[Tom Bishop]

From the article:

"in January 2025 he signed an Executive Order to combat antisemitism, vowing to revoke student visas and deport non-citizens who participated in the pro-Palestine protests that swept US college campuses last year."

From the EO:

"Sec. 2.  Policy.  It shall be the policy of the United States to combat anti-Semitism vigorously, using all available and appropriate legal tools, to prosecute, remove, or otherwise hold to account the perpetrators of unlawful anti-Semitic harassment and violence."

The keywords appears to be harassment and violence. The 2024 protests were violent events which resulted in hundreds of arrests. The definition of "harassment" in the United States has a specific legal meaning which refers to threats or intimidation. This measure of harassment would be validated in court. They aren't deporting people for normal speech.

Harassment is already illegal, and you already risk deportation if you are arrested as a non-citizen. This is nothing new. Trump is simply giving a warning that laws will be enforced.

[Lord Dave]

From the article:

"in January 2025 he signed an Executive Order to combat antisemitism, vowing to revoke student visas and deport non-citizens who participated in the pro-Palestine protests that swept US college campuses last year."

From the EO:

"Sec. 2.  Policy.  It shall be the policy of the United States to combat anti-Semitism vigorously, using all available and appropriate legal tools, to prosecute, remove, or otherwise hold to account the perpetrators of unlawful anti-Semitic harassment and violence."

The keywords appears to be harassment and violence. The 2024 protests were violent events which resulted in hundreds of arrests. The definition of "harassment" in the United States has a specific legal meaning that would which refers to threats and intimidation. This measure of harassment would be validated in court. They aren't deporting people for normal speech.

Harassment is already illegal, and you already risk deportation if you are arrested as a non-citizen. This is nothing new. Trump is simply giving a warning that laws will be enforced.

What is Trump's definition of an illegal protest?

[Action80]

Tom, I understand that. People who are here and have not followed proper procedures shouldn't be protesting anywhere in the US and they should be deported.

Here's the thing...I do not think the US should be funding Israel to the tune of billions of dollars a year. If I drive to the campuses near my area and carry posters and handout fliers with this message, the college campuses are going to shut me down out of fear of losing their funding.

Don't you understand that is the wrong thing to do in the US?

You can see how the tactic of "naming," works so easily here.

Don't agree with the State of Israel getting free money and protection from the US, you will soon be labeled, "illegitimate," and some kind of "flat earther."

[Tom Bishop]

What is Trump's definition of an illegal protest?

One that involves intimidation, threats or violence.

Tom, I understand that. People who are here and have not followed proper procedures shouldn't be protesting anywhere in the US and they should be deported.

Here's the thing...I do not think the US should be funding Israel to the tune of billions of dollars a year. If I drive to the campuses near my area and carry posters and handout fliers with this message, the college campuses are going to shut me down out of fear of losing their funding.

Don't you understand that is the wrong thing to do in the US?

You can see how the tactic of "naming," works so easily here.

Don't agree with the State of Israel getting free money and protection from the US, you will soon be labeled, "illegitimate," and some kind of "flat earther."

I completely agree. While this there is nothing wrong with a president declaring that he will crack down on violent college protests, it is concerning that this was worded to confuse anti-Semitism with harassment and violence. I can only deduce that Trump needs to maintain the alliance with the pointy hat people for now.

[Lord Dave]

What is Trump's definition of an illegal protest?

One that involves intimidation, threats or violence.

This seems contradictory since the Jan 6 protests involved that and Trump pardoned ALL of them.

[Tom Bishop]

What is Trump's definition of an illegal protest?

One that involves intimidation, threats or violence.

This seems contradictory since the Jan 6 protests involved that and Trump pardoned ALL of them.

It would only be contradictory if I had been denying that there was an insurrection.

There was an insurrection against the US Capitol in 2020, and they only stopped because their leader told them to go home.

The only reason more guns were not there at the event is because the crowd went through the Trump rally security, which involves going through high-tech weapon scanners for entrance. However, many guns were found in cars outside of the event.

There is video of people breaking down the windows of the Capitol building with bats. The characterization that this isn't violent enough is laughable. People were willing to insurrect even without the benefit of guns, which speaks more to their bravery and willingness to insurrect when they believe that the other side has crossed the line.

[Lord Dave]

What is Trump's definition of an illegal protest?

One that involves intimidation, threats or violence.

This seems contradictory since the Jan 6 protests involved that and Trump pardoned ALL of them.

It would only be contradictory if I had been denying that there was an insurrection.

There was an insurrection against the US Capitol in 2020, and they only stopped because their leader told them to go home.

The only reason more guns were not there at the event is because the crowd went through the Trump rally security, which involves going through high-tech weapon scanners for entrance. However, many guns were found in cars outside of the event.

There is video of people breaking down the windows of the Capitol building with bats. The characterization that this isn't violent enough is laughable. People were willing to insurrect even without the benefit of guns, which speaks more to their bravery and willingness to insurrect when they believe that the other side has crossed the line.

But I didn't ask for YOUR defintition, I asked for Trump's.  Trump's definition is contradictory to his actions. 
If what you wrote is correct, then you agree that the Jan 6 inssurection is an illegal protest yet Trump pardoned them all while also signaling that anyone who does the same thing (presumably not in his name) will be arrested and not pardoned.




In other news:
Trump continues to push for all digial currency.  Which I was told is a conspiracy theory the right thinks will happen from Democrats.
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/07/nx-s1-5319049/trump-crypto-summit

[Tom Bishop]

But I didn't ask for YOUR defintition, I asked for Trump's.  Trump's definition is contradictory to his actions.

Not really. Trump could have pardoned them before he left office, but did not, because he recognized that many had gone over the line in the peaceful protest he asked for. He didn't tell them to go into the building and batter down windows. They spent over four years in prison for what they did.

[Lord Dave]

But I didn't ask for YOUR defintition, I asked for Trump's.  Trump's definition is contradictory to his actions.

Not really. Trump could have pardoned them before he left office, but did not, because he recognized that many had gone over the line in the peaceful protest he asked for. He didn't tell them to go into the building and batter down windows. They spent over four years in prison for what they did.

And he pardoned them as soon as he was back in office...why?

[Action80]

LD, the people doing those things on J6 already had their day in court, tried, and convicted. Many served longer sentences than were called for. Numerous 4th Amendment rights violations were evident in most cases.

[honk]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/faa-workers-threatened-firing-spacex-b2709799.html

But remember, guys, it's the federal employees earning median paychecks who are the real problem. Not the oligarchs using their access to usher billions their way.

[Action80]

"... sources told Bloomberg."

Pics or it never happened.

Sadaam with his "somebody," said stuff...

[Lord Dave]

LD, the people doing those things on J6 already had their day in court, tried, and convicted. Many served longer sentences than were called for. Numerous 4th Amendment rights violations were evident in most cases.

Called for by who?  The judge?
And what violations?

Also "many" not "all" do again, why did Trump just blanket pardon every single one instead of taking the time to pardon only those who served too long or weren't violent?

[Lord Dave]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/faa-workers-threatened-firing-spacex-b2709799.html

But remember, guys, it's the federal employees earning median paychecks who are the real problem. Not the oligarchs using their access to usher billions their way.

Just having a major government contractor running a department to ...cut government spending on contracts... Is a giant conflict of interest.  But I guess that's America now.

[Action80]

Look at the sentencing guidelines and then do a comparison for others performing the same act or worse.

I know you are of the opinion these people deserved more, but that is all it is.

[Lord Dave]

Look at the sentencing guidelines and then do a comparison for others performing the same act or worse.

I know you are of the opinion these people deserved more, but that is all it is.

I'm not sure we have a "broke in and stopped government function" comparison.  What other events would you recommend I compare it to?

[Action80]

LD, delayed =/= stopped. A vast majority of the persons sentenced did NOT break in, they were ushered in.

Burning down complete neighborhoods and government-owned buildings would be a start.

[Lord Dave]

LD, delayed =/= stopped. A vast majority of the persons sentenced did NOT break in, they were ushered in.

If I break open a door with the intent to rob and you walk in after also to rob, are you less guilty?
No one was ushered in by anyone official.

Burning down complete neighborhoods and government-owned buildings would be a start.

Ok so ... 4 years jail and $12 million.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56932263


And Jan 6 rioters...
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/four-men-sentenced-prison-actions-during-jan-6-capitol-breach
Of 5 convicted ..
8 years jail for assaulting a police officer.
36 months jail
30 months jail
No jail
Pardoned before sentencing.

Now... 36 months jail time is 3 years.  So... You wanna compare what?

But here's a bigger list.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_proceedings_in_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack#:~:text=On%20September%205%2C%202023%2C%20former,the%20attack%20delivered%20to%20date.



Of course, his pardon didn't do much for most.

"Most people who were then still in prison for January 6 crimes had committed violence that day, whereas the nonviolent offenders "either never went to jail in the first place or had such short sentences that they are already out," as HuffPost concluded."

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-pardons-police-assaulters-jan-6_n_676d685de4b05de1fe06963c

[Action80]

LD, yes...people were ushered in by Capitol Police officials.

And, yes, the "crimes," of which they were convicted received harsher sentences than BLM and Antifa protesters.

Your own sources prove it.

If you keep self-owning like this, you will need to find another gig.

[Lord Dave]

LD, yes...people were ushered in by Capitol Police officials.

And, yes, the "crimes," of which they were convicted received harsher sentences than BLM and Antifa protesters.

Your own sources prove it.

If you keep self-owning like this, you will need to find another gig.

I'm sorry but no, no one ushered them in.  At best, some police stood aside because they'd have been beaten or killed otherwise.

And how does my sources prove it?  4 years for arson.  8 years for cop assault (which has always carried a higher sentence than property damage).
Is that your evidence that I self owned?  That an arson got less time than a cop beater?