483
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2026
483 points (100.0% liked)
politics
30854 readers
2045 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
He should be charged with terrorism, because that's literally what it was.
The right-wing political violence in this country is out of control...
Always has been
It's getting worse as they learn what they can get away with
You're not going to get a terrorism charge based on apple cider vinegar.
Squirting an unidentifiable liquid in someone's face is terrorism.
Until it's tested in a lab, no one knows what it is. It could be a strong acid, it could be a nerve agent. Neither of those things are unheard of, and either one can maim or kill in a matter of minutes.
Using fear or violence to achieve a political purpose is the definition of terrorism. The attacker was attempting to disrupt the town hall and intimidate politicians in order to suppress political speech.
It's literal terrorism.
For real, I cannot imagine the insanely long list of charges if that had been a GOP member, every charge you could possibly pull out of your ass, multiplied by the number of people in the room/close proximity.
Too young to remember a post 9/11 America? People were getting hit with a terrorism/terroristic threat charge for way less than what this guy did.
It was identified as something harmless. Terrorism is the use of deadly violence on soft, civilian targets. Generally, assaults on political leaders are considered something else. Terrorism is the continued threat of future deadly violence, not of squirting vinegar on people.
I don't think a lab test was required to figure out it was harmless. It was vinegar.
Yeah, but it wasn't. If someone hit one of those ICE thugs with a black water balloon that was indeed filled with harmless water, would you support charging the thrower with terrorism?
No, it's using violence to create fear of future violence. That's the literal definition. Your personal definition waters down "terrorism" to a ludicrous extent.
Not immediately, and if it had contained a nerve agent it would have been too late to do anything about it by the time it was identified.
Terrorism doesn't exclude attacks on political leaders, especially when they're in civilian settings such as a town hall.
A brazen attack with a syringe filled with mystery fluid in the middle of a town hall is intended to have a chilling effect on political speech and communication between representatives and their constituents. It's supposed to send the message "this could happen again, to anyone," and is intended to stifle political opposition. It's an intimidation tactic, which when applied to political purposes fits the definition of terrorism.
There's no way to determine that's all it was without lab testing.
That wasn't immediately known at the time
There's a difference between water balloons and a syringe filled with mystery fluid. Also, if someone were throwing water balloons at ICE, the current administration would definitely call them terrorists. The charges wouldn't stick, but it's completely different from mystery fluid-filled syringe.
It's using violence or fear (i.e., the threat of violence) to achieve a political purpose. Stochastic terrorism doesn't utilize direct violence, but the threat of violence is often enough to achieve its intended effect.
Just creating "fear of future violence" isn't it. Extortion, blackmail, racketeering can all create fear of future violence, but they're not terrorism unless they're done for political purposes. Terrorism is using fear to achieve a political purpose, whether through violence or threats of violence. That's not my "personal definition," it's what it is. You can look it up.
So the people who mailed fake anthrax... That wasn't terrorism?
Stop, you're going to make them admit that this is the revised version of the Iraq war. That word hasn't been used this much in a long time....
If the prosecutors could prove he thought it was something more dangerous, he can be charged. The point of laws is deterrance, and if they do not charge him with a significant crime, then the next person will use more concentrated acid.
If you point a gun at someone unloaded, it's the same as pointing a loaded gun if you thought the gun was loaded.
Legally, what he squited was irrelevant. If he believed he was squirting concentrated acid then he will be sentenced as such.
We legit just had the president call Pretti a terrorist for trying to help a lady off the ground, like last week
Have you seen their “policy”? If the right’s not committing acts of violence then it’s simply not the right anymore. The people in charge are only in it for blunt power and the people who support it are necessarily not smart enough to understand that and are the kind who scream and yell and attack as a first resort.
I mean... you're not wrong...