New Hampshire homes: “Your address has been added into our database as a target for when we attack should Trump not concede the election.”

submitted by Chipit from (i.imgur.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]zyxzevn 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Those are fake.
But feel free to investigate it more.

It is not in line with any of the Proud boys principles to do threats that.
But it is in line with the extreme left principles to spread these as black propaganda or hoax "hate-crimes".
And they have been openly threatening to attack trump voters. And actually do it.

[–]turtlew0rk 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why did I have to scroll down so far to see anyone question this silly bullshit? So if Trump does not concede power the solution to that is to burn down the homes of those who voted for him, but only before fair warning to make sure they have a homeowners policy (which is mandatory to have) that covers fire damage (which is the only thing that literally all of them already cover) is in place?

Seems like insurance fraud more so than a military strategy and makes me doubt if people actually know what a civil war even is.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Who cares if it was spread as propaganda? These were sent to a large subset of Democrat voters in Florida; it will have an effect on voting, regardless of what other effect it was intended to have.

Why is one instance of voter-threatening an issue, but another not?

[–]battering-ram 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Why would this be sent to Democrats as this letter clearly expresses hatred towards Trump which the Democrats are in favor of.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Sorry; I mixed the parties up. I was talking about the one fake-from the Proud Boys.

[–]battering-ram 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

ah! that makes sense. I agree with what you are saying man

[–]slushpilot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It's easy enough to dismiss a spam email as low-energy "foreign interference" hoaxers or whatever, but it's quite another thing to have an actual paper notice posted by an actual person to your actual house.

I mean, these might both still be hoaxes. But if that paper one exists, even as a hoax, it's far more threatening.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

True.

Then again, the paper one would've been pretty localised (there's a limit to how many pieces of paper you can put through letterboxes), whereas there's no reason to think the email one would've gone to anything less than everyone in the database.

Which is worse? Few people × very threatening, or many people × less threatening? I think the answer here's obvious: there is at yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer.

[–]slushpilot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

When posted on the internet, that photo of the physical piece of paper with a staple torn out of it does psychological wonders though.

It doesn't have to be sent to your personal inbox where you can dismiss it as spam. You just have to see it, and think damn.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Hmm… But wouldn't photos of the paper make people think “we can't let them threaten us” and vote for the threatened-against? So you've got a localised prevention but a national boon… this is making my head hurt. Too much to think about.