Admin:
no
This is several orders of magnitude more blatant and harmful than Worcester v. Georgia.
Seriously, secede. The Trump administration is already playing the state game, disappearing people well outside of the resident’s state jurisdiction. The Civil War wasn’t about secession, it was about slavery, and if people don’t realize that now that the roles are switched, slavery is soon going to make a come back - not just with people with the wrong skin color, but for people with the wrong political ideologies (and yes, slavery in the US was never outlawed, just reframed under the purview of private prisons).
Was the Civil War fought because of secession, or was it fought because of slavery? This questions isn’t rhetorical, because Americans are answering right now, and the appeasement towards a Project 2025 Dark Enlightenment technate administration with an authoritarian lifetime president from all states isn’t making the answer look too good.
States are letting this happen by letting hostile states who give fuck all about the constitution, just like the president, free reign in their state. The first thing that people need to realize is that the US no longer exists, not without its constitution. So why are states so willing to let these foreign agents from foreign states still dreaming of the slave owner era in?
for people with the wrong political ideologies
Here’s your time to shine Reich wing crybabies who were always complaining about “wrong think” when your racist posts got removed from Twitter or whatever! Show us you stick to your convictions!
…lmao no. It will be hypocrisy as it always is.
I thought they already offered an explanation. That she is a terrorist sympathizer, therefore a terrorist herself, therefore she does not have rights under the color of the law. That’s where we are.
Alien too!
That word has lost all meaning in common usage.
It never had any, and I mean literally never, neither in common usage nor in military usage. It has always been code for whoever the imperial core doesn’t like and isn’t a pre-existent government (in which case they become a state sponsor of terrorism).
It does have a useful definition I think in “a non-state actor using violence to serve some political goal”, as that at least lets one categorize a murderer who just hated that specific guy as having something different going on with them compared to a murderer who wants their act to shock a nation into taking some action. It’s commonly misused as “someone using violence that we don’t like”, but there is still some utility in understanding a person’s motive for doing something.
some political goal
This is the part that faaaaaaaar too open to interpretation.
violence
That’s the secondmost problematic part.
How would you classify Timothy McVey? This isn’t a loaded question, as I largely agree with you.
How do we classify wanton killing of innocent people? Lockerbie bombings come to mind.
Mass murderer?
How do we classify wanton killing of innocent people? Lockerbie bombings come to mind.
I mean just call it what it is. Politically motivated bombing, mass shooting, etc. Basically what the media already does when it’s a white person doing these things.
This is what keeping Bush-era laws intact results in.
Especially not after the AUMF
“She’s in the country illegally!”
“That’s only because you revoked her visa for apparently political reasons.”
“REEEEEEE”
“Because fuck you, that’s why”
– Trump.
Another case. Another court order completely ignored. Another case where no consequences are issued.
