the meaning is the same, crime to push a political agenda. bush overused it and may have even weaponized it but that doesn't change the facts of the situation. the only difference is that antifa has the blessing of democratic leadership so you want to try to marginalize the term now

at the bolded, why waste the keystrokes?

as to bush, he overused it? i'm not aware of him using the term on anyone but actual terrorists.

more silly attempts at marginalization of the severity of crime, especially since it is largely preventable but for wavering will among corrupt local liberal machines. the police forces of these antifa-ridden cities admit that they are all given orders to stand down instead of being allowed to do their job

Bush used it as a scare tactic for the patriot act, an act which to this day has never been used justifiably to prevent any specific attack. it was a conflation of overseas terrorism with possible domestic attacks, which was persuasive because of 9/11's severity

to be clear, are you suggesting that i support antifa or agree with non-enforcement of antifa riots? i'm frankly confused by your posts on that topic. if not calling for the violent arrest of lackluster riots makes me a supporter, i guess that fits. but my stance on the non-enforcement has a low threshold, and even then it's mainly to prevent more riots from taking place. if police tear gas these idiots and jail them the next day they'll be back in 10x the number. their entire thesis is based on fascist treatment by the govt, it's like sending cops to yell racial slurs at black lives matter protesters. gas on a fire. once the protest turns into a riot that has actual consequences more than just a few fist fights or a broken car window, jail them all.

i see what you mean by bush now, agree the patriot act is garbage, but recognize that your statement in bold is overplaying your hand. many terrorist attacks have been thwarted since the act was signed into law, it's arguable what % role the surveillance played and whether or not the acts would have been prevented without the unconstitutional law, but it has served some purpose. even if it's unlawful happenstance surveying has made it a drastic net negative.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Oct 16 2018 09:00am

GOD BLESS THOSE PROUD BOYS, STANDING UP FOR TRUMP

TRUMP POTUS!

GOD WILLS HIS PRESIDENCY!

agreed almost in full.

theres a lof of evidence to suggest the riots happen b/c people know the police are too lenient. giulinani in NY was a great example. criminals should have their lives be made as difficult as possible because people respond to incentives (positive or negative) in the long term. most of the dangerous black neighborhoods are severely underpoliced.

while much of that is true policing is based on reporting, not presence. black folks dont call the cops as much as whites, and for each crime there are less people calling, less people willing to testify, etc. There are no suggested fixes for that phenomenon from the GOP's cj reform platform. it's an impassable wall to them. broken windows policing and stop and frisk practices will make it worse, even if it does have short term positives on illegal fire arms or petty criminality. I think the only answer that both sides can get behind is 120 credit officers and the dept looking like the population they serve. White cops aren't comfortable in black neighborhoods either, and many of them really hate the military 60 credit walk ons.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Oct 16 2018 11:11am