portland, OR” just last week and that means they’re still trying to burn that courthouse down right now every single day, all those antifa terror troops fully funded by George Soros and Hillary Clinton and China.

Comments are closed.