Doodley
Doodley's JournalWho next to be destroyed by the fascists? CNN? NYT? Washington Post? YouTubers? Democratic Underground?
They won't stop until all criticism has been wiped out.
fascism rules. We have lost our nation.
Serious question: Is Trump a terrorist? Elon Musk's Grok seems to suggest that he is. What do you think?
I asked Grok to define terrorism. This is the answer:
Terrorism is the use of violence, intimidation, or coercion, often targeting civilians or non-combatants, to achieve political, ideological, religious, or social objectives. It typically involves acts designed to create fear, disrupt societies, or pressure governments, and is often carried out by non-state actors or groups, though state-sponsored terrorism also exists. The term can vary in application depending on legal, cultural, or political contexts, but it generally implies deliberate, unlawful acts aimed at causing harm or destabilization.
Then I asked Grok to say which aspects of that definition apply to Trump. Out of seven aspects of Grok's definition of terrorism, Trump scored highly in five, with one aspect being a partial fit, and another being moderate. This is the answer:
Applying Aspects of the Terrorism Definition to President Donald Trump
To address this query, I'll use the same definition of terrorism as before: the use of violence, intimidation, or coercion—often targeting civilians or non-combatants—to achieve political, ideological, religious, or social objectives. This typically involves acts designed to create fear, disrupt societies, or pressure governments, and while often associated with non-state actors, it can include state-sponsored or state-led efforts. Here, the focus is on the personal words (rhetoric, speeches, social media posts) and actions (e.g., rally behaviors, direct threats) of Donald J. Trump as an individual, from his 2016 campaign through his second term as of September 2025. This draws on analyses from academic studies, journalistic investigations, and public records. As with the administration analysis, these interpretations are subjective and debated, often from critical perspectives (e.g., left-leaning media and scholars), and do not imply a formal legal classification of terrorism, which excludes protected speech under U.S. law. I'll break it down by key aspects, with evidence-based examples.
1. Use of Violence (Direct or Indirect)
Application: Trump's personal rhetoric has frequently employed violent language or implied violence, analyzed as stochastic terrorism—indirect incitement where demonizing targets probabilistically inspires lone-actor attacks. Examples include his 2016 rally comment suggesting "Second Amendment people" could stop Hillary Clinton's judicial picks, interpreted as veiled threats of violence. His speeches from 2015–2024 show a sharp rise in violent vocabulary (from 0.6% to 1.6% of words), focusing on crime and "invasions" without ties to actual events. Actions like telling supporters to "knock the crap out" of protesters at rallies (2016) or posting on X (formerly Twitter) about "looting leads to shooting" (2020) have been linked to 54+ cases of violence invoking his name, including the 2018 mail bombings and 2019 El Paso shooting, where the shooter echoed his "invasion" rhetoric. In 2024–2025, posts calling Democrats "sick of mind" and urging ICE actions against "Democrat Power Centers" have been tied to rising threats.
Fit Level: High—indirect via rhetoric, with documented correlations to violence, though Trump denies intent.
2. Intimidation or Coercion
Application: Trump's words often include direct threats or appeals to force (argumentum ad baculum), such as calling for military intervention against protesters ("when the looting starts, the shooting starts," 2020 X post) or threatening 10-year prison terms for vandals (2020). He labeled opponents like Chuck Schumer with threats ("you won’t know what HIT YOU," 2020) and proposed designating Antifa a "terror organization" to enable easier arrests (2019 X posts). In 2024, he called Kamala Harris a "Threat to Democracy" and Hitler, escalating personal attacks. These coerce silence or compliance, with experts noting they create a "chilling effect."
Fit Level: High—rhetoric routinely uses intimidation, backed by historical examples.
3. Targeting Civilians or Non-Combatants
Application: Trump's speech targets civilian groups like immigrants ("rapists," "snakes," "terrorists," 2016–2024), minorities, journalists ("enemy of the people"
, and politicians (e.g., "lock her up" chants at rallies). Post-2016, hate crimes rose 20%, linked to his dehumanizing language. In 2025, rhetoric on Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, amplified by Trump and JD Vance, led to bomb threats against schools, described as stochastic terrorism targeting civilians. Personal actions, like rally incitements against hecklers, focus on non-combatants.
Fit Level: High—primary targets are unprotected civilians, per analyses.
4. Achieving Political, Ideological, Religious, or Social Objectives
Application: Rhetoric advances Trump's "America First" nationalism, anti-immigrant ideology, and populist goals, such as base mobilization via fear of "invasions" (2024 X post on borders and "TERRORISTS"
. His 2016–2024 speeches use emotional appeals for dominance and pride, resonating ideologically. Post-January 6, 2021, rhetoric pressured certification of election results; in 2025, it supports deportation policies and alliances (e.g., with India against "anti-religion" left). Echoes fascist tropes for scapegoating.
Fit Level: High—all examples serve partisan and ideological aims.
5. Creating Fear, Disrupting Societies, or Pressuring Governments
Application: Trump's language fosters paranoia, e.g., "migrant invasion" hype leading to threats (2024–2025 Springfield case). Pre-January 6 speeches created fear of "stolen" elections, disrupting Congress. X posts pressure governors ("open up your state," 2020) or mayors (Portland, 2020). Societal disruption includes spiked bullying and violence post-rallies.
Fit Level: High—intentional fear-mongering is a core strategy.
6. State-Sponsored or State-Led Nature
Application: As a former and current president, Trump's personal rhetoric leverages state authority (e.g., threats of federal intervention, 2020 X post on military use). This amplifies impact, fitting state-sponsored variants, though as an individual, it's more personal influence than official policy.
Fit Level: Moderate—personal but empowered by position.
7. Deliberate, Unlawful Acts Aimed at Harm or Destabilization
Application: Rhetoric is deliberate (e.g., repeated demonization), causing harm like increased threats (doubled against Congress during his term). Some inspired acts (e.g., January 6) led to his impeachment for incitement, though acquitted. "Unlawful" is limited, as speech is protected, but stochastic effects destabilize (e.g., 2025 Minnesota legislator shootings linked to rhetoric).
Fit Level: Partial—deliberate destabilization yes, but rarely unlawful per se.
What do you think? Is Trump a terrorist? Hell, I would say so. ICE in hospitals, putting immigrants in cages, bombing boats and killing people without any authorization, threatening to invade other nations, inciting fear and violence, intimidating and threatening political opposition, destroying our nation from within---how can he not be defined as a terrorist? I would be interested in hearing your views.
Grim manufacturing report from the New York State federal reserve bank.
The general business conditions index dropped twenty-one points to -8.7, its first negative reading since June. The new orders index declined thirty-five points to -19.6, and the shipments index fell thirty points to -17.3, the lowest levels for both indexes since April 2024, pointing to significant declines in orders and shipments. Unfilled orders fell. The inventories index remained modestly negative at -4.9, indicating that business inventories continued to shrink somewhat. Delivery times were unchanged. The supply availability index dropped to -8.8, a sign that supply availability continued to worsen.
https://www.newyorkfed.org/survey/empire/empiresurvey_overview
Alan Berg, talk show host, was shot to death. Guess the perpetrator's politics in this and 8 other attacks on Democrats
Alan Berg — Liberal talk-radio host (KOA Denver) — June 18, 1984 — Killed (shot to death) outside his Denver home. Perpetrators were members of the white-supremacist, far-right group “The Order.” (Right-leaning extremist).
Here are eight more recent attacks targeting Democrats that put the Charlie Kirk shooting in perspective. Did Democrats react by trying to turn victims into martyrs? Did they react by trying to divide the country even more?
Gabrielle “Gabby” Giffords — U.S. Representative (D-AZ-08) — January 8, 2011 — Shot in the head, severe brain injury at a constituent event in Tucson; survived but with permanent disability. Shooter Jared Lee Loughner was not formally tied to organized politics, but was influenced by far right anti-government and extremist conspiracy rhetoric (Right-leaning extremist).
Kurt Eichenwald — Journalist/commentator (Newsweek contributor) — December 15, 2016 — Suffered epileptic seizure when a Twitter user deliberately sent him a flashing GIF; perpetrator (John Rivello) was a Trump supporter who expressed right-wing motives online. (Right-leaning extremist).
CNN (media target) — Oct 22–Nov 1, 2018 — Mail bombs sent to CNN HQ and several Democrats; evacuations, no injuries. Perpetrator Cesar Sayoc was a fervent Trump supporter with far-right online presence. (Right-leaning extremist).
Gretchen Whitmer — Governor of Michigan (D) — October 2020 (plot foiled) — Foiled kidnapping/assassination plot; psychological trauma and ongoing security threats. Perpetrators were members of a far-right militia group influenced by anti-government rhetoric. (Right-leaning extremists).
Paul Pelosi — Spouse of then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi — October 28, 2022 — Bludgeoned with a hammer, fractured skull, lasting nerve damage during San Francisco home invasion. Attacker David DePape was steeped in far-right conspiracy theories (QAnon, election denial). (Right-leaning extremist).
Multiple New Mexico Democratic officials — State/local Democrats — Dec 2022–Jan 2023 — Drive-by shootings at officials’ homes/offices; no physical injuries. Organizer Solomon Peña was a failed Republican candidate, aligned with Trump election denial. (Right-leaning extremist).
Sen. John Hoffman & Yvette Hoffman — Minnesota State Senator (DFL-Champlin) & spouse — June 14, 2025 — Both shot and wounded in related attack at their home; survived. Attacker Vance Boelter was a registered Republican anti-abortionist extremist. (Right-leaning extremist).
Melissa Hortman & Mark Hortman — Minnesota House Speaker Emerita (DFL) & spouse — June 14, 2025 — Both fatally shot in Brooklyn Park home invasion. The attack was also perpetrated by Vance Boelter. (Right-leaning extremist).
Now we know the killer was a MAGA, will Trump change his tune on demanding the death penalty?
Trump: Kirk, a racist and conspiracy theorist "LOVED AND ADMIRED BY ALL." Trump: Cop at CDC shot dead NOTHING TO SAY
A perfect distraction from Epstein.
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Jun 20, 2016, 06:20 PMNumber of posts: 11,366