An antisemitic attack of terrorism that is

Whatever $-grubbing company owns this rag, and the centrist-to-right-wing dolts who comprise the majority of the commenters these days, must be very happy. The SLOG appears to be going full on pro-Zionist, with that little bit about Ms. Thunberg (yawn) added for plausible deniability.

It's a little weird to say the Christians came "looking for a fight" (even if they were clearly provocative) when they managed to not get in a single fight. Wouldn't it be fairer to say the counterprotesters were "looking for a fight"?

That bee story is bullshit. They actually work for CBP—what do you think the "B" stands for?

Islam is a religion of peace. Just keep repeating that and ignore your own lyin' eyes.

I realize the news reports no fatalities in connection with this attack, but there are reports the suspect was charged with two counts of murder, so I'm confused.

Regarding Christian intolerance, I see The Stranger now sides with bullies. "They made us attack them with all their free speech" is the story they are sticking to. Sad but predictable.

@3 They literally posted #JointheFight as one of their hashtags when advertising the event and a big graphic that says "GET IN THE FIGHT" alongside it, you actual dumb fuck.

@6 Do you understand figurative language? Don't you think they would have bothered, I don't know, actually fighting a single person if that was their intent?

@7: Apparently you don't understand that figurative actions have the capacity to inflict harm in the same way that actual physical violence does. A baptism can symbolize the action of a gas chamber if the right context has been sufficiently erected around it - or, as in the case of MayDayUSA events, present itself as a sugar-coated, "who me?" intimation of said chambers.

@8 Personally, I would find an ominous baptism to be preferable to actually being gassed, and prefer "figurative harm" to actual physical violence, but that's just me!

@3: It might be more accurate to say that they came seeking to bait members of the local community into a photogenic overreaction. They pointedly did not want to "fight" in the literal sense because for the duration of this spectacle they are masquerading as pacifists and yes, as victims.

However they are perfectly happy to outsource the literal fighting to the SPD, and clearly relish watching it happen.

@8: "Apparently you don't understand that figurative actions have the capacity to inflict harm in the same way that actual physical violence does."

That's because figurative actions do not have the capacity to inflict harm in the same way that actual physical violence does. Hence, the law criminalizes physical violence, while -- at the very same time! -- the First Amendment allows for everyone from the MayDayUSA bigots, to LGBTQ+ persons who live in the neighborhood, to looking-for-an-actual-fight 'activist' losers, to congregate in Cal Anderson Park.

@11: No, the clinical literature is quite clear: non-physically violent actions have the capacity to traumatize. Whether the MayDayUSA folks want to admit or not, their events consist of potently symbolic displays of real violence.

@2, well then, close your laptop and roll up your sleeves. It costs nothing to complain in some online forum of a free publication, and it achieves about as much.

I did not mead the truck overturning item carefully enough, and was amused by the idea of releasing beers "into the wild".

[image of Rainier bottle with legs]

@11 "That's because figurative actions do not have the capacity to inflict harm in the same way that actual physical violence does. Hence, the law criminalizes physical violence, while -- at the very same time! -- the First Amendment allows..."

Wrong.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._Black

Jeshus never got in no fist-a-cuffs to get the message of love and tolerance out. I mean, isn't Jeshus what it was all about? I guess they killed a few kids in the bible too. The bible is kind of a crazy fairy tale once you think about it. No wonder so many of the people that read that dribble are nuts. Then they come to places they have no business visiting but to make the locals wary and the locals want to make it clear that nobody wants them there, hoping they get the point and go away for good. Making unwelcomed people feel unwelcomed is a great strategy. If they come preaching actual lessons from Jesus and not being dicks about their bigoted world view, sure come to Cal Anderson Park and have a day. Lead by example, like so many of the LGBTQ+ churches from Capitol Hill have done in promoting their religion. Unlike those honorable and true LGBTQ+ friendly churches of Capitol Hill, their message was shit and the only thing shit attracts are flies that lay eggs that hatch into MAGAts that turn into flies to go seek more shit to thrive in. Seattle doesn't like shit, let alone Jesus shit or any other shit that brings MAGAt infested flies.

@16 - Paragraphs! You should try them!

@12, @15: Sorry, the Stranger seems not to have mentioned a cross-burning at Cal Anderson Park last weekend. That would seem to be a curious omission, don't you think?

As the very clear message of a cross-burning is a threat against the life, health, and safety of the targets, it's not protected by the First Amendment. As most threats are not.

And, somehow, I rather doubt even that gawdawful 'music' the bigots blasted would count as anything more than an offense against good taste.

Fail harder next time.

@5:

While there are certainly a fair number of global religious belief systems that may rightfully claim to be "peaceful", Judaism, Christianity and Islam, along with Hinduism, don't happen to be among them.

@3, 5/7, 11: You can try to split semantical hairs all you want, but when someone tells their followers to "join the fight" or "get in the fight" and you don't take their exhortations at face value, then you're just as likely to be pummeled by their actions as well as their words, because the words are intended to be prelude to the actions that follow.

When has ANYONE ever said "get ready to fight", or whatever variation on the phrase strikes your fancy, and not meant to follow through? And since when has provocation ever NOT been intended to elicit exactly the sort of response that then provides a rationalization for getting into a fight? The side looking for a fight is always the one that starts things, and always the side that screams loudly about being the victims in a fight they sought, they provoked and they engaged in; it's literally the entire point of the matter.

@8, What an anti-democratic statement.

Our society has protected speech via the 1st Amendment.

It has criminalized physical violence of the person who perpetrates physical violence first. It does not criminalize speech. Only you equate the harms of speech and physical violence.

Do you not support those democratically made determination. Are you anti-democratic? Isn't the opposite of supporting democratic norms fascism?

@12, Please find "traumatize" in the Revised Code of Washington's listing of crimes and cite it for us? Find it in another state's listing of crimes and cite it for us? Oh wait, democratically selected legislators and citizens, via initiative, have not made causing non-physical trauma to another a crime.

Why is that? If they did, you would have to throw out the 1st Amendment protection in the Federal Constitution. You would have to get rid of free speech articles in the Constitutions of the 50 states. If you can criminalize speech, it's no longer free.

@15, Right back at you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterman_v._Colorado

It's more recent precedent.

@18, See @22.

SCOTUS really raised the bar to proving true threat, without some physical action against the victim of threatening speech.

“Isn't the opposite of supporting democratic norms fascism?”

No? Read a book sometime. A high school history text should do the trick.

Re: Colorado.

Let the calls for regulation of objects sold at the hardware store and gas station begin.

If it saves one life, its worth it.

@25: The contorted point you're trying to make requires mental gymnastics that I'm not capable of.

@19 Uh, it probably doesn't mean a literal fight when you don't even attempt to fight anyone? In which case the obvious meaning is a metaphorical or spiritual fight?

It's good to be exposed to alternative and opposing viewpoints and opinions. Mayday gave that to Seattle without violence and I'm sure got an earfull in response. Seattleites should respond with a little more gratitude for the robust protections of the First Amendment and a little less physical violence.

@22 another great example of a case holding that certain speech may be criminalized consistent with the First Amendment, thanks!

@27 if a kid provokes a schoolyard fight, then hides behind their big brother who does the actual fighting, did they on that basis not actually want or provoke the fight? SPD being the "big brother" in this analogy

@28: No one has said certain speech cannot be criminalized, so I don't know why you're thanking anyone.

Plenty of speech can be criminalized, and cited in court cases. For example, had anyone from MayDayUSA actually fought anyone at Cal Anderson Park, then the group's prior "fighting words" might have been used in the trial of anyone from MayDayUSA who actually fought. But, to the best of our knowledge, no one from MayDayUSA fought anyone, and so a reasonable person should conclude their "fighting words" were figurative, not literal.

You have a long, long way to go, before you even get close to anything you'd need to demonstrate MayDayUSA actually said or did anything which might be legally actionable. Good luck with that.

The real crime against free speech is letting Trump become Idi Amin any time someone criticizes the administration's failing and horrible policies as well as uses their mind.

"They told you to ignore the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."

@28, And yet, it wasn't.

@29 If, in this tortured hypothetical, someone "provokes" a fight by having really unpopular opinions, and then hides behind someone else, who gets attacked for being in the way, it still doesn't really merit the label that they "came for a fight" or excuse the person who actually performed violence.

@29, SPD was there to arrest those who went beyond speech, to unlawful violence first.

A sub-set of counter-protesters decided to do that and got arrested.

The protesters confined themselves to merely highly offensive words and symbols, which is not criminal.

@28, Even deadly force isn't criminalized if you are not the first person to engage in it.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/fatal-stabbing-in-downtown-seattle-believed-to-be-self-defense/

Likewise with less than deadly force as well.

A case where someone bringing a knife to a gunfight prevailed.

@29 I think where your analogy falls apart is that the people doing the fighting weren't even part of the community. Records of those who were arrested show the majority of them don't even reside in Seattle much less Capital Hill so they traveled from outside the area to deliberately cause trouble and start mayhem. It's almost as if there is a permanent group of disgruntled sad losers who co-opt any cause so they can start fights with the police and then scream about how they are being victimized (see WTO, BLM, Oct 7 massacre for recent examples).

The facts here are you have two groups that came to Seattle for the sole purpose of causing a disturbance and they both should bear the consequences. Just don't pretend either side was standing up for marginalized people or acting in good faith. They both wanted a fight and they both got what they wanted.

For a bunch of people who literally spend all day fighting with each other on the internet you sure all seem to think that fighting requires physical violence for some reason.

"They fought over the division of the estate".
"She fought tirelessly for human rights".
"The team fought hard to win the championship".
"He fought his way through the court system".
"The two parties fought for control of the legislature".
"He fought against the disease with determination".

And nary a punch was thrown.

WereBackBaby, there is no such thing as a "religion of peace". They're all equally awful. GW Bush only said that to keep the Christians from attacking the Muslims.

As for the religious nutbags at Cal Anderson, I think ignoring them is the best response. Christians are huge drama queens who constantly feel like they are being persecuted. As is often said around here, "Why feed the trolls"?

And it's important to realize that everything they are spouting in Seattle is the exact same thing that they are spouting in countless storefront churches in the Rainier Valley, White Center, Skyway, and every other south suburb. I don't know how much of that is in North Seattle or Shoreline, but as you head up towards Everett and points north, it picks up there as well.

Wild to single out other religions for being violent when you live in a country where christians routinely bomb abortion and ivf clinics in the name of jesus.

Trump has utterly undone Reagan's work. Rather than tear down a wall, he has erected its anthithesis.

You might have updated the "I'm covered in bees!" item. There were about 14 million bees, not 250 millions. Thanks to the couple of dozen beekeepers who turned up to help, most of the bees returned to their hives, and Whatcom County closed the book on the incident over the weekend.

@37, @38 Was this not my entire point? Who is objecting to a fight if it's just meant in the sense of "spirited disagreement"? Obviously, only the punching type is a violent crime.

@32 very first sentence of the decision: "True threats of violence are outside the bounds of First
Amendment protection and punishable as crimes."

@30 whether anyone actually fought is not the test for whether speech constituted "fighting words"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v.NewHampshire

If Chaplinsky could be constitutionally convicted just for calling a cop a "damned racketeer and fascist" I wouldn't be so confident nothing the Mayday loons said qualified

@18: "Fail harder"? Why the snippiness? Could it be that you're still smarting from chastisements past? Another commenter provided the documentation that proved my point, and yet you're railing at me about the fact that TS SLOG didn't mention a cross-burning in Cal Anderson Park. Of course, such delirium on your part is not new.

As I recall, you once tried to cite a right-wing op-ed in order to prove the outrageously racist assertion that BLM support was responsible for social service agency extinctions. You failed extremely hard that day, my memory tells me. Shame on you!

@44, SCOTUS made that acknowledgement, while changing the legal standard for proving true threats, to make it nearly impossible for the the prosecution not to not get kicked out of court when alleging "true threat."

It makes successful prosecution for mere words, without some act to further the words, a unicorn prosecution.

Exceedingly rare.

Rather than being an "objectively reasonable standard" for true threat - Would a reasonable person perceive the words as a true threat? - the standard became a "state of mind" issue.

What evidence is there that that the allegedly threatening person actually believed that it was likely the person would perceive what was being said as true threat? The prosecutor would need something like an e-mail written by the accused that said, "I know that that my ex-girlfriend, (boss, neighbor, drinking buddy, _, etc.) is likely to see my on-line posts as a true threat, and I am going to keep cyber-stalking anyway and saying things like 'she deserves to be dead," for what she did to me."

The prosecution could no longer ask a grand jury, "Would a reasonable person find these words an actual threat?" Instead they would have to ask a grand jury, and prove beyond a reasonable doubt, with evidence of the accused state of mind, to a unanimous jury, that the accused, "Believed is likely that their words would be taken as a true threat, not just bluster, and said or wrote them anyway." They would have to prove what was in the accused head, with some writing or statement by the accused as to how the accused thought their words would be perceived, that is admissible in court. A unicorn indeed.

As the critics of the decision, largely advocates of abused and stalked women, put it, the more over the top and disturbing the words, the easier it becomes for the accused attorney to say, "My client was so over the top in the words and cyber-bullying/stalking activity, that he didn't believe anyone could take him seriously. What evidence is there that will show beyond a reasonable doubt that my client thought differently."

The prosecution has to prove the guilt, the accused is presumed, and does not need to prove, innocence. The prosecution can't rely on how a reasonable person would perceive the words, but needs to provide some way to read the accused mind about how they believed their words would be perceived.

@44, See also Watts v. United States which is more recent precedent than your 1942 Chaplinsky Case.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/705/

@46: "Another commenter provided the documentation that proved my point,"

How so? I've seen no evidence to support your claim @8, "...figurative actions have the capacity to inflict harm in the same way that actual physical violence does." No one has cited "the clinical literature" (@12) to support this, nor shown that the MayDayUSA bigots provided "potently symbolic displays of real violence." Commenter thirteen12 cited some court cases about threats not being protected speech, but that point was never contested here.

"As I recall, you once tried to cite a right-wing op-ed in order to prove the outrageously racist assertion that BLM support was responsible for social service agency extinctions."

Well, I don't recall that at all, so you might want to provide a quote of me doing it, and a URL to that quote. Did I perchance resort to name-calling?

@2: "...and the centrist-to-right-wing dolts who comprise the majority of the commenters these days,"

Why, it's almost as if readers no longer want to defend the material presented in the headline posts. Quelle surprise!

Thank you, activist Greta Thunberg and others, for courageously going to Gaza to aid the starving, suffering Palestinians. The world is such sad shape right now, further exacerbated by the batshit insanity of the Mu$k and his Mein Trumpf KKKrime syndicate, Vladimir Putin, and Benjamin Netanyahu, ad nauseum.

@39 Catalina Vel-DuRay: +1 Amen. Unfortunately, the world has far too many religious nuts whose idea of "saving" amounts to violent invasion and terrorism. This is largely why I'm an atheist; I have yet to find a religious faith anywhere in which women and girls are respected and honored as equals to men and boys, and not debased as voiceless baby machines forced to give birth like farm animals.

@42 Toe Tag: Thank you for the update on the escaped bees in Whatcom County.
That was a pretty intense semi wreck on Weidkemp Road near Lynden! I'm glad the majority of pollinators on the loose returned to their hives, thanks to many beekeepers stepping in.

Auntie dear, religion is like the health insurance industry: an unnecessary middleman between a person and their god that is just there to extract cash and try to control its adherents.

I won't call myself an atheist because no one knows what happens when we die (aside from the physical deterioration that we the living observe among the dead). I personally think that if there is a "god" it reveals itself to us through science and that "god" is contemptuous of those who refuse to use the brain they were given - and that is often the intent of religion.

Or it could be that we just die, and that's it. But the possibilities really are endless. That's why I call myself a surprisemeist. And if the surprise is that I died with my body, then I'm dead, and I'm not around to worry about it. But I'm pretty sure what happens when we die doesn't involve either lakes of fire or spending an eternity in what always sounds like a timeshare to me.

@47 you are greatly overestimating the difficulty of proving recklessness, which is an element of many crimes. But if you're pretty sure you're right why don't you make an absurdly over the top threat against President Trump using your real name and prove it?

@52: Jejune taunting aside, you're still nowhere near showing how anything the MayDayUSA bigots did could have threatened anyone. Even their talk of fighting didn't mean assault; if you'd read the Stranger's other headline posts on this topic, you'd know they actually believe they fight against literal demons, not humans.

As for the persons who did get arrested, Seattle needs to stop playing catch-and-release with these sad, violent losers. Over the next few violent demonstrations, put a few of them away for real time, and after a few rounds of that, demonstrations in Seattle should become a lot more peaceful. As @36 noted, most of the arrestees from last weekend did not even reside in Seattle, and Seattle has no obligation to continue hosting their violent, destructive antics.

@53 "you're still nowhere near showing how anything the MayDayUSA bigots did could have threatened anyone"

I wasn't there I don't know what they said, I'm just pointing out that speech can be criminalized consistent with the First Amendment, which you and others seemed not to recognize. Unless you were there yourself you also have no idea whether what they said was or wasn't threatening, or fighting words, or otherwise prohibited, but that hasn't stopped you from inexplicably defending them to all lengths. Apparently you identify more with people who believe "the LGBTQ lifestyle" to be demonic than people who find that offensive.

"... I'm just pointing out that speech can be criminalized consistent with the First Amendment, which you and others seemed not to recognize."

Well, the Stranger obviously opposed the MayDayUSA rally at Cal Anderson Park, yet none of the Stranger's reports of that rally have mentioned any speech of any kind which could be criminalized for any reason whatsoever, so I did not understand why you were introducing the topic. After you immediately jumped all the way to cross-burning (!) to make your example (@15), I immediately noted (@18) the First Amendment does not protect most threats. Again, I don't know why you stridently contested a point which no one had made.

@55 you came rushing in here to defend the weirdo bigots by disputing that figurative actions can cause harm, and for whatever reason even now you can't just let the debate go by admitting yes some speech is criminal and it's possible the weirdo bigots crossed that line. Why is it so important to you to defend these weirdo bigots' weird bigotry?

@56: "...disputing that figurative actions can cause harm,"

And yet, no one has yet shown any evidence that figurative actions can cause harm.

"...and for whatever reason even now you can't just let the debate go by admitting yes some speech is criminal..."

Again, I noted @18 that the First Amendment does not protect most threats. And again, there's no evidence the MayDayUSA bigots engaged in any criminal activity of any kind, so why do you keep hammering upon this irrelevant point? If they had engaged in criminal activity (including speech), and the city had let them get away with it, then yes, this dialog should address that point. But, once more, there's simply no evidence for any of that.

It's beginning to look like you just want to "own the libs," and are now getting pissy that you haven't.

@57 "And yet, no one has yet shown any evidence that figurative actions can cause harm"

You don't think burning a cross on a Black person's yard causes harm? Are you for real?

@58: Again with the cross-burning, the most hateful symbol in all of American history, in response to literally no criminal act by the MayDayUSA bigots. The cross-burning is illegal because it's a well-known threat of bodily harm, one which has been realized countless times in American history. And -- please make note of this, as I'm really getting tired of repeating it -- the First Amendment does not protect all threats.

Not all threats are "figurative actions," and not all figurative actions are threats. You chose a well-known act which is both, and tried to generalize it. Fail.

And again -- these bigots hold one of their wacko church services in Cal Anderson Park, and you jump all of the way to cross-burning? You're not exactly making a case for being a careful or rational thinker.

@59 you wrote:

"And yet, no one has yet shown any evidence that figurative actions can cause harm."

Emphasis on "any" and "can"

@60: Whatevs, dude. Provide evidence, or admit you just don't believe persons who dare disagree with you should even have rights.

@61 there you go not understanding the First Amendment again

@62: The crazy religious bigots came to Cal Anderson Park, held their cult ceremony there, and departed, thus ticking three of the Four Freedoms in one go. Nothing you've here written changes any of that. Please have a nice day.

@63 is the reason you admire these bigots so much because they're elite at your favorite pastime: trolling Seattleites?

@64: I’ve used the words, “bigots,” “wacko,” and, “cult,” to describe them and their actions, and you’ve concluded I “admire,” them? Yeah, that shows your abilities with the words and the judgment pretty well.

Look, persons can make statements without my approval, and in the vast majority of cases, there’s no legal action anyone can take. Tolerating even intentional, blatant, hideously offensive statements and actions (e.g. in Seattle, stumping for Trump; refusing to admit someone stumped for Trump, continuing to praise someone even after stumping for Trump) is just part of the price I pay for living in a free, open, and diverse society. Do I wish other persons had even the infinitesimal amount of good judgement not to perform such horrid acts? Yes, yes I do. But you should know by now that I would never, ever ‘admire’ anyone who degrades themselves in those manners.

@65 it's interesting to contrast your reactions to Sawant's political speech, which you constantly bring up even when it's off topic to demand everyone denounce it, and to these bigots' hate speech which you defend to the death and even deny its ability to cause harm. It's clear that Sawant advocating people vote for Stein over Harris is more offensive to you than the bigots denying trans people's humanity, which is quite frankly disturbing.

@66: “… to these bigots' hate speech which you defend to the death and even deny its ability to cause harm.”

I “defend to the death their right to say it,” just as I defend to the death Sawant’s right to stump for Trump. And I never denied the bigot’s “ability to cause harm,” just noted no one here has ever provided any evidence of any kind whatsoever that the bigots did, indeed, cause harm. (You’ve had multiple chances, yet you’ve failed each and every time, so I don’t see why you keep bringing this up.)

“… Sawant advocating people vote for Stein over Harris is more offensive to you than the bigots denying trans people's humanity,”

Sawant did what she could to get Trump elected, and Trump harms our country every day. The bigots hurt no one, as your total lack of evidence shows. So I remind everyone here why Trump has the power to hurt our country every day, and see no point in giving those departed bigots more of the attention they craved.

(Also, “Sawant advocating people vote for Stein over Harris,” wow, you’re more loyal to Sawant than Sawant is! Even she admitted openly her purpose was to “punish” and “defeat” Harris, as electing Stein was not possible. Noble purposes she had there…)

@67 "The bigots hurt no one, as your total lack of evidence shows"

First, you've never let the lack of any evidence whatsoever to indicate Sawant actually helped Trump win stop you from demonizing her. Second, is this you admitting that causing a street to be blocked because of your demonstration doesn't hurt anyone?

@68: "First, you've never let the lack of any evidence whatsoever to indicate Sawant actually helped Trump win..."

Ha, ha, ha. Logic too difficult for you? If Stein couldn't win (as Sawant acknowledged), and Harris was defeated, then who would become president? Sawant went all the way to Michigan to "defeat" Harris (and to "punish" her, because that's what healthy adults go far out of their way to do in your world, apparently). If you want to claim going literally that far for absolutely nothing was great judgment on her part, I'll accept that implied admission as to the quality of your judgment (and of hers). It still won't absolve her of having stumped for Trump.

"Second, is this you admitting that causing a street to be blocked because of your demonstration doesn't hurt anyone?"

They had permits in advance. If the SPD arresting the rowdies spilled out into the street, then that's the rowdies' fault. (Also, since you're trying to be clever, but we all know where you're going with this, we may as well note in advance how "street" and "freeway" are NOT the same thing.)

@69 "If you want to claim going literally that far for absolutely nothing was great judgment on her part, I'll accept that implied admission as to the quality of your judgment (and of hers). It still won't absolve her of having stumped for Trump"

Here you explicitly admit what I wrote, which is that you demonize Sawant for her political speech regardless of whether it caused any harm. Your holding her to a much higher standard than you do the bigots can only be explained by concluding that, unlike Sawant, you don't find the bigots and their opinions objectionable.

@70: "Here you explicitly admit what I wrote, which is that you demonize Sawant for her political speech regardless of whether it caused any harm."

Either she succeeded, or she did not. Either way, she tried to get Trump elected. Persons who tried to get Trump elected are called "Trump supporters," so that's what she was. (And is.) Such persons tend not to be very popular in Seattle; I don't know why you and the Stranger keep making an exception here.

Sawant and the bigots each engaged in objectionable speech. You have not been able to show even a single potential consequence of the bigots' speech which actually harmed anyone. They have departed Seattle. If Sawant had any effect at all, it was to get Trump elected -- and thus harm our country, day in and day out, possibly for many decades. So, her speech was either at least as harmful, or more harmful, than theirs. Hence my harsher criticism of her speech (and, also, as already mentioned, the bigots want liberals to criticize them, so why should I further gratify their desire?).

@71 "the bigots want liberals to criticize them, so why should I further gratify their desire?"

They're not checking this comment section to see what you say about them. You're embarrassing yourself with these post hoc justification attempts.

@72: Ok, I don't exactly know how I'm "embarrassing" myself in the basement of a comment thread which lacks readers, but I'll accept that use of the word fits perfectly with your understanding of it.

I've already called them "bigots," "whacko," and members of a "cult," but if that's not sufficient criticism, of them for your liking, then I'm game. I'll call them one of the worst things imaginable in Seattle: Trump supporters!

There, are you happy now?