Post New

Last night on Truth Social, Orange Jesus said that "MSNBC (MSDNC) uses FREE government approved airwaves, and yet it is nothing but a 24 hour hit job on Donald J. Trump and the Republican Party for purposes of ELECTION INTERFERENCE.

Umm, Orange Jesus doesn't seem to know the difference between broadcast and cable networks. MSNBC is on cable, which does not use government funding.

Orange Jesus went on to say that the "government" should come down hard on MSNBC and make them pay for their illegal political activity. By describing their coverage as "illegal," isn't he implying he will criminally prosecute the station and its reporters?

And isn't that, well, fascism?

I'm betting when Trump next gets on the campaign trail and tells his audience he's going to prosecute MSNBC, those idiots will cheer and wail.

In another Truth Social post, Trump wrote that he would repeal and replace Obamacare. He actually wrote that he would give Americans better healthcare, something he promised in 2016 and throughout his presidency: "Getting much better Healthcare than Obamacare for the American people will be a priority of the Trump Administration. It is not a matter of cost, it is a matter of HEALTH. America will have one of the best Healthcare Plans anywhere in the world. Right now it has one of the WORST!"

Seems to me he tried that before and failed miserably.

Trump failed miserably because he's a miserable failure.

But the stupid suckers love their Orange Jesus.

What is this MSNBC you speak of ?

Orange Jesus went on to say that the "government" should come down hard on MSNBC and make them pay for their illegal political activity. By describing their coverage as "illegal," isn't he implying he will criminally prosecute the station and its reporters?

And isn't that, well, fascism?

I don't think so.

One of Trump's rhetorical techniques is to try to delegitimize all criticisms of him. People who criticize him are disloyal, hypocritical, are breaking the law, or are interfering with the election. Anyone doing anything that might negative affect his chances of winning the election are "interfering" with the election, even though the essence of political campaigning involves millions of people doing things that will affect the outcome of the election in small or big ways.

But him calling for the government to enforce the laws against stations isn't fascism. Because the stations aren't doing anything illegal, enforcing the laws against the stations won't result in prosecutions. This is no more fascism than the occasional calls among certain ill-informed progressives to try to pull various Fox stations' broadcast licenses because they are spreading "election disinformation" or whatever:

https://www.axios.com/pro/tech-policy/2023/10/19/a...

....and no more likely to result in any actual government action.

Sure is...

Jason Stanley is a Professor of Philosophy at Yale University. (His parents were also refugees of Nazi Germany.)
In 2018 he published an illuminating book entitled, How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them. It is certainly worth a read for those interested in understanding Fascism.

Stanley outlined ten tactics fascists use. See if any of these look/sound familiar...
1) The mythic past. Fascists promote a glorified mythical past to make people dissatisfied with the present. The past is painted as a time of greatness.

2) Propaganda. Fascists lie and manipulate language in order to rewrite the shared reality of the population. Fascist propaganda is based around naming 'friends' and 'enemies.'

3) Anti-intellectualism. Fascists attack experts, universities and educational systems because they could potentially teach people to challenge fascist ideas. The fascist leader sets the rules about what is true or false.

4) Unreality. Freedom and political equality require truth. Fascist voices work deliberately to create a state of unreality. Its adherents lose the ability to recognize truth. Reasoned discussion and debate is replaced with conspiracy theories and lies.

5) Hierarchy. Fascists create a hierarchy of human worth. They promote social divisions and harden social rankings over such things as race, religion, and gender.

6) Victim-hood. Once people come to believe that they are higher than another group in the hierarchy, any move toward equality by lower groups is used to stoke feelings of resentment and victim-hood among the dominant population. Equality becomes, not a goal, but a threat.

7) Law and Order. Law and Order politics is used to cast 'them' as dangerous, lawless, criminals and to justify brutal crackdowns on minorities or people who are out of favor. At the same time, however, the fascist leader is not bound by any law.

8) Sexual Anxiety. A fascist hierarchy is rigidly patriarchal and is threatened by gender equity. Hence, they impose strict control and dominance over women. They also promote paranoia about homosexuality.

9) Sodom and Gomorrah. Fascist movements emphasize an urban/rural divide. The cities are portrayed as decadent criminal centers full of enemy 'elites' and immigrants.

10) Work shall make you free. This slogan was written on the gates of Auschwitz. Fascists claim that the minority groups and the leftists are lazy and must be made to work (hence, concentration camps and forced labor camps). Labor unions are said to be run by communists ' so unions must be crushed.

The antidote to Fascism? Knowledge, awareness and empathy.

"No single book is as relevant to the present moment." Claudia Rankine, author of Citizen

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/586030/ho...

albaby1: Because the stations aren't doing anything illegal, enforcing the laws against the stations won't result in prosecutions.

So your argument is that the guy with 91 felony indictments would be concerned with the letter of the law and wouldn't put a lackey in a position to do anything against the law during a second administration?

When Orange Jesus said, "If I happen to be president and I see somebody who’s doing well and beating me very badly, I say go down and indict them," you feel comfortable dismissing his threats because they don't have a legal basis?

Umm, 'kay.

So your argument is that the guy with 91 felony indictments would be concerned with the letter of the law and wouldn't put a lackey in a position to do anything against the law during a second administration?

Yeah, pretty much. You'll notice that even though he's always skated really close to the line of what's legal and not, he's managed to spend his whole life lawyered up and staying on the "legal" side of things. Or at least avoided all of the "clearly illegal" stuff. There's a reason he loves to use lawyers the way he does - he likes to be the guy who stretches the laws, not breaks them in obvious ways.

The Georgia voting case is emblematic of that. There's a reason why his efforts to influence Raffensperger took place on a conference call with numerous participants, rather than (fancifully) having a special operations team deliver that message "privately" at 3:00 a.m. in his house. And why he tried to stay in power by having lawyers and allies arguing about elector certification, rather than just declaring martial law or actually using federal power to sway the election. Because he's completely unwilling to knowingly and obviously break the law. He wants to stay juuuuuuuuuust inside the line, where he can avoid taking any real risks.

He ends up breaking the law because he's not that sharp at knowing where the line is, has spent most of his adult life in a closely-held corporation where the lines are different, and can't get good lawyers (or won't listen to them) to keep him inside that line. But there's little evidence that Trump genuinely is willing to break the law in a way that could expose him to actual danger.

When Orange Jesus said, "If I happen to be president and I see somebody who’s doing well and beating me very badly, I say go down and indict them," you feel comfortable dismissing his threats because they don't have a legal basis?

No, I feel comfortable dismissing that because it's the sort of thing he would say to a crowd of adoring supporters in order to get an applause line, but never actually do when he's in office. It's why he never did "lock her up," why he never did "build the wall." He's a bully, but a cowardly bully who dares little. He doesn't pick risky fights. He doesn't stick his neck out. He'll engage in petty vindictive torments against weak folks that have no real way to strike back at him, but not against bigger targets who can genuinely lawyer up and push back on him.

No, I feel comfortable dismissing that because it's the sort of thing he would say to a crowd of adoring supporters in order to get an applause line, but never actually do when he's in office. It's why he never did "lock her up," why he never did "build the wall." He's a bully, but a cowardly bully who dares little. He doesn't pick risky fights. He doesn't stick his neck out. He'll engage in petty vindictive torments against weak folks that have no real way to strike back at him, but not against bigger targets who can genuinely lawyer up and push back on him.

Thank you. Because in this and in the paragraph above it you neatly obliterated the canard that Trump is some kind of American Mussolini, which is a tired trope that gets repeated endlessly around here.

A woman who works at Arlington National Cemetery filed an incident report with the military authorities over the altercation she had with Trumps staff.
But the official, who has not been identified, declined to press charges because she feared Trump’s supporters pursuing retaliation.

Little Donny Convicts thugs assaulted an Army staff member — a woman — who was only trying to do her job. And now she has to remain anonymous and decline to press charges because we all know that Donny’s deranged cultists will make her life a living hell if she does. Just ask E. Jean Carroll or Stormy Daniels or US Election workers or Judges or Jurors or Prosecutors....

Allowing Donny’s thugs to get away with crimes because you fear the wrath of the violent morons who worship him is literally how fascism works.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." ~Attributed to Sinclair Lewis

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/28/politics/trump-camp...

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/section/campa...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trum...

Sure looks like...

Narciso Barranco, a father to three sons who are all US Marines, pepper-sprayed and punched in the face by alleged federal immigration officers
while he was working as a landscaper at an IHOP. He was then forced into the back of an unmarked car in Santa Ana.

"The video shows a group of men wearing hats and face coverings and police vests converge on Narciso, holding him down while one man repeatedly hits him on the head.
Some men are standing guard around the scene before the group again seizes Narciso, with one man holding a baton at the back of Narciso’s neck to push him into the backseat of a silver SUV."

This wasn’t an arrest. This was an assault and kidnapping.

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/masked-men-in-u-s...

Someone is going to "stand your ground" on these armed thugs, and then things are going to get really ugly.

Someone is going to "stand your ground" on these armed thugs, and then things are going to get really ugly.

I'm assuming these were a form of law enforcement, and so any resistance to them is illegal. Even if they hit you, you can't hit back without being charged with assaulting a LEO. Self-defense from an LEO isn't a valid defense.

I'm assuming these were a form of law enforcement, and so any resistance to them is illegal. Even if they hit you, you can't hit back without being charged with assaulting a LEO. Self-defense from an LEO isn't a valid defense.

I’m guessing there are lawyers dying to take a case where LE is neither wearing a uniform nor willing to show ID.


In that case, a bunch of masked men get out of unmarked vehicles and make threatening moves toward someone who happens to be armed in a stand your ground state.

Good point. Albaby (if he's still around) could verify, but I do believe they are obligated to identify themselves as LEOs. Otherwise, yeah...a bunch of masked men come at you, you're going to fight/run.

Albaby (if he's still around) could verify, but I do believe they are obligated to identify themselves as LEOs. Otherwise, yeah...a bunch of masked men come at you, you're going to fight/run.

I'm around - was out of town for a while, then had a mountain of work to dig out from.

Anyway, if you have absolutely no reason to believe that the people trying to physically apprehend you, you probably wouldn't have the requisite mental intent to commit any crimes if you defended yourself (100% not legal advice!). I don't know if they have any formal legal obligation to identify themselves as LEO's. They generally do it, but I don't know if that's for practical reasons (it's in their best interests that you know they're law enforcement) or because it's required.

I don't know if they have any formal legal obligation to identify themselves as LEO's.

As a former employee of a local LEA, we were required to identify ourselves under the old Terry v. Ohio case (1968). The only exceptions were if this were to pose an immediate risk to us or there were a "crowd control" issue wherein we could delay identifying ourselves (big dignitary events, large protest situations, etc.), but only if we were the ones not involved in making the arrest or using the force or detention ourselves. Otherwise, those doing so still had to identify themselves.

I believe this was the case for those we had joint task force 'exercises' with such as state agencies and the FBI.

Pete

Are the detainee's being read their rights before they are handcuffed ? I would be fighting them
like my life depended on it, if they didn't ID themselves and read me my rights. Now, that would probably get me killed, or at the least get a severe beatdown from these thugs, but it's a choice that you'd have to make. I'd also be yelling and screaming for any bystanders to call 911, before they knocked my teeth out to shut me up.

This is a big deal. Any nut job can get himself a jacket that has ICE printed on the back of it
( or any other Agency name ), can buy handcuffs and a handgun, and start kidnapping people.

Americans better wake the eFF up and rethink their support for this. Right now the targets
are mostly brown people. I think of that as the 1st wave. When Miller is convinced he's
"purified" the Country from the "brown horde", it's not a stretch to think that the next targets
in line will be any white people who disagree with Trump, or white people who refuse to
bow down to evangelical "Christian" beliefs, or fill in the blank with any of the irrational
bullshit that maga believes.

Are the detainee's being read their rights before they are handcuffed ? I would be fighting them
like my life depended on it, if they didn't ID themselves and read me my rights.

My understanding is that Miranda warnings are not required for immigration arrests, because they are civil (not criminal) detentions. And even in a criminal arrest, failure to provide a Miranda warning would only render your later statements inadmissible - it doesn't affect their ability to arrest you or the validity of the arrest, and would absolutely not authorize you to fight back against any law enforcement officers that have ID'd themselves to you (not legal advice, of course).

When Miller is convinced he's
"purified" the Country from the "brown horde", it's not a stretch to think that the next targets
in line will be any white people who disagree with Trump, or white people who refuse to
bow down to evangelical "Christian" beliefs, or fill in the blank with any of the irrational
bullshit that maga believes.

Miller and Trump will not wait for that. Fascism demands an “eternal enemy” and immigrants fit that bill. The rest of us become targets as we protest the inhumanity of this regime.


He’ll come for the rest of us long before the US population is lily white. In fact, that extension has already begun.

would absolutely not authorize you to fight back against any law enforcement officers that have ID'd themselves to you

And if those individuals making the arrest are masked and refuse to identify themselves?

And if those individuals making the arrest are masked and refuse to identify themselves?

If you don't know or should have known that the individuals are law enforcement personnel authorized to use force against you, you probably have the legal right to defend yourself against the use of force or to try to evade being restrained (100% absolutely not legal advice!!).

If they tell you that they are law enforcement but refuse to identify themselves personally, I think you're going to get into a huge pile of trouble if you try to fight back or evade being taken into custody. Because then you're in a scenario where you know (or should have known, or could reasonably have concluded) that they are law enforcement - and then it's very very illegal for you to use force against them.

and then it's very very illegal for you to use force against them.

Well, personally, I would go meekly in such a situation, trusting in my white privilege to sort things out, eventually.

Long term, however, that might prove to be a failing strategy.

We already know:

1. American citizens have already been deported by this administration.

2. The USSC has given a powerful incentive to this administration by claiming, in a shadow docket ruling, that the US has no responsibility for the welfare of people deported to foreign gulags (note: this is exactly why Germany began constructing so many of its death camps outside the geographic borders of Germany).


So the way is being cleared for this administration to deport anyone it wants (citizen or non-citizen) to anywhere it wants, without any regard for their safety or welfare.

And if mass deportation of opponents to this regime become normalized, I might well revisit my decision to “go meekly”.

Long term, however, that might prove to be a failing strategy.

We already know:

1. American citizens have already been deported by this administration.

2. The USSC has given a powerful incentive to this administration by claiming, in a shadow docket ruling, that the US has no responsibility for the welfare of people deported to foreign gulags (note: this is exactly why Germany began constructing so many of its death camps outside the geographic borders of Germany).

Neither of these things are strictly correct.

The administration has not deported adult citizens. The administration has deported minor children that are citizens with their parents, but it is not clear whether (and it's pretty unlikely that) they took the position that the children were legally subject to deportation or whether they were preserving family units at the request and with the acquiescence of the parents. There have been a bare handful of instances over the years where U.S. citizens have been deported by mistake under this and prior administrations, but I do not believe the administration or the courts have ever claimed they had a lawful basis for deporting them.

As for the recent shadow docket ruling, the SCOTUS did not reach the merits. They simply stayed the injunction. The media has a very, very bad habit of reporting procedural rulings as if they were decisions on the actual arguments of the case - so that if the SCOTUS reverses an injunction stopping people from being deported to third countries it gets reported as if the SCOTUS has determined that the U.S. has the power to deport people to third countries. Even though those are two very different things.

none of this may play a role in real-world stress situations where the following vocally identify as 'generic agency' law enforcement :

- rightwing nutjobs disguised as law enforcers
- actual law enforcement disguised as civilians

it appears repercussions fall entirely to individuals' reflexive reactions to such, as we will not be cracking open our civil&criminal code cliff notes during an event.

[MAGA checks box on expanding terrorism]

There is going to be someone who will "stand your ground," and then things will get real ugly.

I wonder how long it will be that those 'ICE' thugs go to the wrong house, stop the wrong car, attempt to grab the wrong person who does react instinctively, maybe with more training than they expect, or are armed, conditioned to react to their thuggery? Will we ever hear about it? Are there protections for those that find themselves in the midst of these thugs? Notice they aren't going to the known gang hangouts, but instead go for the working class guys who are happy to be getting workmate enough to get by, apparently honestly...

It's a sickening mess created not only by little Donnie, but his whole gang, who themselves are the ones that should, most likely be prosecuted...

Not sure how I'd react, as an old white guy, it's not likely, but in the old days, in some situations, one does react, deal with problems before are clear, maybe, but sometimes... And old friends, same game, I don't think they'd take kindly to these crappy scenes well, at all...

And what about open or concealed carry States, areas, are those same 'ICE' creeps going to play their games there, doubtful...

The more times I see the little old gardener, Dad to 3 Marines, getting thumped by that AH, the more it rises me, and I bet a lot of others, off...

"fight back against any law enforcement officers that have ID'd themselves to you"

There's the rub, they are not identifying themselves, masked, no body cameras. etc...

I wonder how long it will be that those 'ICE' thugs go to the wrong house, stop the wrong car, attempt to grab the wrong person who does react instinctively, maybe with more training than they expect, or are armed, conditioned to react to their thuggery?

My guess is that it might be a bad day for one of the ICE/CBP thugs, and a very bad day for the family of the person so reacting.

—Peter

There's the rub, they are not identifying themselves, masked, no body cameras. etc...

If they identify themselves as law enforcement<b/>, not individually. They can conceal their personal identities from you (absent some specific law requiring them to do otherwise), but once they tell you that they're law enforcement, you then know or have reason to know that's the case. Which would make resisting very problematic in the eyes of the law (not legal advice!).

Which would make resisting very problematic in the eyes of the law (not legal advice!).

Humorous aside: I understand why you keep saying “(not legal advice!)”. A shame we’ve come to the point that being helpful must be attended by a disclaimer.

Humorous aside: I understand why you keep saying “(not legal advice!)”. A shame we’ve come to the point that being helpful must be attended by a disclaimer.

Ah, I'm just being a little humorous - I've been reading a lot of Matt Levine's columns, and he uses that as a little funny parenthetical to illustrate that even the best read on the law might end up being completely wrong. So he drops a disclaimer to point out that no one should ever rely on what he's saying, and I've just picked it up as an affectation, it seems.

a little funny parenthetical to illustrate that even the best read on the law might end up being completely wrong.

Seems to be an increasingly common outcome these days.

"The more times I see the little old gardener, Dad to 3 Marines, getting thumped by that AH, the more it rises me, and I bet a lot of others, off...
"

Autocorrect attack, but yes, 'pisses' was intended, not 'rises'....

Ah, I'm just being a little humorous

I would think, since you are an actual lawyer (and we know it), that this disclaimer actually serves a purpose.

I'm a physicist. Or I was. If I make some legal point, people know I'm not a lawyer, and they can take or leave the advice at their peril. You, as an "expert", would be held to a different standard. Or so I would think.

Post New

Help with this Silly House FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.