Republicans Want to Make Hating Elon Musk a Crime
The MAGA wing of the Republican party wants to use the DOJ to bite back against Musk protesters.
Are we still allowed, on NT, to make statements that disagree with the fascists?
It would be helpful to know just how complete MAGA control of NT has become.
There are links in the seed.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
On Wednesday, MAGA nutcase Marjorie Taylor Greene and seven other GOP House members called upon the newly appointed DOJ head, Pam Bondi, to open a domestic terrorism investigation into attacks on Musk and Tesla. Greene and the others are part of the House subcommittee for DOGE, Musk's initiative to attack and shrink the federal government.
Greene claimed there might be evidence that Democrats were behind the criminal attacks on car dealerships selling Musk's vehicles. "Who is behind it? Who is funding it? Is there a link with Democrat-leaning NGOs?" Greene asked, in a post made to Musk's platform, X. "We look forward to exposing these terrorists and bringing them to justice."
Trump recently claimed he would designate attacks on Tesla dealerships and vehicles as "domestic terrorism." At the time, it was unclear whether Trump was serious or not. Now, it appears that he was.
The letter from Greene doesn't mention the #TeslaTakedown protest movement by name, focusing instead on the vandalism activity that has targeted Tesla vehicles and dealerships. However, the letter does mention several Democrat-linked activist groups, some of which have organized protests against Musk, insinuating that these groups may be behind the vandalism.
A statement recently put out by the Takedown activists decries Trump's rhetoric as an attempt to criminalize popular protest. "The right to peaceful protest is a fundamental part of American democracy," the note reads. "We are a nonviolent grassroots protest movement. We oppose violence and destruction of property. Peaceful protest is not domestic terrorism. They are trying to intimidate us. We will not let them succeed."
The #TeslaTakedown movement has been mostly peaceful, and the spat of violent attacks aimed at Tesla dealerships is—as far as we know—unconnected to activist activities. That said, the urge to smash anything with a Tesla logo is clearly growing, and Americans continue to find unique and interesting ways to take out their Musk-related anger on the car brand.
Futurism recently reported on one Tesla owner, Joanne Wilson, who says she has sold one of her cars and is toying with plans to publicly destroy the other one. Wilson wrote about the idea on her blog, Gotham Girl, saying that she was interested in livestreaming the destruction of the vehicle, which could be accomplished with sledgehammers.
"We could give out sledgehammers, let people smash the car, and film it for Instagram," Wilson writes. "It may go viral."
"We are not the only Tesla owners who want to get rid of their cars," she said. "Was it Elon's complete disregard for human beings as he attempts to completely disrupt the federal government like a classic tech dude without a proper understanding of how government works, or was it that awful new cyber truck that looks like something out of Mad Max and looks angry? It is a toss-up."Are we a
Whatever. TPTB will cover for you.
Tags
Who is online
197 visitors
Somebody please say something completely, blatantly in error. I will say it is a lie, and then present the proof that it is a lie.
I'd like to see if that is a CoC violation according to TPTB. Thank you.
Just a suggestion. Prior to posting blatant lies, do a head count. You'll be glad you did.
Out of curiosity, what makes you think NT is controlled by MAGA, assuming you mean those who participate here who's views are right-leaning? Assuming again, does it have something to do with how many tickets you may be getting for the things you say?
I do not think NT is controlled by MAGA (yet?). I'm assuming that MAGA is moving to control all media, including sites like NT. My question is how far along are they?
Okay. Thanks for the clarification. This is quite a bit different from what you originally said, though, which indicated that MAGA, which is a rather nebulous term to begin with, has at least some control but that you were unsure just how much. Personally, I doubt that, whatever MAGA is, they're even aware of NT's existence. I can't be sure, but I expect that Perrie would tell us if anyone from the government or some other organization was trying to influence how she operates her site, as pointless as I think such an effort would be.
I disagree vehemently.
I don't believe in coincidences. I see very similar / identical crap show up here on NT at the exact same time it appears elsewhere. To me, this is organized diffusion.
"MAGA", as you say, is kinda unclear. IMNAAHO, we don't have a "Fascist Party" because that name would horrify Americans who know our boys died fighting "fascism"... even if they have no idea what the word means. So our fascists don't call themselves... anything. The fascist part of American politics today includes a bunch of pieces that don't always seem to fit together. But they do fit together.
The Koch brothers founded Americans for Prosperity in 2004, contributed millions to conservative action... and stayed completely unknown for several years. In general, "stay hidden" is standard procedure.
I hear it in the office next door to mine
MAGAs are not willing to listen to other MAGAs for whom the enchantment is fading. Thus, MAGA 'leaders' are instructed to not have republican townhalls to keep the number of "spectacles" to a false minimum.
What you are observing on NT when MAGAs are present is: Newsletter/ X / Drudge Report / Fox News / TBN / Media / Podcasts sharing that MAGAs engage in while pretending to not have "access" to any "educational" ("directional") materials other than their own. . .minds. I will leave it up to others to term that behavior appropriately.
Without knowing specifically what you mean by 'very similar / identical crap', it seems to me you're just referring to people here commenting talking points made elsewhere at nearly the same time. I put that down to the speed of electrons.
And in my opinion, fascism is another word that, today, means whatever the user needs it to mean.
Ah, you mean like Soros!
Might it not also be, at least in part, caused by some major "breaking"new story that appears simultanously across most (if not all) news sites?
Abuse of language is indeed endemic. This, too, is intentional. A fascist prefers that people not understand what that word means. Most people don't like racism or bullying... which together pretty well define "fascism". So it's in the interest of the fascists to prevent people from knowing that in fact "fascism" is simple and straightforward and very, very ugly.
If someone is abusing language in order to mislead other people, we must spotlight the fact. Fascists don't want people to see them as fascists.
Do you have a problem with Jews?
That's what I meant about "the speed of electrons". We can post in here just as soon as we see something. It can be in here five minutes after it first breaks somewhere.
Are you suggesting that one can't be against Soros' actions, politics and ideologies without having a problem with Jews? Nice. Would that be an example of the fascism you speak of? Object to something someone does who, incidentally, is also a Jew you get portrayed as a Jew hater? That happens often enough by the Left. Maybe Soros is funding that effort as well?
Soros is hated because he's a rich Jew who supports "woke" causes. If he weren't Jewish, no one would mention him. If he didn't support woke causes, no one would mention him.
Why do you hate Soros?
Right. And if the Koch brothers didn't support conservative causes, no one would mention them, either.
Well, since I didn't know he was a Jew until you mentioned it, it isn't for that. And I'm not going to get into my actual reasons beyond saying that for every action, there's a reaction. You 'hate' the Koch brothers because they work to promote policies you hate. Conservatives 'hate' Soros because he works to promote the policies we hate. That should be obvious.
Why shouldn't the DOJ investigate domestic terrorism?
Bizarre to think they shouldn't.
Because they know most of the financial support comes from their side.
It shows how batshit crazy the left is. You have Tesla dealerships being firebombed and shot at and Democrats claim it's against "free speech" to investigate crimes.
no worries, wearing a maga hat should keep most trump supporters safe ... /s
Wearing a MAGA hat, or even just a red hat because many leftists don't know the difference, can put one's life in danger from loons on the left that cannot handle self expression if that expression does not toe their line.
And now MAGA is attacking free speech. Wait. That's nothing new
Indeed, it's nothing new. Who formed the Disinformation Governance Board....
I don't remember the right trying to end free speech by labeling everything they don't like as hate speech.
And that same speech was labeled as violence.
The left has a long history of trying to shut down free speech and silence the views of anyone who disagrees with them. This is extremely prevalent in academia where speakers are shouted down, publications are destroyed, people are doxed and harassed in their homes, pictures of Israeli hostages torn off posters. And on and on.
Says the people taking away ("canceling") federal jobs "wholesale" simply because they want utter control of the lives of minorities and women by their largely WHITE male dominated conservative majority without any public oversight-we can all see through the smoke and mirrors being staged.
Well, for now anyway, there goes the national community up in smoke!
We once again will experience being a gangly decentralized 'body' of loosely connected citizens who don't give a CRAP about the 'next' guy or gal. And, that is not UNITY in any sense of the word - for a nation to behave.
It's stupid behavior by a nation that needs its unity, and less tribalism. But it is what it is. So be it. For the time being.
Golly, that can't be true. Trump et al have said over and over again that they oppose weaponizing the Justice Department to prosecute people for their expressing their point of view. Why would they lie?
Alright, let's consider the Law (18 U.S.C. § 2331):
So right off the bat, under subsection 5A, the act must "involve acts dangerous to human life."
Vandalizing a car is unlikely to be considered dangerous to human life. Are there exceptions? Sure. If you blow up the car near people or a building catches fire as a result of the vandalism, that could possibly be dangerous to human life. But merely smashing the car or painting swastikas on it would not qualify. So, for most of these acts, we therefore need not concern ourselves with the rest of the code. Simple vandalism is not terrorism.
Also, no one - to my knowledge - has attacked Musk or Tesla. Individual cars, yes, but not the man or the company.
But let's say there is a dangerous act of vandalism, or even an attack on a person. You still have to deal with the rest of the code. Does the attack appear to have been intended as intimidation or coercion? To influence policy? To affect the conduct of government? There are other, more common, reasons to attack someone.
If he ever does get attacked, is it maybe that Elon Musk just pissed off too many of the wrong people? It would still be a crime to attack him, but not automatically terrorism.
Just what do you think all these class skippers and unemployed people are doing?
You tell me. Are they engaging in activities dangerous to human life?
One would have thought that you would reread your comment I was addressing—that of intimidation or coercion while you concentrate on a single point- that being dangerousto human life. I don't think the definitions are mutually inclusive. Not sure if that will stand muster as clearly 5B i and ii are being exercised.
Ok, so, I’m not a terrorism expert, but the way I read this statute, A, B, and C cover different aspects of the crime.
A is the nature of the act, i.e. it’s illegal and is dangerous to human life.
B is the intended purpose of the of the act, i.e. some kind of intimidation or coercion is intended.
C is the location, but I don’t think they actually prosecute domestic vs. international terrorism as separate crimes. I think it’s all just terrorism.
So, under this law, if I light an illegal fire just because I’m a pyromaniac, and I don’t care about politics, then it’s not terrorism. It’s just arson.
If I (or a mob and I) shout at a senator because I(we) want them to vote a certain way, I am trying to get them to do something, but I’m not actually putting them in danger. That’s just protected (if obnoxious) expression protected by the First Amendment.
Very generally, terrorism is an act - or threat - of violence aimed at civilians (i.e. you’re not at war) to affect some political goal.
There are some state laws that make certain acts into distinct crimes because they are intended to intimidate or threaten. The obvious example, I guess, is cross burning (Virginia v Black). But even there, it has to be cross burning with a certain intent, and I’m not sure any jurisdiction calls it terrorism, legally. It usually falls under this umbrella of “hate crime” - a legal distinction I have never really been a fan of.
One of the acts I have seen is the painting of swastikas on cybertrucks. Is this terrorism? Is this a hate crime? I don’t know. It certainly doesn’t seem dangerous to human life, but is it intended to coerce or threaten? Each case is unique, but I would guess the people doing it are calling Elon Musk a nazi, not trying to threaten him.
Arson is just expressing a point of view. It’s 2020 all over again
Pop quiz. What did I say about fire?
[ ✘ ] Arson attacks are what Republicans want punished, not mean memes or paid astroturfed protests.
For anyone who wants a laugh, it's back...
The #TeslaTakedown movement has been mostly peaceful,
I pretty much agree with you. The word 'terrorism' is far too often used out of its legal context for political purposes.
The problem is, it's nearly impossible today to have an unambiguous application of 18 U.S.C. § 2331 to any but the most clear examples of the term, such as some group contacting media, claiming credit for the attacks on Tesla products and locations and providing demands. However, would the same group or individual still be terrorists if they didn't do something like make a public announcement of intent? And just how do we decide what constitutes actions dangerous to human life? For instance...
Whether the shooter in this instance knew there was someone present (probably not) illustrates that, even if there was no intent to harm human life, a human life was certainly in danger.
And why did the shooter shoot in the first place? Just because they had anger and self-control issues or were they emboldened by others doing similar things, believing it might have an impact on policy?
I'm not attempting to claim that, looked at a certain way, these events qualify as terrorism. I'm trying to illustrate the way the term ends up getting abused, as I believe MTG is doing. And it happens on both sides of the isle. I've seen people do it right here on NT numerous times. I've seen people, both here and in politics, call speech a hate crime.
So, what's the answer? Earlier, I said " The problem is, it's nearly impossible today to have an unambiguous application of 18 U.S.C. § 2331 ". The reason I said 'today' is that we no longer use words as defined. Rather, we treat them as something malleable for the purpose of the moment. Take the word 'phobia' for instance. It used to mean actual fear of something but now it is used most commonly to refer to someone against a thing. Hate is another example.
Domestic terrorism should mean something unambiguous. It should be reserved to describe individuals or groups such as the Symbionese Liberation Army or the KKK. Instead, it's common for many to describe militias as domestic terrorists, even though almost none of them do anything that fit the definition. To fix the problem, we have to use words as they are defined, not to express opinions, and reject the arguments of those who don't.
The second two sound a lot like what Trump and Musk are doing.
adolph and albert ...
A friend of mine has a Tesla house battery. It sickened him to see the word Tesla on his property every morning, so he covered it in duct tape. That is a brand that isn’t going to fare well.
Your friend is a hypocrite.
Five minutes ago he was probably all about worshiping Mush BECAUSE of his climate friendly Teslas.
Now that Musk has aligned himself with Trump, he has become one of many "enemies" of the left all because "orange man bd".
Or maybe he just needed a battery to connect to his solar panels to, and the installer uses Tesla because there aren’t a lot of choices. Did that ever occur to you? I know it’s a deep thought, but even a bot should be capable of that. He also would never buy a Tesla vehicle, which is why he doesn’t own a Tesla vehicle. That probably just blew your mind. [deleted] [✘] that Musk is going to suffer immense damage to his brand and there’s not a thing he, you, or anyone else can do about it at this point. The damage is done.
Maybe
"but even a bot should be capable of that"
Ah, yes....the expected insult, but expected.
"He also would never buy a Tesla vehicle, which is why he doesn’t own a Tesla vehicle."
Maybe not now, but five minutes ago......
"It must be really disappointing to you that Musk is going to suffer immense damage to his brand "
Only damage he is incurring is to his property thanks to the brain damaged leftists that us climate change as their religion, then go and burn Teslas and charging stations.
Real Mensa members there.......s/
If he hadn't been such a dick and continue to be a dick....Rumor has it he treats the White House staff like shit. He treats the Cabinet Secretary s like they work for him. It's not looking all sunshine and roses at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue these days
Change the channel and check how Tesla’s stock price is doing. Musk used Tesla as collateral for loans, and banks will eventually demand repayment for collateral that isn’t worth what it once was. Musk has himself to blame, because he is a degenerate junkie who hates America.
How about I don/t care, nor do I own Tesla stock, so it's performance has no impact on me.
That also does not change my mind with what he and DOGE are doing to fish out the fraud and abuse your side uses and slush funds.
Your maga loyalty is unwavering. As a loyal maga sycophant, you understand your duty to call Trump and Musk’s failings to be a win, their unpopularity to be popularity, their pipe dreams to be realistic goals, and their sheer ugliness to be attractive. It’s a hideous cult, and you’re damn proud to be a part of it.
a room full of altars to kneel before ...
Your loyalty to lunacy, as that is what the democratic party has lowered itself to, is unwavering. As a loyal leftist loon, you understand your duty to call is to be against everything that is good for this country. What Trump and Musk are doing is the same what your god obama did, or at least stated he wanted to do but failed, during his term, but your hatred for one man, and no coherent reason why, overrides any coherent thought.
Liberalism is a hideous cult, and you are damn proud to be a part of it.
maga ...
The form of "the" above expresses uniqueness. As in it is her property. Thus, she is saying she can destroy it in any manner she wishes as long as it causes no harm to anybody else. She seems to want the assistance of other people to accomplish the feat of destroying HER possession. Thus, the filming of "the" act she wishes to go viral. . . implying that other Tesla owners. . . owners of a Tesla would take a sledgehammer (or another means) to destroy their possession.
I see no wanton suggestion that people destroy other people possessions in the quote above!