General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHermit-The-Prog
(33,328 posts)The ReTHUGs skate as close to the letter of the law as we let them.
They incite violence because they can.
PeeJ52
(1,588 posts)What a sick man...
Perseus
(4,341 posts)Are these his kids or the "boys" who work on his farm?
That guy is a preacher...he is no preacher, he is a mobster.
Scarsdale
(9,426 posts)"loaned" his pool boy a million dollars to start a business? The kid is in his twenties.
onenote
(42,694 posts)Probably not even a violation of 18 USC 115. Tacky as hell, however.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/115
CDerekGo
(507 posts)(1) Whoever
(A) assaults, kidnaps, or murders, or attempts or conspires to kidnap or murder, or threatens to assault, kidnap or murder a member of the immediate family of a United States official, a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement officer, or an official whose killing would be a crime under section 1114 of this title; or
(B) threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder, a United States official, a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement officer, or an official whose killing would be a crime under such section,
You omitted a key portion of the statute. In order for a threat to be actionable under 18 USC 115, it would have to be made: "with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with such official, judge, or law enforcement officer while engaged in the performance of official duties, or with intent to retaliate against such official, judge, or law enforcement officer on account of the performance of official duties, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b)."
No prosecutor is going to argue that going to someone's house and taking their cows is part of a member of Congress' "official duties" or, for that matter, that AOC actually has any plans to do so or that the numbskulls blathering about AOC actually were trying to intimidate her into not showing up at their houses to take their cows.
There is another, more general, prohibition on threats made in interstate communications (18 USC 875). However, to bring a case, the threat must be a "true threat" -- a doctrine established by the Supreme Court in a case arising out of a numbskull's statement that "if they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J." The Supreme Court stated that "uninhibited, robust, and wideopen" political debate can at times be characterized by "vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." Citing the fact - the Court found that it was more of a hyperbolic and "very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President" than a "true threat." Sounds like a close description of the Falwell/Trump blather.
Finally, other courts have suggested that a true threat is one that a reasonable person in the situation of the threat's target would interpret as a real and serious communication of an intent to inflict harm. Since it is highly unlikely that AOC would testify that she intends to go to Falwell or Trump's homes and try to take their cows, their "threat" to stop her from doing so is not a communication that she could reasonably interpret as a real and serious expression of an intent to do her harm. (It would be akin to someone telling me they're going to kill me i I win the National League batting title -- I couldn't reasonably view that as a "true" threat.
Caliman73
(11,730 posts)She suggested eating LESS beef. AS of 2012 (which is the last data I could find) Americans ate about 55 pounds of beef per year. If we make modest cut backs in what we eat, that could add up to a great deal of savings to the environment.
These idiots always take it to the absurd. Why the hell would anyone in Congress, let alone AOC show up at anyone's ranch to personally confiscate cattle. You have to be monumentally stupid to allow that to come out of your mouth and even more stupid to accept it as a valid joke or critique.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)It's better for the planet. Beef, in particular, does a lot of harm to the planet. That's partly responsible for parts of Africa changing from forested land to plains. You have to cut down trees, and they eat plants down to the ground, and it takes a lot of land to raise them.
Caliman73
(11,730 posts)The Green New Deal resolution does not specifically address changes in diets. It recognizes that beef production accounts for 14.5% of greenhouse gas emissions globally so definitely there should be a reduction in the production, especially in the industrial production of beef. I do think that we can reduce consumption to help and look for alternative sources. There were some companies that were producing beef from stem cells which would have the same texture and nutritive values without the carbon foot print.
The idiots at CPAC and basically, in the Republican Party are already going off on really stupid tangents like, "AOC is personally coming to take away your cows". We don't want to give ANY oxygen to those stories.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Caliman73
(11,730 posts)They mentioned her personally showing up on private property to confiscate their cows.
My question was "Why the hell would AOC show up to confiscate your cows?"
Are you saying that those are equivalent statements which follow from each other?
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)The new green deal made an issue of it, so they made a joke about it. It makes sense.
We do the same thing.
Jokes aren't to be taken literally.
Perrenial Voter
(173 posts)than anyone knows. They use the media to keep people riled up; tip toe up to the edge of advocating violence against their opponents; and know full well that there are mentally imbalanced people out there who will, a certain percentage of time, act on their message. Then they feign shock and innocence when what they advocated comes to pass.
But the question that has to be asked is how this affects ordinary politics. For example, might this be one of the reasons that it is so hard to get any kind of gun-control? Doesn't this affect political outcomes around abortion? Our policy toward Israel? I think these threats have to be in the back of legislators minds when they are making policy decisions, and, if I'm right, then this has been an effective strategy. Terrorism right in public view, but no one calls it that.
pbmus
(12,422 posts)Guy Whitey Corngood
(26,500 posts)slumcamper
(1,606 posts)As many, many on the right have shown, their "brand" of politics is exceptionally bold and adept at using the rhetorical techniques of stochastic terrorism. This is consistent with their strategy of leveraging fear to achieve their ends, whether to incite supporters or chill opponents. This is some sick and dangerous shit.
Remember Palin's crosshairs ad??? Gabby Giffords does. And so do most of us. Tragically, how soon MOST people forget.
We've got to call this playbook out for what it is and neuter the GOP's blatant effort to manipulate fear and screw with peoples' amygdala. There seem to be weak and ineffective (infrequently evoked) laws to combat this but we need MORE. What consequences do they suffer? Where are the Democratic leaders who call this out?
I'm mostly hearing crickets.
Augiedog
(2,545 posts)onenote
(42,694 posts)And as offensive as the comments about AOC were, they almost certainly don't cross any legal line.
LonePirate
(13,417 posts)procon
(15,805 posts)Adding the obligatory
in case anyone needs it.
Response to pbmus (Original post)
Leghorn21 This message was self-deleted by its author.
red dog 1
(27,792 posts)If Falwell Jr committed a crime, then he should be arrested...Period!