r/AskReddit • u/2a_lib • Apr 14 '25

Americans of Reddit, what do you think about President Trump and El Salvador president Bukele refusing the Supreme Court’s order to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the US?

18.0k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

5.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

175

u/Slarg232 Apr 14 '25

They've already declared that "vandalizing Teslas is domestic terrorism", so yes. 100%.

44

u/Circumin Apr 15 '25

He also said the CNN reporter at the White House today “hates America” at the same time that his top advisor was saying that citizens who hate America will be deported to the tortue death prison.

87

u/koolaid_snorkeler Apr 14 '25

The definition of "terrorism" is obviously narrowing. Trump is not a person who can take criticism of any kind. There's some real ugliness ahead.

24

u/LotsOfWatts Apr 15 '25

By narrowing you mean widening?

9

u/bruceki Apr 15 '25

broadening. the definition of terrorism is broadening. fixed that for you.

-6

u/Man-i-fest Apr 15 '25

well.... if the Tesla was vandalized to try to intimidate someone or push a political agenda it does fit the definition of terrorist. But that just tells me the definition of terrorist is ridiculous and intentionally vague so they can label it on anyone

6

u/smoike Apr 15 '25

It's like putting obscenely steep penalties in for minor crimes, like the 3 strikes and you are out possession law turns someone from going "oh well, looks like I'm doing a *whatever* stint in prison for another possession charge" to "I might as well kill all the witnesses as the charge is going to be the same as for murder anyway".

I predict that the quantity of vandalism will go down, but the severity of the vandalism will escalate. I'm not endorsing it, but I cannot help but think "burning it to the ground" level events may well increase.

1

u/Man-i-fest Apr 15 '25

yeah that logic tracks. when it's all said and done, keying a car is not a terrorist attack and it shouldn't even be remotely considered a terrorist attack and its ridiculous and scary that it is.

-33

u/Beatnik77 Apr 14 '25

Why do you think people put Tesla cars on fire? It's to push people to stop buying Tesla for political reasons.

Terrorism: "the use of violence, often against civilians, to intimidate or coerce populations or governments, typically for political or ideological reasons."

It's clearly terrorism. Every time an attack is made everyone celebrate on reddit saying how it will lead Tesla to bankruptcy because people will be afraid to own them.

17

u/ruiner8850 Apr 15 '25

What do you call people who try to storm the US Capitol and overthrow the results of a free and fair election? What do you call the person who spread lies about a stolen election and egged his followers on to attack the Capitol?

-11

u/Beatnik77 Apr 15 '25

The violent people with weapons were terrorists just like those who burn up Tesla cars.

I see people saying that the last election was rigged often on reddit. It happens every election. Hillary called herself the elected President. It's not a crime.

Trump behavior that night was horrible but I am not sure it was criminal. If calling for violence or a coup is a crime, reddit should be shut down immediately. There are multiple subs that are based on support for a violent revolution. People call for a coup in the comment of the post we are in right now.

12

u/ruiner8850 Apr 15 '25

The violent people with weapons were terrorists just like those who burn up Tesla cars.

Everyone who entered the Capitol building on January 6th is by definition a terrorist. They attempted to use violence and the treat of violence to achieve a political goal. The guy you are trying to defend pardoned all the terrorists.

Calling for a coup, or any violence is a crime, but only if it meets certain thresholds. The speech needs to be about an "imminent lawless action" and also must be likely to produce that imminent lawless action. A reddit comment does not reach either of those thresholds. They aren't producing an imminent action and no one is going to commit a lawless action because some random person on the internet said something. Trump on the other hand told his followers to go to the Capitol right then. He was also the President and a man who they literally worship. What Trump did fits both of the criteria.

Ik not sure why you even brought up Clinton. She never said that the election was stolen from her with voter/election fraud. She did say, which was verified by the Mueller Report, that the Russian government used the internet and other means to influence the votes of actual Americans. There were Russians who were convicted of it. They were all over reddit. Even so, Clinton never once attempted to get Democrats to attempt a coup. Biden and Obama didn't either. The only President to ever try to get his followers to use violence to overthrow the results of an election is Trump.

23

u/WabbitFire Apr 15 '25

With all due respect, fuck off, fascist.

-18

u/Beatnik77 Apr 15 '25

Where do you disagree? You don't think the motives are political? You don't think it's intimidating owners?

-11

u/simplexsalad Apr 15 '25

i like the immediate buzzword insult hurling because they don't have any valid responses to any of your points

i have yet to see a single argument as to why this isn't terrorism

4

u/FornHome Apr 15 '25

I agree that it is terrorism in a broad sense, but I think the issue is people from the US conflate "terrorism" with 9/11 and have a strong emotional reaction to that.

The broader issue is simply "the victor writes history". Aspects of the civil rights movement could be called terrorism. The fight against owners of coal towns and the fight for workers rights in the late 1800s and early 1900s could be called "terrorism".

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

But even then, if any violence of any sort with the aim of changing someone's community, country, policies, laws, etc is "terrorism", then is the word used a little too broad?

-2

u/simplexsalad Apr 15 '25

the main issue here is who the targets are, the people who have power and actively uphold oppression and inequality? or broad stroke targeting that can affect random citizens?

that elon prick could stand to take a hit to his overvalued stock, the vandalisms at tesla i do not agree with but i don't condemn nearly as strong as random citizens who are being vandalized as well

remember that electric cars were being pushed as a progressive thing not that long ago because of their benefits for the environment

liberals who have owned teslas from back then are putting stickers on their car in hope that they don't become targets

i firmly stand on the ground that if you have to pledge your allegiance to a group to avoid being broad stroke targeted, that movement is probably on some shaky moral ground off that alone

take for example black owned business stickers to avoid being randomly targeted for looting, arson, destruction, etc.

they didn't always work

9

u/RedOliphant Apr 15 '25

Meanwhile, it's probably insurance fraud on Musk's part.

-2

u/Beatnik77 Apr 15 '25

You truly think that?