The home of South Carolina Circuit Court judge Diane Goodstein was set on fire after she had reportedly received death threats.
State law enforcement is investigating the house fire on Edisto Beach which began at around 11:30 a.m. E.T. on Saturday, sources told local news outlet FITSNews.
Goodstein was reportedly not at home at the time of the fire, but at least three members of her family, including her husband, former Democratic state senator Arnold Goodstein, and their son, have been hospitalized with serious injuries. According to the St. Paul’s Fire District, which responded to the scene, the occupants had to be rescued via kayak. Law enforcement have not disclosed whether the fire is being investigated as an arson attack.
well what do you know??? the violence is STILL maga, just like it always has been!
B-b-but the radical leftists!
Historians will say this was part of the civil war
It was declared an accident. I still haven’t heard a cause of said accident. But that’s a helluva blaze to be accidental considering two people were home at the time.
Edit: Article says there was an explosion. Doesn’t say what flavor of explosion.
The words “I’m a Black trans communist immigrant that is woke” were found engraved on the lighters.
Too grammatically correct
No no, they were engraved in the matches before they were burned to ash.
But it’s the left that does political violence. 🙃
Still waiting for the radical leftists!
“set”? But " Law enforcement have not disclosed whether the fire is being investigated as an arson attack."
Republicans own this
no this is obviously the radical left
Nothing to see here, just normal MAGA head behavior.
…had to be rescued via kayak.
What?! Can someone explain to me (a verified idiot) how a person is rescued from a house fire by kayak?
Looks like the house was right on the water. It’s possible their only escape from the house was onto the beach or into the water.
Yeah I actually saw video footage on the news last night and I think you’re right.
Easy, just have to throw it hard enough.
Trump’s Willing Executioners
We all know who was responsible. This was a blatant attack by maga, plain and simple. There will be no real investigation from the government or police, and they want us to know that.
If you’re looking for something to do to feel less powerless, gear up to stay safe. Get cameras, fire extinguishers, defense materials, anything helps. The more of us that are prepared the safer we all are.
The word “could” is doing heavily lifting there.
Remember at this moment we have no idea why this home caught fire. We might later but at this point this is all clickbait.
What’s funny about that is if a judge’s house caught fire during the Biden administration, this kind of speculation wouldn’t even happen because Biden didn’t run a mafia State like the Trump regime.
Whether it’s true or not at this point is irrelevant. The point is that under a mafia State, it’s more likely and believable, tells you everything you need to know about living in Trump’s Amerika.
Biden didn’t run a mafia State
You’re right, but I couldn’t tell you how many times I heard “Biden crime family” in the past 5 years. They’re deluded into thinking that Biden did run a Mafia state, so even if they understood what trump is doing as Mafia shit, they’d excuse it as “just doing what the other side does”.
Except it isn’t more likely. Arson is not the most common cause of house fires. It is entirely possible this was an accident.
It’s also possible you did it. Neither is particularly likely, but it being a random accident is about as likely as you actually being the person who did it. So I suppose the cops should raid your house just to check. After all, we can’t be sure. Better send the SWAT team to your home just in case.
No need to be threatening swatting people please
Neither is particularly likely, but it being a random accident is about as likely as you actually being the person who did it.
No? This is an insane argument.
I found a random statistic online that a home has a 1 in 413 chance of a fire in a given year, lets round up to 1 in 1000. It may be not exactly right, but within an order of magnitude. Trump criticized this judge, any time within about a month would get people saying this- so lets say the stats are there is a 1 in 12,000 chance of any particular person’s house burning down within a month of when Trump criticizes them. But Trump doesn’t criticize just 1 person a year, lets lowball estimate he criticizes 100 people a year. So that’s a 100 in 12,000 or 1 in 120 chance that in any particular year someone Trump criticizes house will burn down within a “suspicious” amount of time. That is nowhere near impossibly low, and now if you add in all the other unlikely but bad things that could happen to them- it happening sometimes is increasingly likely.
Now compare that with the one person writing this comment of the lowball estimate of 100 million people in America who could commit arson(again assuming it was arson).
We currently have no evidence at all forany conclusion so any version of “x or y is more likely” isn’t coming from an informed place.
IRL the most common cause if home fires is not arson. Until we have evidence that it is arson we should not presume it to be. This is how logical thinking works.
You’re being purposefully dense. There’s having an open mind, and then there’s having a mind so open your brain falls out. I don’t assume you’re a complete idiot, which is why malice on your part is most likely.
And we do have evidence. The three components of a crime are means, motive, and opportunity. And we have abundant evidence for motive. If you tried your argument in court, you would be laughed out of a courtroom.
No, I am not being dense. We have zero evidence backing any theory right now so presuming violence rather than the much more common cause of fires is a stretch. It could be arson but right now you have nothing that suggests this other than vibes.
Removed by mod
Wake the fuck up!
House of a judge who is receiving death threats from MAGA mysteriously burns down.
House of a judge who is receiving death threats from MAGA is set on fire by crazed MAGA lunatic.
Its fucking obvious what has happened here
No, it isn’t. The cause could be faulty wiring and it could be a coincidence.
There’s zero reason to conclude anything when we have no evidence to support anything.
Pity we don’t get this level of skepticism and calls to wait for a full explanation from MAGA
We aren’t getting it here. The fact is many people have poor critical thinking skills.
Get a job
Maybe you’re the actual arsonist and are trying to cover it up. That would be as likely as this being a random coincidental accident.
Right now you have no evidence as none has been offered. Keep that in mind please.
Your bad faith is obvious.
Im making a bad faith argument by reminding you that zero evidence has been offered up by authorities? That’s an interesting take.
No its not? Fires happen all the time, Trump criticizes a lot of people. When you have a lot of opportunities for a relatively unlikely event it increases a lot in probability. Nobody is saying it wasn’t arson, just saying we don’t know.
Found Stephen Miller’s account.
Im guessing you don’t work in programming, law or science. Would that be a correct presumption?
That far right extremists keep perpetuating violence based on far right propaganda and that assuming this is one of those is along the same lines as assuming Kirk was intentionally shot and it wasn’t just a random stray bullet.
Sure, we should stay open to the possibility that it is unrelated. But automatically dismissing what is likely to be intentional is ridiculous. She had been receiving death threats, and this would be one way to follow through.
I do work in web development and understand logic and assumptions. What are your credentials?
Saying you don’t know is not dismissing.
When it is used to deflect from context that suggests a cause it is dismissing.
That’s not what they did, they rejected people acting as if the cause is certain
Removed by mod
What is your job again?
Unless he actually answers, it’s probably safe to assume Sr. Keyboard Warrior.
You had a point in your original comment, but you definitely lost me now.
They were displaying poor logical skills so I presumed they did not work in a field that required strong logical skills.
arson is not the most frequent cause of house fires so presuming arson as the most likely cause in this case is foolish. It could be a coincidence. We have no idea why this happened and deciding it is political is not logical.
Other than trying to fan the flames of discontent, and thus being part of the problem, what is the point of deciding this was political violence when you have no evidence at all to back any claim?
The intelligent position is to make no claims until you have evidence.
Do you know that arson is not the most common cause of house fires among people currently receiving death threats? Because I don’t. Like… it could be, but I wouldn’t presume.
I agree, but that also seems to be agreein with their claim
Ignore context harder daddy!
MAGA arson… Does that clear it up for you?
No?
deleted by creator
Damn leftists! /s
We’re already in the first throes of the Second American Civil War, we just haven’t started calling it that yet
Edit: throws to throes because I’m a dumb southern hillbilly
January 6th, 2021
Election Day, 1994, when Newt Gingrich and the Republicans took control of Congress with the Contract With America, and started the polarization that led to the Tea Party, and then to MAGA.
The tea party was my wakeup call, before that I was a Republican because I was Christian, my dad was Republican and I didn’t pay too much attention. The more attention I paid the further left I became. The tea party was so obviously dumb and racist it forced me to evaluate my political beliefs.
August 3rd, 1980 when Ronald Reagan announced his candidacy for President in Philadelphia MS, near the site of the 1964 murders of Civil Rights Movement activists James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner. The day psychopathic murderous racism was incorporated as a fundamental plank in the Republican platform.
*Throes
Thank you
If this is a civil war, then what are the two sides? Where are the front lines?
Texas is sending their troops (National Guard) to Oregon to fight people in Portland.
It’s very telling that the account you and I were arguing with hasn’t said shit in 5 days ain’t it.
The Oregon National Guard, State Police, and all county sheriff’s along the Oregon border should place roadblocks, and refuse entry to their state by any out-of-state armed military or law enforcement entity.
California should also close off their roadways to Oregon. Make them come in from Idaho or Nevada.
If you want in so bad, try to shoot your way in. See how well that works out for you.
The truth is the voters in states like Oregon don’t actually have command of their own police forces. The police don’t answer to elected politicians. They’re an independent occupying force that answers only to themselves. And they support the regime.
The governors can’t arrest sherrifs? Mayors cant fire chiefs of police? Officers don’t follow orders?
Voters vote for Sheriffs. They also vote for Mayors, who appoint police chiefs. The voters DEFINITELY have an influence in who operates their local law enforcement - IF they choose to exercise that influence.
In a past life, you were one of those folks living in first century AD Rome that thought the Senate still meant something, simply because they nominally still ran things.
Well I agree that is a bad move; it’s authoritarian, violent, expensive, unnecessary, and most likely unconstitutional.
But does sending National Guard troops to another state constitute a civil war?
They are military forces from one state being sent to another, and the target state did not ask for it.
Does the US deploying “peacekeeping” troops to an African nation constitute war? The people of Somalia who participated in the Battle of Mogadishu would probably think so.
So it was a civil war when National Guard troops were deployed in an attempt to quell the George Floyd uprising?
The governor of MN invited them there, so no.
“invited” is questionable, I know my governor was pressured and put under duress in order to accept Trump’s national guard deployment during George Floyd.
But what about a clearer example: President Eisenhower deployed National Guard troops to Arkansas to enforce the desegregation of schools. The national guard was explicitly not invited by the Governor of Arkansas. Was this a civil war?
Correction, trump is trying to take the Texas troops. Texas is not involved in this dispute.
“I fully authorized the President to call up 400 members of the Texas National Guard to ensure safety for federal officials”
That’s Texas Gov Abbott giving the rubber stamp to do it. The government of Texas is completely on board with this.
That’s not how civil wars work anymore, it’ll be akin to a Balkanization where there are multiple different factions, upstart states, militias and insurgencies. The second will be nothing like the first. The Syrian civil war is a decent smaller scale modern example
Edit: if you’d like a good idea of what it will look like I HIGHLY recommend the fist season of the excellent podcast It Could Happen Here by Robert Evans. It’s from 2019 but wildly prescient
I have listened to part of the It Could Happen Here vision for what could go down, but I’m on the fence. In the 2020 election and Jan 6th, I could see that version of things more: militias creating general lawlessness with a weak federal government that can’t maintain peace.
But since Trump arrived on the scene, people have been increasingly geographically sorting themselves by political affiliation. Additionally, we are seeing blue state coalitions form around vaccines and climate change. And now we are seeing folks band together at the state-level and pressure their state governments to take stands against the federal government. Additionally, we are seeing more punitive behavior between states (busing of migrants from Texas, financial punishment of blue states, trying to criminally charge ObGyns providing abortion services across state lines, red states offering Trump their national guard to punish blue states, redistricting based on the actions of another state).
Regardless of how people feel about the federal government, they seem to still see legitimacy in their local governments, and are increasingly using those local governments as vehicles for negotiation.
With all this there is no way we don’t divide in some form within a lifetime
My personal guess is the tipping point comes when the 2026 elections are either brazenly fraudulent or disregarded by the sitting majority leaders. If that doesn’t happen, then my next bet would be on the 2028 elections tearing us apart like those of 1860.
I will admit, my guesses have some big caveats around international relations. The Trump administration has shown disinclination to stand up to China or Russian, and have all but said they won’t defend Taiwan against China. Their calculus may change if they believe participating in a world war will help them cling to power I guess? Trump is kind of a Russian pawn though, and Russia would much prefer the US be torn apart in Civil War than jump in to defend Europe or democratic Asia.
Regardless of how people feel about the federal government, they seem to still see legitimacy in their local governments, and are increasingly using those local governments as vehicles for negotiation.
Yes this is a massive boon. Finally the first faltering of the trend started in the 40s towards massive federalization.
It’s a boon in that people still want law and order and have a means to pursue it.
But the collective action, unimpeded by conflict, of 150-300 million people is a huge factor in what has made the US so prosperous for 80 years. We are giving that up.
America was already largely prosperous, but it wasn’t the sole superpower. I am not sure if that was a worth it exchange(if it was an exchange)
You’re right, saying things like “front lines” is an oversimplification. I have listened to a lot of Robert Evans, and I agree that if a civil war happens it will Balkanize America.
With that being said, you agree none of this is happening yet? Surely we are backsliding into fascism and violence, but you would agree we are not in a civil war, because we do not yet have multiple different factions, upstart states, militias and insurgencies?
I think that if there are historians left to analyze this in 30 years they’ll probably drop the start line around the assassination of Charlie Kirk. There definitely are multiple different factions even within the conservative movement they haven’t completely turned on one another, the left is similarly at odds with itself.
When we see the White House calling on generals to be prepared to invade American cities with the military, judge’s houses are being burned down after giving verdicts disliked for political inconvenience, Chicago, Portland, LA, DC are all seeing extreme escalations in state sanctioned violence, states sending their national guard to other states to quell chaos that isn’t there, and mass shootings nearly everyday, sometimes several. To me that’s civil war that’s started heating up.
But if you’d rather call what were currently seeing and experiencing something like The Troubles in Ireland and wait until the conflict is even more overt feel free.
In the 60s we had everything you just said: extreme state sanctioned violence, mass shootings, national guard being sent in, judges houses being burned, many political assassinations…
And they all happened in much larger numbers. There were so many bombings and bomb threats, and tons of plane hijackings, and the overall crime rate was so much higher, and there was so much racial violence, and and…
So do you think the US went through a civil war in the 60s?
I agree that things are looking bad, and getting worse, and this may end up in some sort of a civil war. But it seems you and I have a much different definition of “civil war”.
I mean… The first American civil war didn’t work like that either. Officially succession happened over the course of a couple years, but we’re baking for much longer.
Just because red states have blue cities and blue states have rural red areas doesn’t mean we won’t divide down red state / blue state lines. States and their respective sides weren’t homogenous during the first civil war either. Texas took a vote on whether or not to secede, and something like 1/3 of the state voted to stay in the union. Maryland considered seceding, so the federal government immediately occupied it so that DC wasn’t cut off from the union.
We are already seeing balkanization with states forming coalitions on climate change action and vaccination guidance. What I’m still unclear of is whether blue states will secede or whether they will attempt to root out an illegitimate regime.
Maryland considered seceding, so the federal government immediately occupied it
It’s also worth noting that Maryland remained a slave state until the end of the war. The Emancipation Proclamation only covered states in rebellion.
Yeah, the 60s had more violence and tensions than now. A civil war requires actually distinct combatants engaged in combat. That doesn’t exist as of now.
People forget this. There were bombs. Political assassinations. Armed revolutionary groups with foreign support. The racial divide was HUGE. It needs to get way better, but aside from politics, people are more like each other than they were then. Then they ever have been anywhere and at any point in history. Hence the death throes of division being absolutely bombarded at us by the media. But we know better. It takes time, but we know better. It’s fucked now, but let’s keep that perspective. They tried to wash that period of unrest from the schools in the 90s.
Modern wars lack defined front lines – just look at Ukraine and the accompanying conflict between Europe and Moscow.
While historically there has been only peace and war, nowadays cold and hybrid wars are states between peace and (hot) war that are real.
The current state of the US is not the hybrid state of the Second US Civil War, btw, it’s the North American theater of the hybrid state of WWIII.
I hope WWIII will be resolved before it gets too hot.
The front lines of the Ukraine war are well defined. You can see them on a map.
Those are real 20th century metrics for a war.
I’ll edit to add this article about someone in the Whitehouse thinking we’re in a civil war
So what are the 21st century metrics for a war?
Well, anything digital comes to mind. Cutting undersea communication cables is another. But you can generally look in the direction of Russia for most of it. In the US they have corrupted an entire political party with out drawing any “front lines”
