Do I hear 3? Anybody?

This classification, just like every other action taken by this administration, is a means to inflict damage on their ever-expanding list of enemies. The great thing about vague nonsense like this Antifa EO is that they can control who is and isn’t defined as Antifa.

With regard to your political affiliation, I honestly do not care. If you want to gabble on about Antifa as if it's a real threat, you might as well just fly the Trump 2028 flag and drop the silly pretense.

That's great and I totally believe you. Thumbs up emoji and all that.

>I've seen what antifa militants do almost every time they protest,

Oh my gosh, you were serious. Can you point out the "Antifa militants" to me? How would someone go about training to join the Antifa Elite Guard?

I see there's a whole process to get into the Proud Boys and all sorts of other right wing extremist groups on Facebook, but I'm not quite seeing the path to membership for Antifa. Is it because they're so well organized and funded by billionaires?

January 6th damage was estimated at $2.7 billion dollars by the GAO. That riot (more of an attempted coup) actually was coordinated by actual, tangible right wing extremist groups rather than the shadowy "Antifa" fiction that hides underneath all of your beds.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-106625.pdf

>It is riots like those mentioned that I presume this executive order is targeting.

You presume? This administration has lost the benefit of any doubt. This is a cabal of shameless liars and they should be denounced at every turn.

This is yet another transparent attempt to circumvent basic American rights and you're defending it like I said something mean about your local sports team.

Even if he does, there is damage here that will not be undone.

We need to stop treating this monster like a wayward child.

I'm not being sarcastic or anything here. Accepting a few limitations on the theoretical extents of my personal freedom so that I can exist and not worry about being murdered for my possessions on a minute-by-minute basis seems like a pretty good deal.

Not that Russia cares about committing war crimes, of course.

For comparison, in AZ we had legislators caught in a sting operation that were selling individual votes for gambling legislation for between $660 to $60,000 in the 1990s.

We should not normalize this. That was a outright bribe even if it wasn't as big as what others gave. I wouldn't get off the hook for murder just because I argued that Ted Bundy killed waaaaaaay more people than me.

Let's look at "rich flight" through the lens that is not colored with difference to the affluent. The idea here is that, if you make rich folk pay more taxes, they'll pack up their hoard pile of gold, jewels, and dwarf skeletons and fly away to somewhere they're less taxed and more appreciated.

That sounds great until you realize that rich people have massive roots in the places they live. Their expensive homes and professional lives are very closely tied to the community in which they're located. This flight is something that gets threatened very frequently and acted upon very rarely. If past performance is any indicator of future returns, then I'd gladly take my chances that those jerks stick around and pay their fair share.

>You're intentionally sticking your head in the sand because you think the paper is from a "right wing think tank" - regardless of the fact that an extremely well-respected fiscally liberal podcast, Freakonomics, supported the findings.

My disgust comes from actually looking through the Mahattan Institute and seeing it's every bit as trash-flavored as the Heritage Foundation. I absolutely don't need to entertain their disingenuous, fascist-adjacent prattle. After the last few months, it's advisable to write off anything that still claims to be conservative. They've squandered all benefit of the doubt and, for the sake of our own survival, should be reviled at every opportunity.

On a more targeted note, you are switching between "I find this idea intriguing" and "this idea is a fact that's supported by the liberals on Freakonomics" so fast I'm getting whiplash over here. Freakonomics, while entertaining, has been spectactularly wrong enough times that it's more entertainment than anything else. You're appealing to an authority that has a predilection for results that are "surprising."

I don't know if you support the erosion of civil liberties, but it seems like you enjoy repeating things from folks that do.