
There are 3 core elements that can define and identify a domestic terrorist. 1. Performing an act that is dangerous to human life and against federal law (Epstein files? Eating babies?) 2. Intended coercion or intimidation, either against civilian people or in an effort to influence government policies (…DUH) 3. The actions take place in the US or in US territories (…)
The three elements must be connected. Even if the “eating babies” wasn’t mere speculation, it would have to be connected to the coercion or intimidation. Who is Trump intimidating by eating babies, and to affect what policies? Even if it did happen, he didn’t do it to further a cause, he did it just bc his pedo friends were.
Everything is connected when you’re THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and are responsible for the living quality of US citizens. Also, that was just one example to remind you all how awful he really is. There are so many other things that I don’t have the time, typing space, or energy to share right now.
yes while this is true, and constitutionally it’s a little vague but the president seems to work more as a trustee than a delegate. however donald trump is an enemy to the constitution. im not sure he fits the complex, specific definition to be a domestic terrorist. but he does not care about our constitution or the people it protects, so he is not good for the domestic health of america
all people can’t be grouped into a single category. many people, particularly the ones that have dropped all support of him were duped into thinking that he would make the country better even though they were warned that was a dumb decision. and others are genuinely bigots who want to see him go after minority groups. but basically, you admit then that just taking the oath of office does not mean anything you do is automatically looking out for the interests of the country.
Obviously you CAN be president and a domestic terrorist, but then you’d be impeached for breaking the law. The definition is: The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. Until he is convicted, his political aims ARE the political aims of the country he’s elected to represent
a) that’s the entire point. we disagreed with you not because you said he isn’t by definition a domestic terrorist, but because you said he was elected president so he can’t possibly be a domestic terrorist. b) you don’t need to be convinced to be against the interests of the people of this country. i’d say, for instance, making billions of dollars insider trading and allowing the 1% to milk the middle class is not in the interests of the country.
I said he represents the United States and therefore cannot be a domestic terrorist as he decides the political goals of the country. Unless of course he gets convicted of violently breaking the law. So long as you dictate the political policy of the country, you cannot be a sitting president of the US and be a domestic terrorist. Only a former president convicted of crimes that equate to domestic terrorism.
please go to school omfg you genuinely have to be misunderstanding me on purpose. YOU implied that trump had not been convicted of any felonies, i was correcting you that he has. he does not fit the current definition of domestic terrorist bc the definition is flawed, and trump will never be removed from office because he put all his dicksucking goonies below and above him to keep him in his place of power.
Please don’t accuse me of misunderstanding when you’re literally actively putting words in my mouth. He has not been convicted, as president, of ANY crime that equates to domestic terrorism. I don’t know where you’d get from anything I said that he hasn’t committed any crime. If the definition of the word of flawed then find another word to call him. You can’t just change definitions cuz they sound feel better coming off the tongue
you’re giving me an actual headache with this stupidity. you can’t call him a CONVICTED domestic terrorist, but that doesn’t mean that there is no way for him to commit domestic terrorism just because he’s the president. for instance, a murderer doesn’t become one once the jury convicts, he’s a murderer when he takes a life. a jury just defines that legally in terms of punishment retroactively. also just because a jury hasn’t found someone guilty of murder doesn’t mean they didn’t do it
this is actually so braindead. so you’re saying that because this man is elected, he can do literally FUCK ALL he damn so pleases in the name of personal gain, and because people were stupid enough to believe the lies he told in order to get power, he cannot possibly be against their interests unless he is convicted by the same people who want to keep their own power (that they also use to enrich themselves) which is directly tied to him staying in office???
So then you’re not arguing with me lol. I never said that just because he’s president means everything that he does IS in the best interest, I said that for him to be a domestic TERRORIST, he has to be convicted because his politics represent the country. So long as he doesn’t break the law as president, his actions are assumed to be representative. And to be a terrorist your actions, by definition, need to break the law for political aim
Again, didn’t say it was indeed in our best interests. I said so long as a president claims it is, he can’t be a domestic terrorist for doing things within what the law allows him to do. You’re doing the thing again where you change my argument because you want to dunk on who you think is defending Trump but I’m literally just arguing a legal and semantic hypothetical
ok i think you fundamentally are not understanding my argument here. i’m talking about how not everything he does is in your or the country’s best interest just because he is the president. and completely separately, im saying that just because he is president also does not mean that he cannot commit an act of domestic terrorism. there can be overlap but not necessarily. you can do something that is not in the best interest of the country while also not crossing into domestic terrorism.
the distinction here is that being president does not make you incapable of either or both. you have the potential to do either one even as the president. i’m not arguing that he himself personally has committed an act of domestic terror as the president, but i am arguing that he is not working in the best interest of the country (which is legal but ethically fucked) and that the office of president does not make it so that any future actions cannot ever be domestic terrorism.