Members stevenkesslar Posted Saturday at 04:10 PM Members Posted Saturday at 04:10 PM The piece of shit Trump is now not only a petty criminal, rapist, and just an overall stinky awful piece of shit and horrible leader. Now he's breaking international law, too. It's funny. Just yesterday I read this article of Trump's 20 greatest accomplishments in 2025 by Trump fanboy Marc Thiessen in the Washington Post. And I was thinking it is NOT a horrible list. True, Trump is anti-union. True, he gave massive tax cuts to his billionaire donors which spiked the US budget deficit. All while he makes health care unaffordable and takes food off the tables of the working class, But what else is new? We live in a democracy. And this is the shit Republicans do every fucking time they take power. At least Trump is not W., I thought. No Iraq War! Oops! And now we have Iraq War 2.0. What a law-breaking piece of shit. This piece of shit leader Trump should be arrested and brought to justice Law breaking piece of shit Trump. It's actually worse than Iraq. At least W. and Cheney spent months lying their asses off and pretending to consult the UN. They honored at least the pretense of international law. Trump is a criminal who could care less about democracy or international law. So he'll just do whatever the fuck he wants. 63 % of Americans oppose military action against Venezuela, which is what Trump just did. But who the fuck cares? Trump should be arrested and tried for breaking the law. And for just being an overall piece of shit leader. What a criminal piece of shit Trump is. And I'm all for harsh action against fentanyl trafficking, which is a huge killer of American citizens. If this is the solution, what we need to do is bomb Mexico City and Beijing. We need to arrest Claudia Sheinbaum and Xi Whiz for being the leaders of the countries that traffic most of the fentanyl that kills Americans. Who gives a shit about proof? Bomb their countries! Arrest their leaders! Who gives a shit about reason or democracy? Let alone - ha ha! - international law? While we are at it, Putin should bomb Kyiv and arrest Zelenskyy for being a promoter of anti-Semitism. Why not? This is the principle Trump's America just established. This is what WE stand for. Go for it, Vlad. We're the fucking United States of America! We have a piece of shit leader who is making us a piece of shit country. We fucking won in Iraq! We fucking won in Afghanistan! We will fucking win in Venezuela! It is what most Americans DO NOT want. But who the fuck cares? Quote
Members Suckrates Posted Saturday at 05:06 PM Members Posted Saturday at 05:06 PM What happened to Maduro SHOULD happen to Trump in America ! Is there another strong world leader willing and ready to topple OUR tyrant before he destroys the WORLD ? Quote
bucknaway Posted 19 hours ago Posted 19 hours ago I wonder if this is the type of post that gets the FBI's attention or another federal agencies attention? I'd never suggest attacking the USA, it's capital or its president. Be careful... Quote
RockyRoadTravel Posted 19 hours ago Posted 19 hours ago 3 minutes ago, bucknaway said: I wonder if this is the type of post that gets the FBI's attention or another federal agencies attention? I'd never suggest attacking the USA, it's capital or its president. Be careful... You're back from Russia? How was your trip? Quote
Members Suckrates Posted 19 hours ago Members Posted 19 hours ago 2 minutes ago, bucknaway said: I wonder if this is the type of post that gets the FBI's attention or another federal agencies attention? I'd never suggest attacking the USA, it's capital or its president. Be careful... LOL, fool ! Quote
bucknaway Posted 19 hours ago Posted 19 hours ago I asked chat GPT... Short answer: yes, parts of that post could plausibly draw attention from federal law enforcement, even if no action ultimately comes of it. Here’s why, broken down plainly. --- What crosses the line legally In the U.S., a lot of political speech is protected, even ugly or extreme speech. But there are limits. Statements that advocate or endorse violence against the U.S. government, the President, or Washington, DC are treated very differently from general political ranting. Key red flags in that post: “Bomb DC” That is a direct reference to violence against the nation’s capital. Even if the poster claims it’s rhetorical or sarcastic, those words alone can trigger scrutiny. Calls to arrest or remove a president by force Saying “arrest Trump and bring him to justice” by itself is not illegal. But when paired with violent language and references to bombing, it can be interpreted as endorsing unlawful action. Endorsing or encouraging violence broadly The post repeatedly endorses bombing countries and arresting leaders “who gives a shit about proof,” which reinforces a violent, lawless tone. Federal agencies do not need proof that someone will act. They look at whether speech could reasonably be read as encouraging violence. --- How the FBI typically handles this Federal Bureau of Investigation does not arrest everyone who posts something inflammatory online. What usually happens instead: The post may be logged or flagged, often automatically Analysts assess context, credibility, and pattern If the poster appears unstable, persistent, or escalatory, it may lead to: A background check A knock-and-talk (informal interview) Monitoring, not charges Most cases go nowhere, but the attention itself can be stressful and permanent in records. --- Protected speech vs risky speech Protected: Harsh criticism Profanity Saying a president should be impeached, tried, or voted out Expressing opposition to wars or policies Risky: Explicit references to bombing U.S. locations Language that sounds like advocacy of violence, not metaphor Combining rage, targets, and violent verbs The poster may intend satire, but intent doesn’t control how it’s evaluated. --- Why forums warn users like this The reply saying “be careful” is actually smart. Online posts: Are permanent Are searchable Can be copied out of context Can be attributed later even if deleted People often assume “I didn’t mean it literally” is enough. It isn’t. --- Bottom line Could it get the poster in trouble? Yes, it could draw attention. Is arrest likely? Unlikely by itself. Is it reckless? Absolutely. Is this the kind of language federal agencies flag? Yes. If someone wants to criticize a president or government action forcefully, there are many ways to do it without invoking violence. Once you do, you’ve left the safe zone. If you want, I can also explain what specific federal statutes this kind of language brushes up against, or how moderation systems usually detect posts like this. Quote
Members Suckrates Posted 19 hours ago Members Posted 19 hours ago Just now, RockyRoadTravel said: You're back from Russia? He IS, and he has all his NEW talking points locked and loaded...... Trump can attack anyone he wants, but suggesting someone do the same to Trump is a violation ? Only in Trump world. Quote
Members Suckrates Posted 19 hours ago Members Posted 19 hours ago 1 minute ago, bucknaway said: I asked chat GPT... Short answer: yes, parts of that post could plausibly draw attention from federal law enforcement, even if no action ultimately comes of it. Here’s why, broken down plainly. --- What crosses the line legally In the U.S., a lot of political speech is protected, even ugly or extreme speech. But there are limits. Statements that advocate or endorse violence against the U.S. government, the President, or Washington, DC are treated very differently from general political ranting. Key red flags in that post: “Bomb DC” That is a direct reference to violence against the nation’s capital. Even if the poster claims it’s rhetorical or sarcastic, those words alone can trigger scrutiny. Calls to arrest or remove a president by force Saying “arrest Trump and bring him to justice” by itself is not illegal. But when paired with violent language and references to bombing, it can be interpreted as endorsing unlawful action. Endorsing or encouraging violence broadly The post repeatedly endorses bombing countries and arresting leaders “who gives a shit about proof,” which reinforces a violent, lawless tone. Federal agencies do not need proof that someone will act. They look at whether speech could reasonably be read as encouraging violence. --- How the FBI typically handles this Federal Bureau of Investigation does not arrest everyone who posts something inflammatory online. What usually happens instead: The post may be logged or flagged, often automatically Analysts assess context, credibility, and pattern If the poster appears unstable, persistent, or escalatory, it may lead to: A background check A knock-and-talk (informal interview) Monitoring, not charges Most cases go nowhere, but the attention itself can be stressful and permanent in records. --- Protected speech vs risky speech Protected: Harsh criticism Profanity Saying a president should be impeached, tried, or voted out Expressing opposition to wars or policies Risky: Explicit references to bombing U.S. locations Language that sounds like advocacy of violence, not metaphor Combining rage, targets, and violent verbs The poster may intend satire, but intent doesn’t control how it’s evaluated. --- Why forums warn users like this The reply saying “be careful” is actually smart. Online posts: Are permanent Are searchable Can be copied out of context Can be attributed later even if deleted People often assume “I didn’t mean it literally” is enough. It isn’t. --- Bottom line Could it get the poster in trouble? Yes, it could draw attention. Is arrest likely? Unlikely by itself. Is it reckless? Absolutely. Is this the kind of language federal agencies flag? Yes. If someone wants to criticize a president or government action forcefully, there are many ways to do it without invoking violence. Once you do, you’ve left the safe zone. If you want, I can also explain what specific federal statutes this kind of language brushes up against, or how moderation systems usually detect posts like this. Awwwww, all of a sudden YOU become law abiding...... JOKE ! Quote
RockyRoadTravel Posted 19 hours ago Posted 19 hours ago 1 minute ago, Suckrates said: Awwwww, all of a sudden YOU become law abiding...... JOKE ! Come on Suckrates, it's Sunday, be generous. In terms of sources Chat GBT is a huge step up from his usual sources of "information". Quote
