From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy




October 20, 2025
Trump's War on Antifa Is Destined to Backfire

In recent days, President Trump and his circle have effectively declared
war on "antifa. " They have bestowed a "domestic terrorist" designation
upon the anti-fascist movement as a whole. And they have vowed to deploy
the full force of the federal government against it—whatever it, in fact,
is.

In a roundtable at the White House last week, the president pledged to
inflict disproportionate violence on this purported enemy of the people: "We'll be very threatening to them. Far more than they ever were with us.
" Earlier, when he was asked by a reporter, "If someone takes to the
streets and says they're antifa, what happens to them? " he proffered the death penalty.

Speaking of anti-fascists, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem
assured us the government would "root them out and eliminate them, " while likening the movement to MS-13, ISIS, Hezbollah, and Hamas. Attorney
General Pam Bondi, for her part, promised to "take them apart, " in her
words, "just like we did with cartels" in the Caribbean. (At the aforementioned roundtable, Noem claimed to have "the girlfriend of one of
the founders of antifa" in custody, which would surely be news to that
founder of antifa, if they existed. )

In the short run, National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, or NSPM-7,
and the associated executive orders are sure to lead to the suppression of "anti-fascist, " "anti-American, " "anti-capitalist, " and other speech
deemed "treasonous" by the administration, and to the arrest and
prosecution of citizens and noncitizens alike who are seen as the "enemy within. "

In the longer run, however, it is likely that this war on anti-fascism will backfire, leading to a heightened profile for the movement and a deepening identification with its ideas and values among the broader populace. In the end, the White House's strategy, even by its own logic, will prove to be
pure folly.

That is not to diminish the very real threat to democracy, human rights,
and civil liberties that this latest war on "terrorism" inevitably poses.
The hour may be later than we think, and there is no telling what lengths
this administration will go to in order to achieve its political objective:
to silence its opponents once and for all.

Some Americans will be subjected to secret interrogations, others to public inquisitions. Some will be rounded up in the dead of night, others in the light of day. Paramilitary-style raids will proliferate. "Potential federal crimes" will be investigated under the aegis of the nation's Joint
Terrorism Task Forces. Low-level crimes like trespassing, destruction of property, and "civil disorder" will be treated as "politically motivated terrorist acts" by the Department of Justice.

In the name of the war on antifa, political profiling will expand into
every corner of everyday life, including the nonprofit sector, the public university, and private industry, among others. Workers will be driven from the workplace. Intellectuals will be run out of the classroom (or out of
the country). Groups aligned with the resistance will lose their tax-exempt status, or worse. The warning signs are here: Sources inside the White
House, the Department of Homeland Security, and the DOJ recently leaked a
list of at least nine left-leaning organizations that are already in the government's sights.

All of this will unfold against the backdrop of ongoing military
incursions, at the behest of the president, into cities such as Los
Angeles, Chicago, Portland, and Washington, D. C. , where counterinsurgent tactics are now being tested on their local populations, from the aerial surveillance of suspected anti-fascists to the use of military-grade
weaponry against unarmed civilians.

These are dangerous times indeed for those who see fit to exercise their rights to speak freely, to assemble publicly, or to petition for redress of grievances. It is entirely possible that, in the days ahead, resistance movements against the regime will be effectively muzzled, their
organizations defunded, their participants criminalized, demobilized, and demoralized.

Yet it can be argued that, despite the perils of the political moment, the
war on antifa is ultimately doomed to fail.

For one thing, in branding the movement Public Enemy #1, and in tarring it
as a terrorist entity, this administration has massively raised the profile
of anti-fascist politics in general, with saturation coverage on a scale
not seen since the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. While MAGA media has driven much of the coverage, mainstream media has not been far behind.

The Trump administration, in spite of itself, may be helping the words, the images, the ideas, and the values associated with anti-fascism reach
millions more Americans than they otherwise would have reached. Some will undoubtedly buy into the master narrative that equates anti-fascism with domestic terrorism. But many more, armed with the ability to do their own research and put off by the administration's own autocratic and antisocial tactics, will not.

Over time, the ideas and values on which anti-fascism is predicated will likely prove more popular than an increasingly authoritarian presidency. By some measures, they already have, with clear majorities now opposing
Trump's policies on immigration, his attacks on free speech, and his mobilization of the National Guard.

According to a New York Times/Siena poll from the last week of
September—the same week Trump signed his executive order on antifa—fully 52 percent of registered voters (including 68 percent of those aged 18 to 29) disapproved of the president's actions on immigration. A Reuters/Ipsos poll taken last week found 58 percent opposed to his deployment of the military
in America's cities.

Meanwhile, public sympathy with the anti-fascist movement has only grown in recent years. In 2017, polls showed antifa with the support of only 8
percent of respondents (around the same percentage as white nationalists).
But by 2024, despite a yearslong campaign to criminalize it, support for
the movement had more than doubled.

Antifa represents not a single entity, but a kind of movement of movements, weaving together different strands of political identity with which many Americans have deep affinities, and with which millions have historically demonstrated in solidarity—including the anti-racist, antiwar, queer and feminist, trade unionist, and environmentalist movements of recent years.

In this sense, antifa has become a sort of stand-in for resistance writ
large. This is surely one of the reasons the movement has become a favorite bogeyman for the far right. It may also be the reason we are now seeing so many liberals and independents rallying behind its banner—whether via viral memes on social media (such as those featuring Portland's inflatable antifa animals) or by way of mass marches in the streets (like the one planned for
No Kings Day).

The politics of anti-fascism in America, once the province of a militant minority of ultra-left activists, could very well come to be identified, in the near future, with a majoritarian movement against authoritarianism. In this scenario, antifa will be increasingly associated not with fringe
groups of street-fighting "supersoldiers" but with a growing base of
ordinary Americans who stand opposed to this administration's all-out
assault on their hard-won rights and freedoms.

Some of the most celebrated movements in our history followed a similar
path from political repression to public support. In this respect, the anti-fascist movement of the present day is not unlike past waves of
political protest, such as the Popular Front against fascism, the civil
rights coalition against Jim Crow, or the 99 Percent movement against
economic inequality.

The Popular Front against fascism of the 1930s and '40s started with small groups of socialists during the depths of the Great Depression, then grew
into a mass movement that was able (at least for a time) to prevent the ascendancy of an authoritarian regime in the U. S.

The civil rights coalition of the 1950s and '60s commenced with the actions
of a handful of civilly disobedient minorities. It then exploded, amid
police attacks and government crackdowns, into a kind of irrepressible
force that would transform the racial order in America.

More recently, the 99 Percent movement of the 2010s began with a ragtag
band of radicals at Occupy Wall Street who, amid unsuccessful attempts to
shut them up, sparked a popular uprising against the wealthiest 1 percent. That uprising continues to have ramifications to this day.

What's past may be prologue, but the future is unscripted. Which direction this country takes—toward democracy or autocracy, racial justice or white supremacy, gender justice or theocracy—will ultimately be decided not only
by the orders of the imperial presidency, but also by the actions (or inaction) of ordinary people in the face of its ever more authoritarian onslaught.

If current trends are any indication, however, the Trump administration's
war on anti-fascism could prove to be its most unpopular war yet—one it has already lost before it has even begun.



https://newrepublic.com/article/201567/trump-war-antifa-doomed-fail
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

CrudeSausage wrote:

On 2025-12-13 11:40 a.m., NoBody wrote:

October 20, 2025
Trump's War on Antifa Is Destined to Backfire

In recent days, President Trump and his circle have effectively
declared war on "antifa. " They have bestowed a "domestic terrorist"
designation upon the anti-fascist movement as a whole. And they have
vowed to deploy the full force of the federal government against
it—whatever it, in fact, is.

In a roundtable at the White House last week, the president pledged to
inflict disproportionate violence on this purported enemy of the
people: "We'll be very threatening to them. Far more than they ever
were with us. " Earlier, when he was asked by a reporter, "If someone
takes to the streets and says they're antifa, what happens to them? "
he proffered the death penalty.

Speaking of anti-fascists, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem
assured us the government would "root them out and eliminate them, "
while likening the movement to MS-13, ISIS, Hezbollah, and Hamas.
Attorney General Pam Bondi, for her part, promised to "take them apart,
" in her words, "just like we did with cartels" in the Caribbean. (At
the aforementioned roundtable, Noem claimed to have "the girlfriend of
one of the founders of antifa" in custody, which would surely be news
to that founder of antifa, if they existed. )

In the short run, National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, or
NSPM-7, and the associated executive orders are sure to lead to the
suppression of "anti-fascist, " "anti-American, " "anti-capitalist, "
and other speech deemed "treasonous" by the administration, and to the
arrest and prosecution of citizens and noncitizens alike who are seen
as the "enemy within. "

In the longer run, however, it is likely that this war on anti-fascism
will backfire, leading to a heightened profile for the movement and a
deepening identification with its ideas and values among the broader
populace. In the end, the White House's strategy, even by its own
logic, will prove to be pure folly.

That is not to diminish the very real threat to democracy, human
rights, and civil liberties that this latest war on "terrorism"
inevitably poses. The hour may be later than we think, and there is no
telling what lengths this administration will go to in order to achieve
its political objective: to silence its opponents once and for all.

Some Americans will be subjected to secret interrogations, others to
public inquisitions. Some will be rounded up in the dead of night,
others in the light of day. Paramilitary-style raids will proliferate.
"Potential federal crimes" will be investigated under the aegis of the
nation's Joint Terrorism Task Forces. Low-level crimes like
trespassing, destruction of property, and "civil disorder" will be
treated as "politically motivated terrorist acts" by the Department of
Justice.

In the name of the war on antifa, political profiling will expand into
every corner of everyday life, including the nonprofit sector, the
public university, and private industry, among others. Workers will be
driven from the workplace. Intellectuals will be run out of the
classroom (or out of the country). Groups aligned with the resistance
will lose their tax-exempt status, or worse. The warning signs are
here: Sources inside the White House, the Department of Homeland
Security, and the DOJ recently leaked a list of at least nine
left-leaning organizations that are already in the government's sights.

All of this will unfold against the backdrop of ongoing military
incursions, at the behest of the president, into cities such as Los
Angeles, Chicago, Portland, and Washington, D. C. , where
counterinsurgent tactics are now being tested on their local
populations, from the aerial surveillance of suspected anti-fascists to
the use of military-grade weaponry against unarmed civilians.

These are dangerous times indeed for those who see fit to exercise
their rights to speak freely, to assemble publicly, or to petition for
redress of grievances. It is entirely possible that, in the days ahead,
resistance movements against the regime will be effectively muzzled,
their organizations defunded, their participants criminalized,
demobilized, and demoralized.

Yet it can be argued that, despite the perils of the political moment,
the war on antifa is ultimately doomed to fail.

For one thing, in branding the movement Public Enemy #1, and in tarring
it as a terrorist entity, this administration has massively raised the
profile of anti-fascist politics in general, with saturation coverage
on a scale not seen since the 2017 Unite the Right rally in
Charlottesville, Virginia. While MAGA media has driven much of the
coverage, mainstream media has not been far behind.

The Trump administration, in spite of itself, may be helping the words,
the images, the ideas, and the values associated with anti-fascism
reach millions more Americans than they otherwise would have reached.
Some will undoubtedly buy into the master narrative that equates
anti-fascism with domestic terrorism. But many more, armed with the
ability to do their own research and put off by the administration's
own autocratic and antisocial tactics, will not.

Over time, the ideas and values on which anti-fascism is predicated
will likely prove more popular than an increasingly authoritarian
presidency. By some measures, they already have, with clear majorities
now opposing Trump's policies on immigration, his attacks on free
speech, and his mobilization of the National Guard.

According to a New York Times/Siena poll from the last week of
September—the same week Trump signed his executive order on
antifa—fully 52 percent of registered voters (including 68 percent of
those aged 18 to 29) disapproved of the president's actions on
immigration. A Reuters/Ipsos poll taken last week found 58 percent
opposed to his deployment of the military in America's cities.

Meanwhile, public sympathy with the anti-fascist movement has only
grown in recent years. In 2017, polls showed antifa with the support of
only 8 percent of respondents (around the same percentage as white
nationalists). But by 2024, despite a yearslong campaign to criminalize
it, support for the movement had more than doubled.

Antifa represents not a single entity, but a kind of movement of
movements, weaving together different strands of political identity
with which many Americans have deep affinities, and with which millions
have historically demonstrated in solidarity—including the
anti-racist, antiwar, queer and feminist, trade unionist, and
environmentalist movements of recent years.

In this sense, antifa has become a sort of stand-in for resistance writ
large. This is surely one of the reasons the movement has become a
favorite bogeyman for the far right. It may also be the reason we are
now seeing so many liberals and independents rallying behind its
banner—whether via viral memes on social media (such as those
featuring Portland's inflatable antifa animals) or by way of mass
marches in the streets (like the one planned for No Kings Day).

The politics of anti-fascism in America, once the province of a
militant minority of ultra-left activists, could very well come to be
identified, in the near future, with a majoritarian movement against
authoritarianism. In this scenario, antifa will be increasingly
associated not with fringe groups of street-fighting "supersoldiers"
but with a growing base of ordinary Americans who stand opposed to this
administration's all-out assault on their hard-won rights and freedoms.

Some of the most celebrated movements in our history followed a similar
path from political repression to public support. In this respect, the
anti-fascist movement of the present day is not unlike past waves of
political protest, such as the Popular Front against fascism, the civil
rights coalition against Jim Crow, or the 99 Percent movement against
economic inequality.

The Popular Front against fascism of the 1930s and '40s started with
small groups of socialists during the depths of the Great Depression,
then grew into a mass movement that was able (at least for a time) to
prevent the ascendancy of an authoritarian regime in the U. S.

The civil rights coalition of the 1950s and '60s commenced with the
actions of a handful of civilly disobedient minorities. It then
exploded, amid police attacks and government crackdowns, into a kind of
irrepressible force that would transform the racial order in America.

More recently, the 99 Percent movement of the 2010s began with a ragtag
band of radicals at Occupy Wall Street who, amid unsuccessful attempts
to shut them up, sparked a popular uprising against the wealthiest 1
percent. That uprising continues to have ramifications to this day.

What's past may be prologue, but the future is unscripted. Which
direction this country takes—toward democracy or autocracy, racial
justice or white supremacy, gender justice or theocracy—will
ultimately be decided not only by the orders of the imperial
presidency, but also by the actions (or inaction) of ordinary people in
the face of its ever more authoritarian onslaught.

If current trends are any indication, however, the Trump
administration's war on anti-fascism could prove to be its most
unpopular war yet—one it has already lost before it has even begun.



https://newrepublic.com/article/201567/trump-war-antifa-doomed-fail

Admittedly, I would support public hangings for Antifa members.

Antifa stole the 2020 election right out from under Trumps bulging belly
and he's done nothing about it but whine and bitch like a snowflake.
Biden probably has more integrity and brains than fat demented old Trump.


In 12 months Trump has accomplished nothing. All the lying faggot-in-chief does all day is spout insane lies to gullible followers. Feeble and old,
he can't even manage to stay awake for meetings.

The top 10 abject failures of donald trump's second presidential
term


Donald Trumps second term has already generated sharp public criticism and falling approval: Gallup reports his job approval fell to 36% with 60% disapproval [1], and multiple polls show sustained secondterm lows and
broad public concern about his governance and use of executive power [2]
[3]. Opinion writers and analysts frame his return as aggressive and potentially authoritarian for which he will pay dearly.

1. A collapsing popularity score that fuels political peril

Trumps approval ratings have declined to new secondterm lows in multiple surveys: Gallup puts approval at 36% with 60% disapproval [1],
Reuters/Ipsos and other poll aggregates show similarly weak numbers cited
by Newsweek and Forbes [2] [6]. Lower approval narrows political
maneuvering room and is the most quantifiable negative outcome of his
return so far [1] [2].

2. Worries about executive overreach and governance by fiat

Independent polling finds a majority of Americans say Trump is setting too much policy via executive orders 51% in the Pew assessment of his first
100 days [3]. Analysts and commentators warn that aggressive use of
executive power risks eroding norms; conservative think tanks and centrist outlets alike have recorded anxieties about rapid, unconventional steps in policy execution [3] [7].

3. Accusations of democratic erosion and a war on institutions

Opinion pieces argue Trumps second term has been marked by assaults on democratic norms: The Guardians columnist lists actions defying courts, pardons for January 6 defendants, targeting judges and using agencies
against critics as evidence the presidency is more lawless and more authoritarian [4]. Other reporting echoes fears of institutional strain, though sources differ on scale and inevitability [4].

4. Legal entanglements, immunity debates and the question of accountability

Commentators in outlets like The New York Times argue Trumps second term intensifies concerns about corruption and the difficulty of prosecuting a former president after 2029, underscoring a debate over immunity and future accountability [8]. Available sources do not provide a legal verdict but highlight expert views that prosecution could be unlikely [8].

5. Electoral strategy that critics call subversion of future contests

Longform analysis in The Atlantic warns that moves this termcoercing firms, investigating officials, questioning limits of free speech and hinting at termlimit changescould be aimed at undermining fair future elections and
even preparing a run for a third term [9]. That framing is forwardlooking
and contested; other pieces emphasize political calculation rather than inevitable collapse [9].

6. Policy moves that alienate allies and reshape foreign posture

Reporting and summaries indicate a shift in foreign policy tone and
alliances that some view as damaging: analysts cite embrace of autocratic leaders and undercutting support for Ukraine, and the Wikipedia summary catalogues controversial foreign actions [4] [10]. Supporters argue such
moves are deliberate realignment; critics see geopolitical risk [4] [10].

7. Domestic policy shocks with political costs

Observers note shockandawe tactics in early 2025 that energized supporters
but produced backlashes: poor offyear election results, economic anxiety
among voters, and intraparty rebellions over scandals are highlighted as
signs the approach has costs [11]. Polling shows voters cite affordability
and shutdowns in lowering approval [2].

8. Social and educational disruptions tied to immigration and schools

Official White House messaging claims steep drops in foreign student enrollment and immigrant populations tied to tougher policies; the
statement cites a 17% fall in new foreign students and a decline of about
2.23 million foreignborn residents since January 2025 [12]. Those figures
are presented by the administration as successes; critics note the
downstream effects on universities and K12 systems [12].

9. Deep polarization and mixed public expectations

Pew and YouGov polling document a sharply divided public: Republicans
mostly back the agenda while Democrats overwhelmingly oppose it, and large shares of Americans express little confidence in Trumps respect for
democratic values [13] [5]. That polarization amplifies the political cost
of controversial actions [13] [5].

10. Conflicting interpretations: disaster narrative vs. deliberate
disruption

Commentators like The Guardian and The Atlantic frame the second term as perilous and potentially the worst in history, emphasizing democratic risks
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

CrudeSausage wrote:

Admittedly, I would support public hangings for Antifa members.

You should support public executions of rightist traitors loyal to Trump because that's the future for his cult. Imagine how popular Stephen
Miller's hanging would be! They could live stream PPV and make a bundle.

The only question remaining is about how many exactly was it that he raped
and how many children were involved, especially with his BFF Epstein.


Trump is a rapist. Worse than any Somalian immigrant. He's also a
convicted felon 35 times over.


A civil jury found Donald Trump liable for sexually abusing writer E. Jean Carroll and for defaming her, awarding Carroll $5 million; judges and
appeals courts later described Carroll's rape allegation as "substantially true" and that $5 million judgment was upheld on appeal [1] [2]. Dozens of women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct over decades; several
lawsuits alleging rape or attempted rape have been filed or refiled in
courts, but criminal convictions for rape have not been reported in the available sources [1] [3] [4].

1. Court finding versus criminal guilt - what the law and reporting say

Civil courts operate on the lower "preponderance of the evidence" standard, not the criminal "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold. A New York civil
jury in Carroll's case found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation
and awarded $5 million; judges have characterized Carroll's specific rape allegation as "substantially true," and that civil judgment was upheld on appeal [2] [1]. Available sources do not report a criminal conviction for
rape of Donald Trump [5] [6].
You get the facts without the spin

Factually is independent and ad-free because people like you choose to
support it. If you find it useful, consider supporting it. You are not just donating money. You are helping preserve a place that values facts and
truth.
Join Kristine Woodall, Steve, Dee and 321 others who check for themselves

2. Multiple allegations across decades - pattern or disparate claims

Reporting and timelines compiled by news outlets and reference sources document allegations from at least the 1970s through the 1990s and later, including claims of groping, forcible kissing, attempted rape, and rape; E. Jean Carroll's allegation is among the most detailed and litigated [3] [7] [5]. Sources note that "at least 25 women" have made accusations ranging
from harassment to assault, and some plaintiffs have pursued civil suits or public complaints [1] [3].

3. New and refiled lawsuits - recent developments to watch

Courthouse News reported a recent refiled federal complaint by a plaintiff
who alleges rape at age 13 at a private sex party, indicating new or
revived legal actions continue to surface [4]. These filings are separate civil complaints and reflect ongoing litigation; outcomes and evidentiary findings vary by case and are still developing in the courts [4].

4. How reporters and courts have characterized "rape" in these matters

Different sources show variation in language: some plaintiffs and prior statements (including an ex-wife's earlier comment) used the word "rape" in ways that were later softened or described in non-criminal terms; courts in Carroll's civil case were tasked with applying specific New York legal definitions and found liability for sexual abuse rather than a criminal
rape verdict in the jury's deliberations, though judges later described
parts of Carroll's account as "substantially true" [7] [2] [5].

5. Conflicting claims and denials - the other side

Trump and his lawyers have consistently denied the allegations, called
certain claims "categorically untrue," and pursued counter-litigation,
arguing errors of law or factual disputes; his legal team has appealed
civil rulings and sought higher-court review [6] [2]. Reporting also
documents instances where alleged accusers rephrased or clarified their
words over time, and courts have had to sort those factual disagreements
[7] [2].

6. Public and political context - why these cases matter beyond the
courtroom

The Carroll verdict and other allegations have political and historical significance: they fed media coverage, influenced public debate about character and fitness for office, and have been cited by opponents and supporters in political contexts [5] [8]. Sources show the verdict prompted legal follow-ups, settlements, appeals, and continued reporting that keeps
the issue in public view
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2