https://web.archive.org/web/20250922224626/https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/designating-antifa-as-a-domestic-terrorist-organization/ in case you don’t want to visit that likely russian-compromised site.

• Looks like they’re drafting this with wild ambiguity and setting up for RICO.
• Being Anti-Fascist is an idea.

This is McCarthyism all over again, which should come as no surprise considering Roy Cohn mentored Donald Trump.

Weird they are focusing on this but not releasing the Epstein Files as promised.

You realize a good many of our soldiers have helped support and train Ukrainians fighting against fascist invaders, right? Many have even volunteered outside of their service on the front lines.

Key now is getting back to tying Trump to Epstein and Maxwell and call for the unaltered release of the Epstein files which was HIS OWN BROKEN PROMISE.

Keep pushing this message as it is one of the only messages that has induced a modicum of doubt in his core base, let alone swing-voters.

His approval-ratings have now fallen to Jimmy Carter levels, and we can get lower.

I appreciate Kimmel but I’m partial to Stewart taking that Zelenskyy title in terms of his actual capacity to lead and depth of knowledge. He pretty much singlehandedly bullied Republicans of Congress to pass legislation for first responders and veterans.

Anyone remember the Rally to Restore Sanity with Colbert / Stewart?

Stigamtism isn’t an excuse to hide a link though. They could’ve chosen better quotes, even if the link is indeed bullshit.

So… Are there any independent watchdogs keeping track of all the damage he’s doing? So that we can reverse this asap should we somehow manage to get someone at least milquetoast back in?

A righty will just say it was action, directives, legislative action.

But the point is that modern right-wing mouthpieces can effectively toe the line of hate speech versus incitement. Dog-whistles and stochastic rhetoric that indirectly radicalizes others.

When this is all said and done, we’re going to need to overhaul our education for critical-thinking to spot this and perhaps broaden the definition of inciting violence or clamp down on hate speech. Though I look at Germany that has stricter laws and we see AfD neo-nazis rising there too albeit to a lesser extent?

I’m sure the worst among them will prevail.

I think there were many contributing factors to Kamala’s loss, but I I think this is pretty low if non-existent among them, and it risks gatekeeping qualified, charismatic candidates like AOC out of fear of past milquetoast candidates that were unpopular from the outset and deeply lacking in charisma.

Worth noting as I almost missed it myself from not RTFA, but: AOC is “gearing up for a big campaign for a bigger office in 2028 – they’re just not sure which.”

I align with your view that I really thought AOC would be better to primary against Schumer. Not only is it arguably more attainable, it addresses our problem with stagnant Congressional AIPAC-representing leadership.

That said, I part ways in the belief that a female president is not capable of being elected for a couple of reasons which I’ll try to lay out point-by-point:

• There is no actual evidence that a gender-bias led to Kamala’s loss that I have seen.
• The Venn Diagram join of sexist misogynistic bigots and Never-Dem deep-red maga is a circle; in other words, we were never going to get these people no matter if we put Trump fused with Reagan in and mirrored their platform word-for-word.
• Willingness to vote for a female President has been historically tracked:

Public willingness to vote for a woman

In 1937, the first time the public was asked by Gallup about its willingness to vote for a female president, the question included the caveat “if she were qualified in every other respect.” Gallup removed that phrase, with its implications, and tried a new version in 1945, asking, “If the party whose candidate you most often support nominated a woman for President of the United States, would you vote for her if she seemed best qualified for the job?” The results remained the same, with about one-third saying yes.

In 1948, the country was split on a new version of this question, which identified the woman candidate as qualified, but not “best” qualified. The final wording became settled in 1958 and has been asked repeatedly since. Large gains were made over the 1970’s and the proportion answering yes has continued to rise, reaching 95% in the most recent poll.

Americans may say they are willing to vote for a woman, but when asked to assess the willingness of others, people have not been as optimistic about women’s chances of winning the presidency. In 1984, when NBC asked likely voters if they were ready to elect a woman president, only 17% said yes. Substantial shares of the population have remained skeptical, though the most recent poll found the lowest proportion who believe the country is not yet ready.

Most of this appears set in motion by Russia. Following an identical, expedited trajectory unfortunately.

Better not pull both sides bullshit, Jon.

Big emphasis on Network in this case. An entire dominant ecosystem promoted by right-wing billionaires and foreign nations like Russia and Israel.

Economy is going to contract especially come spring. These snowbirds most of the time were more kind than locals. People have no idea how much money they pump into local economies.

Hopefully this is advantageous to midterms but who knows.

Sooo… We’re not supposed to find this deeply disturbing that they don’t want to distance from it but in fact normalize the label?

And since when are conservatives ever remotely good at sarcasm or satire?

I’m pretty sure any fence-sitter would find this pretty weird to say the least, especially following Jan 6th, so I say keep showing it!

Seems pretty clear he’s been having TIAs, which greatly increase the odds of a CVA!

yeah this might be the first time I agree with him?

What should’ve undeniably and without a shadow of doubt happened to Trump following Jan 6th.

Frankly his gross negligence in handling the covid pandemic itself should’ve warranted criminal charges.

Why then are some “notable” while others are not?

Thank you for making my point. Either none of them should be, or all of them should be. I tend to believe the latter, since knowledge is power and it is imperative we document political violence by ideology.

Nobody is a strong word when one has to immediately contradict that in parentheses. That two identical right-wing extremist events occur simultaneously, both of whom appear to have been radicalized by online right-wing disinformation ops — that doesn’t seem beyond the realm of probability let alone possibility. I am also entertaining it; I didn’t say I believe it as fact.

Especially when we know for a fact that far-right extremist violence is the number-one domestic terrorist threat, and that both currently have links to antisemitic ideological groups.

How I wish it failed the “notability” requirement; and yet every other single mass-shooting incident has an entry. So why would you come to think this when this an anomalous outlier?