this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023
469 points (97.8% liked)

politics

18866 readers
21 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A Utah man was shot and killed during an FBI raid early Wednesday morning, the FBI confirmed to ABC News. The raid was in connection with an investigation into alleged threats against President Joe Biden and others, according to two officials briefed on the case.

One of the officials told ABC News that the investigation began in April and the U.S. Secret Service was notified by the FBI in June. In addition to threatening posts, the official said, the man under investigation suggested online he was making plans to take physical action. The threats had been deemed "credible," the official said.

The FBI in Salt Lake City said the shooting occurred around 6:15 am. local time while special agents attempted to serve arrest and search warrants at a residence in Provo.

"The FBI takes all shooting incidents involving our agents or task force members seriously," the FBI said in a statement. "In accordance with FBI policy, the shooting incident is under review by the FBI's Inspection Division. As this is an ongoing matter, we have no further details to provide."

The deceased suspect was Craig Robertson, according to multiple sources and a federal complaint obtained by ABC News.

Robertson was facing three counts, according to the complaint -- interstate threats, threats against the president, and influencing, impeding and retaliating against federal law enforcement officers by threat.

The complaint includes numerous social media posts believed to have been made by Robertson threatening to kill Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, as well as several officials involved in prosecuting former President Donald Trump.

The president is scheduled to visit Utah on Wednesday.

Among the posts allegedly made by Robertson was one published on Aug. 6, three days before Biden's scheduled visit, according to the complaint. "I hear Biden is coming to Utah. Digging out my old ghillie suit and cleaning the dust off the M24 sniper rifle," the post said, according to the complaint, which referred to the post as a "willful true threat to kill or cause injury to kill President Biden."

Senior staff briefed Biden on the incident Wednesday morning, a White House official told ABC News.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

This is why I don't think anything happens at that organized a level without a huge financial backing behind it. The common person wants a war. The rich don't but they want to utilize the anger the common man has. Everything that happens at a high level of organization is due to a handful of people investing time and lots of money into it. Regular folk can't organize themselves enough to get things to a sustainable level. It takes tons of social media manipulation and rubbing elbows with influencers to do podcast circuits and link up with media outlets and blogs to create the stories that keep the flames hot enough to spread.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The common person wants a war? Lol they absolutely do not. The vast majority of people just want to get on with their lives.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Exactly. No one is going to organize anything because it would end in failure and them losing everything without mass popular support. It is only when the average person gets their back pushed to the wall by economic collapse (Germany post ww1) or famine (revolutionary France) along with political weakness and instability at the top that you see mass revolt.

No one is going to join "a war" just because they are annoyed.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Sorry I would have been more specific. I wasn't really referring to a full on civil war, but a large scale shootout at any one of those events that went violent.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People at the top do not support any kind of social turmoil because stability is what makes them wealthy and keeps them there. The last thing they would want is to lose control. People don't even want to invest in unstable countries.

You don't need modern social media and podcasts to have turmoil. They didn't exist in revolutionary Russia or France.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

People at the top are not any more homogeneous than people at the bottom. All people and groups want more power. They're all jockeying for better positions. If you're the political consultant for a party whose values are dying with an ageing population then you need a zeitgeist to reignite the youth to see your party in a new light. To accomplish that you need turmoil. Turmoil is where opinions change. So powerful people leverage the average persons gripes and anger to create just enough turmoil to upend the stays quo so they can be the ones to narrate what new generation will see them as. Things don't change when people are content.

Go back to those events in history and you'll see the same power brokers organizing events.