If they take Russian money and produce tv shows advocating violence against Americans (granted... liberal Americans), they should be considered terrorists.
They can do whatever they want, but the terrorist label is political grandstanding.
I'd be pissed if I paid taxes there, even if I agreed 100% with them, tbh.
This differs from pardoning a Turkey mostly because it's controversial. Whether you agree with it or not, it's dumb and a waste of money.
Now, if they actually debar the NRA, I could see more of an issue, and I wouldn't be surprised if that happens.
I doubt the NRA does that much business with SF, but I also suspect it's not just New York, Walmart and SF that are going to send messages.
If the NRA actually cares about promoting responsible gun ownership, they ought to be focusing on that now, because they're taking plenty of heat for being a maunufacurers lobby, Conservative political stuff beyond guns, internal corruption, and money laundering.
Just my two cents, but I'd be pulling out gun education classes, youth stuff, and tone down the babes and bullets stuff, along with defending litigation.
@4meAndyou Normally, a President declaring something actually means something, but that's not really the case with Trump at this point for a number of reasons.
I don't know if Newsom will weigh in at all, but if he does, I'm sure it won't be to veto a municipal resolution.
Moreover, while I don't think it helps Democrats much nationally, my guess is even a local debarrment (if that's even possible) doesn't hurt them nationally much, especially if Trump counterpunches and the right reacts angrily and they can paint it as Trump picking on Democrats, liberals, gays, etc.
I could be wrong, but I think the Democrats want to sit back and jab at Trump and let him seem to act crazy and swing wildly without even trying to land a knockout blow. The tricky part is to avoid the blows and keep scoring points.
It's the same kind of thing with impeachment, the Squad, and I think it's a pretty good move for Dems to play to try to win.
Nationally, I think the Democrats go "AOC"/socialist or worse, because I think that would I play into Trump's hand. In places like SF, it might be a different story, but the same thing holds true for Republicans, i.e., you need to focus on your voters and not ones in other places.
No matter what Fox says, I don't think the "angry hard left" is nearly as powerful as the angry hard right, within their own parties. I think Democratic leadership, even the left most candidates realize this, and they'll try and play to the "sane middle", which is the place where Trump seems likely to have a hard time playing.
They need to stay in the ring, of course, but they need to stand up to Trump without trying to fight the way he does. They suck at it, for one thing, and for another, they need to be able to sell "clean hands" more to their base than Trump does or really can.
@4meAndyou Moi aussi, and I'm hoping that there are more people looking for that then there are people looking to push single issues at the expense of the big picture.
Laws - Schmaws When one is a democrat it doesn't matter if one is 'able' to make law or not. One just does. Sort of like, 'you gotta pass the bill before you can read it' kind of thing.
I don't think the declaration is a law anyway. It's more of a public statement. Well, at least until they start rounding up NRA members.
@akindheart You know it. When I heard this, I was astonished. They have the giant elephant of homelessness and sanitation in the room, with which they are incompetent to deal, and because they can NOT fix that huge problem, they are flailing around and doing stupid inflammatory things like THIS with their time.
@curiosi I know. Good peaceful citizens of both the Republican and the Democrat Socialist party, who hold down jobs, attend PTA meetings, care about their kids and support the economy, and some of whom even attend church or mosque or synagogue, are now "domestic terrorists".
But it is perfectly fine to buy illegal heroin in the streets of San Francisco, and sell it, and shoot up in public, and pee and poo right in front of passersby.
They said ;“The NRA exists to spread disinformation and knowingly puts weapons in the hands of those who would harm and terrorize us by blocking common-sense gun violence prevention legislation, and by advocating for dangerous legislation like stand-your-ground laws, permit-less carry, and guns in schools from kindergarten on up through university”. Regardless, if they are or not, seems out of control that the NRA has so much power over politics and the public, in my opinion.
@HannahSky Yeah, Mistycee has the best answer though. The board of supervisors in SF don't have the legal right to do anything, and they are just grandstanding and making noise.
I used to live in SF for a couple of years. Those people are weird. Don't believe everything you hear. If you visit, go see the GG Bridge, Alcatraz, Fisherman's Wharf, Monterrey and then move on. LA is better.
@DudeistPriest We drove across it, just once, to say we did.
SW-User
They also think the Animal Liberation Front is another Domestic Terrorist Organization. It seems everywhere you turn, there is always some kind of threat
@SW-User I had to dive deep into my research today, and according to the FBI, if a member or members of a group get violent and cause mass harm in order the change or coerce public opinion, their group status changes to domestic terrorist.
No. They do not have the authority for the action they have taken. If they do, then I would like to hereby claim the state of California as a domestic terrorist organization.
@xixgun I posted some research down at the bottom here. An essential portion of the Patriot Act upon which domestic terrorist designations are based is:
"The USA Patriot Act from 2001 defines domestic terrorism as a dangerous act occurring within U.S. territory that violates criminal laws in ways that are "intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping."
And it seems to me that the city board of supervisors in San Francisco is doing this:
"intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion
A resolution, not a law. In California, they're out in left field chasing fly balls that haven't been hit yet, screaming, "I got it, I got it!" Idiots.
Advocacy group for one of the rights outlined in the founding document of the nation? Terrorists! Antifa thugs in masks beating down political dissidents with chains and bats? Peaceful protesters.
The president should just give a big fuck you to congress and march the national guard into California and stomp them into the dirt. Declare martial law and shoot anyone who tries to resist. The last time some assholes got uppity and tried to act above the fed we burned their damn cotton fields.
I read somewhere that one of the supervisors a while back named Tom Amenino wanted to give city workers the right to have sex change operations paid for by the city what a fucked up town ,,,,,,Politics wise that is....He's got to be the biggest homosexual on earth
@MarmeeMarch While there is nothing wrong with being gay, (because it's a natural condition), I don't think I would go as far as to publicly fund sex change operations.