Can't make this shit up

By far the absolute worst election promise of Trump47 was to give blanket immunity to police for murder, which directly leads to "don't let this extortion turn into a murder, and don't say liberal shit".
Musk recommending to pardon George Floyd cop murderer is a ploy for protests and crackdowns on protests. During Trump45, the Jerusalem capital/embassy was opportunity to murder protesters, and he also amplified George Floyd protests as a re-election ploy to keep suburban moms safe from the uppity negroes.
Musk is intentionally inciting domestic violence through his divisive and hateful recommendation. He'd just prefer the violence be directed at angry negroes than his cars.

Terrorism is politically/religiously motivated violence.
So is he trying to say that attacking a (supposedly) independent, non-government owned corporation, which is (supposedly) held and headed by a person who is officially nowhere on any governments payroll, is political?
This is just like with the murder of Brian Thompson, the charges reveal the truth of what they think.

This is the inevitable conclusion of decades of justifying endless violence by labeling people "terrorists". The word has no meaning other than "target of the state". And now the state is this.
- "It was at dawn of Abril 25 of 1974, during the parade of Practical Cavalry School, in Santarém, that Salgueiro Maia uttered the famous speech:
  'Gentlemen, as everyone knows, there are various modalities of State.
  The socialist States,
  the capitalist States,
  and the state we came to.
  Well, in this solemn night, we will end the state we came to!
  So, whoever wants to come with me, we go to Lisbon and we will end this.
  Whoever is voluntary, go out, form up.
  Whoever doesn't want to go out, stay here.'
  Every 240 of those man that eard this words, spoken so firmly, so characteristic of Salgueiro Maia, formed up immediately in front of him.
  Next they went to Lisbon and marched on the dictatorship."
  And with more and more military/citizens joining in through the day, they ended a 41 year old dictatorship that kept Portugal in poverty and ignorence.
  The only good things about Salazar (Slytherin....yeah Rowling used his name) was (mostly) keeping Portugal out of the wars (mostly) and dying.

But tilting at windmills is still patriotic.

- Those are the "goodie" terrorists... The fascists!
  He's talking about the "baddie" terrorists... The antifascists!
  Their goal is also to normalize political persecution through designating everything antifascist as a crime.

terrorism
n 1: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear
Well, kind of sounds like textbook terrorism. And to be clear, I'm cheering on these terrorists. This is terrorist on terrorist action and, in my opinion, a fair and fitting response.
- One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
- If that's the definition, then I think it's textbook not at all terrorism. One of the standard definitions of violence, and the one that I agree with, is using force to hurt a person or living being. In other words, you can't use violence against an empty car dealership in the middle of the night. So it's not violent.
  The target is the company owned by Elon Musk, and he is a member of the government. In other words, the act of inflammation is a protest against the government, not against civilians.
  It depends on the arsonist, but I don't see these acts as ones that are designed to make people fear anything. Rather, they are designed to help people band together and fight against Elon Musk and his evil Nazi ways.
  And then you've misidentified the goal. I think one of the goals, other than helping people band together, is to hurt Elon Musk's company economically. Now you might argue that people want to inflict economic costs upon him because of related political goals, but now you're getting into indirect reasoning, which would allow you to argue that anything, any act at all, or not acting in the first place, counts as terrorism.
  
  Assume I somehow manage to blow up that obelisk in Washington DC. Would you consider this terrorism, even if no person got hurt?
  
  Depends on the motives and way it happens. That is a valuable perspective but reality could be grim.
  
  In other words, you can’t use violence against an empty car dealership in the middle of the night. So it’s not violent.
  Enough damage to that dealership costs someone money. That's harm.
  Maybe not a lot of harm. But it's harm.
- Property damage is not violence against civilians.
  
  What if I blew up a water tower?
  Or burned down every grocery store in the city? (At night, while no-one was there to get hurt)
  
  Anything that's not the state is civilian. That includes civilian property. And I, too, cheer on violence against the oppressive class.
- It's not terrorism if it's not even trying to kill people. That's just destruction of property or arson in this case.
- What you're missing is Trump includes holding a sign as an "attack"
  
  just put maga on the sign

Easy. Just run for president and pardon yourself. Duh.

Guess that means they get a free pardon. The opposition should start calling them Patriots & promising them pardons.

But it is domestic terrorism, it completely fits that definition. I'm not saying I really give a shit, but let's be clear what's happening.
- Is it though? Terrorism is the use of violence to achieve a political goal by creating fear in a population. The people who are targeting Tesla dealerships aren't directing their message to the general population, they're directing it to one Nazi in particular.
  
  Exactly. They aren't even attempting to scare Tesla customers themselves. It's all about tarnishing Musk's image, sending a message, and damaging his cashcow.
  
  Yes that's by definition domestic terrorism, Elon is part of government and even if he weren't so long as the fires and such are intended to raise awareness by fear or loss of profit it would still be by definition domestic terrorism.
  For reference according to the FBI since 1982:
  The FBI defines terrorism, domestic or international, as the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government or civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives.
- This is basically like that time Jimmy Carter's peanut fields were torched because of high gasoline prices
  
  I mean, if someone was to burn a dealership down, that would be rather similar. I assumed a certain severity of attack, because that word implies a degree of violence to me. I may be wrong there. I don't think graffiti could ever be accurately described as an attack, for example.
- Yeah the issue is somehow white nationalist mows down a mall = troubled teen, liberal (re: minority because nuance and reality are things they struggle to grasp) attacks on private property resulting in zero death or major injury = domestic terrorism.
  Iirc they didn't even label the assassination attempt as domestic terrorism.
  
  Then there's clearly a distinct and significant double standard at play here, which is 100% the actual problem.
- Rage bait used to be believable
  
  So you disagree with the FBIs definition? Why does your disagreement make it bait?
  
  Maybe I'm missing something if the "attacks" in question are water balloons or whatever. I assumed, possibly incorrectly, that something more severe was implied by that word. Like arson, or similar.

Source?
- Ken Klippenstein is a well known and well respected journalist.
  https://www.kenklippenstein.com/
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Klippenstein
  Not trying to be rude, but he should be a good enough source even though this is only a screenshot. Here's a link to the skeet (is that what they're called? gross?):
  https://bsky.app/profile/kenklippenstein.bsky.social/post/3lk4te5j6tk24
  But if that's not enough here's Reuters corroborating the same point:
  https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-says-he-will-buy-new-tesla-show-support-musk-2025-03-11/
  Trump says violence against Tesla is domestic terrorism
  This took me less than three minutes to search, compile, and post. Cheers.
  EDIT: The edits took longer because I'm also a dumbass and make a lot of silly mistakes and typos.
  
  Reuters collaborating the same point
  I think you mean corroborating
  
  Casual reminder, fuck Tesla. Fuck Elon. Damn swasticars, and a nazi to boot!
  
  Thank you!
- Ken... Klipppenstein..?
  The names right there. Maybe one of the most famous journalists in the current, albeit fragmented, era?
- https://youtu.be/itOd-DplBtA?t=23
  https://ground.news/article/trump-says-he-will-label-violence-against-tesla-dealers-domestic-terrorism
  ...they're harming a great American company
  I'd argue that Musk himself is also harming the company by exhibiting behaviors that Tesla's target customers find objectionable. If I didn't know Tesla shareholders better, I would have thought he should have been released from his position as CEO by now.