US Politics Thread 2021-24

[Buddahaid]

Now I can put in context.

[Rockstar]

Please do, it would be a pleasant change to see happen here or anywhere on the internet.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Please do, it would be a pleasant change to see happen here or anywhere on the internet.

I tried to get the video to start at the timestamp where the conversation in question starts. She begins by defining Capitalism as the pursuit of profit at all all human and environmental cost and it's in that context she makes the statements you quoted. In effect, corporations have too much power currently.

[Rockstar]

While classifications, or categories, help the FBI better understand the criminal actors we pursue, we recognize actors’ motivations vary, are nuanced, and sometimes are derived from a blend of socio-political goals or personal grievances. Currently, the US Government broadly divides the DT threat among the following threat categories:

• Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremism: This threat encompasses the potentially unlawful use or threat of force or violence in furtherance of ideological agendas derived from bias, often related to race or ethnicity, held by the actor against others or a given population group. RMVEs purport to use both political and religious justifications to support their racially- or ethnically-based ideological objectives and criminal activities.

• Anti-Government or Anti-Authority Violent Extremism: This threat encompasses the potentially unlawful use or threat of force or violence in furtherance of ideological agendas, derived from anti-government or anti-authority sentiment, including opposition to perceived economic, social, or racial hierarchies, or perceived government overreach, negligence, or illegitimacy. This threat category includes the subcategories of SCVEs, MVEs, AVEs, and Puerto Rican National Violent Extremists.

Considering the current atmosphere. Shouldn’t she be investigated, silenced, ostracized and removed from office because her words have the potential to incite violence against capitalism? She is in a position of power and I told with that comes increased responsibility for the words she speaks.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Considering the current atmosphere. Shouldn’t she be investigated, silenced, ostracized and removed from office because her words have the potential to incite violence against capitalism? She is in a position of power and I told with that comes increased responsibility for the words she speaks.

Why would you think so?

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Why would you think so?

Your question leads us right back to where I started, the original question.

The National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism clearly states anti-capitalism ideology that leads to violence is a form of domestic terrorism. If the SOURCE which I stated above who happens to be a Democrat and U.S. Representative named Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Says capitalism does not benefit the vast majority of Americans and is a system run by a wealthy minority and not a redeemable system for us. Are such statements which could easily be viewed as anti-capitalist and considered irresponsible. Since they may be used and lead to a violent reaction by some left wing domestic terror groups. Shouldn’t she be silenced, ostracized, mocked, investigated, and removed from office for such an ideology which could incite others to violence?

[Dowly]

No.

[Buddahaid]

I think you are making a leap. I don't get the idea she is anti-capitalist but stating it has to much power currently over everyone's lives.

[Jeff-Groves]

She's just pissed that she has a Net worth of $200,000 and only earns a paltry $174,000 a year.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Jeff-Groves

She's just pissed that she has a Net worth of $200,000 and only earns a paltry $174,000 a year.

Funny. I was taught in school it was of the people, by the people, and for the people, not of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.

[Jeff-Groves]

Semantics.

Show me a Poor person that went into Politics at that level and didn't come out rich!

[Arlo]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Funny. I was taught in school it was of the people, by the people, and for the people, not of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.

They hateses the AOC with all their dark heartses ... even though they serves a cruel master that eatses their souls. Nothing is more pitiful than a 'temporarily impoverished millionaire.'

[Jeff-Groves]

Let's not forget She has about $6,235,607 in funds for re-election.
So yeah. The Rich get Richer.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Jeff-Groves

She's just pissed that she has a Net worth of $200,000 and only earns a paltry $174,000 a year.

You seem to be confusing personal wealth and campaign finances like some politicians do.

[Arlo]

Projection can get so desperate at times.