|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 11 2025 22:38 KwarK wrote:
Oblade’s continued defence of Trump’s “if Hillary wins the election then just shoot her” is very much the problem here. Back when Trump said it and everyone including me condemned it the issue with it wasn’t that he was proposing shooting someone on my team, it was that he was introducing shooting the other team to the mainstream. The issue with it was that people were going to get shot.
Now here we are and Trump won the battle for different visions of America and Oblade still simply doesn’t get it. He’s very upset that someone on his team got shot but he doesn’t see any connection between that and the normalization of shooting the other team. He’ll still happily defend the shooting part, it’s the his team part he doesn’t like.
The Trumpers, which includes him, created this society under the rather childish delusion that they were going to shoot everyone else, and nobody was going to shoot them.
I continue to have a problem with Trump’s proposal that we simply shoot the other side if they win the election. I continue to think it’ll lead to lots of people getting shot. Whereas he continues to defend that quote while failing to understand that he’s getting exactly what he wanted.
He didn't say “if Hillary wins the election then just shoot her.” You can interpret the words the way you want, but then in English style we don't use quotation marks anymore.
Nobody shot Hillary. And nobody tried to shoot her.
You are saying that Trump normalized people to radical violence, but also disciplined them enough to know only to shoot Hillary Clinton if she won.
I don't have a team. You are constantly forgetting that you are the Republican.
If the Hillary Clinton thing is too hard because it's a counterfactual, I mean, I'm sorry, but that's all we can do because we don't have access to alternate universes. Your thesis is Trump trained his wild goons to shoot Clinton, but only if he lost. And as we all know, there's no instance where Trump ever lost an election. He's been victorious in every single - oh wait, nobody shot or ever tried to shoot Biden either. Whoops.
The reason I don't care about what you do is I am never going to be able to stop someone being shot in an alternate future that happened in the past starting like 8-9 years ago because I don't have access to parallel universes, time machines, or alternate dimensions. Even if Charlie Kirk had never been shot, I would never have again been susceptible to being made to care that once upon a time Blumpf said "maybe the 2nd amendment people" could "do something" one time 10 years ago (not "if Hillary wins the election then just shoot her") - the only exception being if a 2nd amendment person did shoot her, in which case I might reconsider. Because it's simply over. Like move on levels. However, Charlie Kirk having been shot, the other reason I care less about it than what you care about, is that I care more about people getting shot now than not being shot in the past (because the past where there was any chance of them being shot never happened).
|
United States43674 Posts
Ah yes, Trump losing to Biden never resulted in any violence or attempt to change the result by force. You got me there.
|
On September 11 2025 22:50 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2025 22:38 KwarK wrote:
Oblade’s continued defence of Trump’s “if Hillary wins the election then just shoot her” is very much the problem here. Back when Trump said it and everyone including me condemned it the issue with it wasn’t that he was proposing shooting someone on my team, it was that he was introducing shooting the other team to the mainstream. The issue with it was that people were going to get shot.
Now here we are and Trump won the battle for different visions of America and Oblade still simply doesn’t get it. He’s very upset that someone on his team got shot but he doesn’t see any connection between that and the normalization of shooting the other team. He’ll still happily defend the shooting part, it’s the his team part he doesn’t like.
The Trumpers, which includes him, created this society under the rather childish delusion that they were going to shoot everyone else, and nobody was going to shoot them.
I continue to have a problem with Trump’s proposal that we simply shoot the other side if they win the election. I continue to think it’ll lead to lots of people getting shot. Whereas he continues to defend that quote while failing to understand that he’s getting exactly what he wanted. He's been victorious in every single - oh wait, nobody shot or ever tried to shoot Biden either. Whoops..
Utah man suspected of threatening President Joe Biden shot and killed as FBI served warrant
(North Carolina) Man with a van containing guns and explosives possibly planned Joe Biden assassination, court records say
found two seconds after googling "Biden assassination attempt". Difference is they didn't succeed because the FBI Director at the time wasn't a podcaster.
|
United States43674 Posts
Conservatives crying about not wanting to live in the world they created is fucking exhausting. Me neither buddy, me neither. Maybe the first step is admitting the part you played in making it. Maybe we could see how that might have been a mistake in retrospect. But no, that’s a step too far.
|
On September 11 2025 22:55 KwarK wrote:
Conservatives crying about not wanting to live in the world they created is fucking exhausting. Me neither buddy, me neither. Maybe the first step is admitting the part you played in making it. Maybe we could see how that might have been a mistake in retrospect. But no, that’s a step too far.
They do want to live in a world where their influencers get shot so their persecution complex can be real. They just wish it came with being on the moral highground so they could be sanctimonious about it, but they're getting visibly and audibly frustrated that nobody gives a shit about Kirk after he devoted his life to being the biggest cunt possible.
|
On September 11 2025 22:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2025 22:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 11 2025 21:58 oBlade wrote:On September 11 2025 21:30 Velr wrote:
It took out one of the loudest most important voices. This wasn't some random fringe right wing youtube dipshit with 5k subscribers. This was "Mr. Turning Point USA", one of the architects of the loss of civilized discourse in america.
If his death has any truely negative impact, then the US was allready too far gone before it happened in the first place. You keep repeating stuff like this. Have you ever explained why you think it, or sourced where you're copying it from? How about this: What are the 5 most christofascist things, or things architecting the loss of civilized discourse in America, that Charlie Kirk did? You've already referred to Charlie Kirk as some "random moderate" (which is probably why you don't think you're conservative either), and it's clear that you just don't know anything about him. And that's fine - not everyone needs to know everything about Charlie Kirk - but at least take the time to Google or Wiki him if you're really that clueless about someone that you're trying to argue about. Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Kirk Feel free to look through his lies, conspiracy theories, racism, misogyny, Christian nationalism, anti-Muslim rhetoric, anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric, and everything else. I knew he was a compete twat, but geez that article is something else.
Yep, and definitely not merely a "random moderate media figure" like oBlade asserted.
|
I still don't understand framing this as a left-right politically motivated killing or killing a man for his opinions. That is sanewashing the narrative.
Maybe it's speculative, and maybe we'll never know.
But if you come out repeatedly and say you're fine with kids dying in the name of corporate many (the quotes have been posted many times already), you may get got. I still have money that the shooter is someone previously affected by a school shooting, not just an "angry leftist".
|
Northern Ireland26354 Posts
On September 11 2025 22:50 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2025 22:38 KwarK wrote:
Oblade’s continued defence of Trump’s “if Hillary wins the election then just shoot her” is very much the problem here. Back when Trump said it and everyone including me condemned it the issue with it wasn’t that he was proposing shooting someone on my team, it was that he was introducing shooting the other team to the mainstream. The issue with it was that people were going to get shot.
Now here we are and Trump won the battle for different visions of America and Oblade still simply doesn’t get it. He’s very upset that someone on his team got shot but he doesn’t see any connection between that and the normalization of shooting the other team. He’ll still happily defend the shooting part, it’s the his team part he doesn’t like.
The Trumpers, which includes him, created this society under the rather childish delusion that they were going to shoot everyone else, and nobody was going to shoot them.
I continue to have a problem with Trump’s proposal that we simply shoot the other side if they win the election. I continue to think it’ll lead to lots of people getting shot. Whereas he continues to defend that quote while failing to understand that he’s getting exactly what he wanted. He didn't say “if Hillary wins the election then just shoot her.” You can interpret the words the way you want, but then in English style we don't use quotation marks anymore. Nobody shot Hillary. And nobody tried to shoot her. You are saying that Trump normalized people to radical violence, but also disciplined them enough to know only to shoot Hillary Clinton if she won.I don't have a team. You are constantly forgetting that you are the Republican. If the Hillary Clinton thing is too hard because it's a counterfactual, I mean, I'm sorry, but that's all we can do because we don't have access to alternate universes. Your thesis is Trump trained his wild goons to shoot Clinton, but only if he lost. And as we all know, there's no instance where Trump ever lost an election. He's been victorious in every single - oh wait, nobody shot or ever tried to shoot Biden either. Whoops. The reason I don't care about what you do is I am never going to be able to stop someone being shot in an alternate future that happened in the past starting like 8-9 years ago because I don't have access to parallel universes, time machines, or alternate dimensions. Even if Charlie Kirk had never been shot, I would never have again been susceptible to being made to care that once upon a time Blumpf said "maybe the 2nd amendment people" could "do something" one time 10 years ago (not "if Hillary wins the election then just shoot her") - the only exception being if a 2nd amendment person did shoot her, in which case I might reconsider. Because it's simply over. Like move on levels. However, Charlie Kirk having been shot, the other reason I care less about it than what you care about, is that I care more about people getting shot now than not being shot in the past (because the past where there was any chance of them being shot never happened).
You can’t seriously believe this.
|
On September 11 2025 22:53 KwarK wrote:
Ah yes, Trump losing to Biden never resulted in any violence or attempt to change the result by force. You got me there.
Step 1) Shoot Ashli Babbitt
Step 2) "Go home peacefully and patriotically"
Step 3) Throw trespassers in solitary confinement
This is not enough. It was also necessary to shoot Charlie Kirk to balance the karmic scales of justice. He helped Blumpf get elected when SCOTUS wouldn't take him off the ballot.
On September 11 2025 22:54 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2025 22:50 oBlade wrote:On September 11 2025 22:38 KwarK wrote:
Oblade’s continued defence of Trump’s “if Hillary wins the election then just shoot her” is very much the problem here. Back when Trump said it and everyone including me condemned it the issue with it wasn’t that he was proposing shooting someone on my team, it was that he was introducing shooting the other team to the mainstream. The issue with it was that people were going to get shot.
Now here we are and Trump won the battle for different visions of America and Oblade still simply doesn’t get it. He’s very upset that someone on his team got shot but he doesn’t see any connection between that and the normalization of shooting the other team. He’ll still happily defend the shooting part, it’s the his team part he doesn’t like.
The Trumpers, which includes him, created this society under the rather childish delusion that they were going to shoot everyone else, and nobody was going to shoot them.
I continue to have a problem with Trump’s proposal that we simply shoot the other side if they win the election. I continue to think it’ll lead to lots of people getting shot. Whereas he continues to defend that quote while failing to understand that he’s getting exactly what he wanted. He's been victorious in every single - oh wait, nobody shot or ever tried to shoot Biden either. Whoops.. Utah man suspected of threatening President Joe Biden shot and killed as FBI served warrant(North Carolina) Man with a van containing guns and explosives possibly planned Joe Biden assassination, court records say found two seconds after googling "Biden assassination attempt". Difference is they didn't succeed because the FBI Director at the time wasn't a podcaster.
The first one most people already are familiar with, an old man shitposted online about killing someone in the federal government, so the FBI woke him up one morning and shot him. Otherwise good Google flex.
If the second is to be taken as a strong candidate for being a proximate cause of someone shooting Charlie Kirk, I would say Trump should put the National Guard on every street corner in the country.
Although I assume the sniping of the public political/media personality was politically motivated, the truth is without the suspect we don't know whether there were any clues for the FBI to "miss" or not.
However, on the 24th anniversary of 9/11, remember whether the federal government makes a mistake or not, the safest thing is a society that doesn't permit people to kill random moderate innocents because they disagree with the thoughts or speech or actions of someone else entirely, who society also must not permit them to kill.
|
United States43674 Posts
On September 11 2025 23:04 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2025 22:50 oBlade wrote:On September 11 2025 22:38 KwarK wrote:
Oblade’s continued defence of Trump’s “if Hillary wins the election then just shoot her” is very much the problem here. Back when Trump said it and everyone including me condemned it the issue with it wasn’t that he was proposing shooting someone on my team, it was that he was introducing shooting the other team to the mainstream. The issue with it was that people were going to get shot.
Now here we are and Trump won the battle for different visions of America and Oblade still simply doesn’t get it. He’s very upset that someone on his team got shot but he doesn’t see any connection between that and the normalization of shooting the other team. He’ll still happily defend the shooting part, it’s the his team part he doesn’t like.
The Trumpers, which includes him, created this society under the rather childish delusion that they were going to shoot everyone else, and nobody was going to shoot them.
I continue to have a problem with Trump’s proposal that we simply shoot the other side if they win the election. I continue to think it’ll lead to lots of people getting shot. Whereas he continues to defend that quote while failing to understand that he’s getting exactly what he wanted. He didn't say “if Hillary wins the election then just shoot her.” You can interpret the words the way you want, but then in English style we don't use quotation marks anymore. Nobody shot Hillary. And nobody tried to shoot her. You are saying that Trump normalized people to radical violence, but also disciplined them enough to know only to shoot Hillary Clinton if she won.I don't have a team. You are constantly forgetting that you are the Republican. If the Hillary Clinton thing is too hard because it's a counterfactual, I mean, I'm sorry, but that's all we can do because we don't have access to alternate universes. Your thesis is Trump trained his wild goons to shoot Clinton, but only if he lost. And as we all know, there's no instance where Trump ever lost an election. He's been victorious in every single - oh wait, nobody shot or ever tried to shoot Biden either. Whoops. The reason I don't care about what you do is I am never going to be able to stop someone being shot in an alternate future that happened in the past starting like 8-9 years ago because I don't have access to parallel universes, time machines, or alternate dimensions. Even if Charlie Kirk had never been shot, I would never have again been susceptible to being made to care that once upon a time Blumpf said "maybe the 2nd amendment people" could "do something" one time 10 years ago (not "if Hillary wins the election then just shoot her") - the only exception being if a 2nd amendment person did shoot her, in which case I might reconsider. Because it's simply over. Like move on levels. However, Charlie Kirk having been shot, the other reason I care less about it than what you care about, is that I care more about people getting shot now than not being shot in the past (because the past where there was any chance of them being shot never happened). You can’t seriously believe this.
He's a conservative, there is absolutely no requirement for him to only assert the things he believes.
|
United States43674 Posts
On September 11 2025 23:09 oBlade wrote:
However, on the 24th anniversary of 9/11, remember whether the federal government makes a mistake or not, the safest thing is a society that doesn't permit people to kill random moderate innocents because they disagree with the thoughts or speech or actions of someone else entirely, who society also must not permit them to kill.
Yeah, so why are you still so passionately defending opening the door and letting the fucking wolf in.
We told you this is what would happen. When the guy proposed letting the wolf in then we were shouting at the top of our voices that this was a huge fucking deal and that we should very much not let the wolf in. We told you that a wolf was a bad fucking idea because it's a fucking wolf.
Now we're all having to live with the fucking wolf and you're here crying about how you don't like the wolf while insisting that there was no problem with the policy of letting the wolf in. Again, he promised you would win so hard you would get tired of winning. That's what you're experiencing today.
|
On September 11 2025 22:58 Gescom wrote:
But if you come out repeatedly and say you're fine with kids dying in the name of corporate many (the quotes have been posted many times already), you may get got. I still have money that the shooter is someone previously affected by a school shooting, not just an "angry leftist".
This is actually something that I have found odd over the years about mass shootings and the discourse about them and gun control. It seems just such a perfect environment for driving some traumatised parent or friend to take direct action against people who spew bullsiht about the shootings. However, it has not yet happened, or at least it has been on a much smaller scale to go under the radar. Perhaps that is just one area that is closely monitored and help is provided at the proper scale.
|
On September 11 2025 23:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2025 23:09 oBlade wrote:
However, on the 24th anniversary of 9/11, remember whether the federal government makes a mistake or not, the safest thing is a society that doesn't permit people to kill random moderate innocents because they disagree with the thoughts or speech or actions of someone else entirely, who society also must not permit them to kill. Yeah, so why are you still so passionately defending opening the door and letting the fucking wolf in. We told you this is what would happen. When the guy proposed letting the wolf in then we were shouting at the top of our voices that this was a huge fucking deal and that we should very much not let the wolf in. We told you that a wolf was a bad fucking idea because it's a fucking wolf. Now we're all having to live with the fucking wolf and you're here crying about how you don't like the wolf while insisting that there was no problem with the policy of letting the wolf in. Again, he promised you would win so hard you would get tired of winning. That's what you're experiencing today.
What am I experiencing today?
Is that a threat?
|
On September 11 2025 23:09 oBlade wrote:
The first one most people already are familiar with, an old man shitposted online about killing someone in the federal government, so the FBI woke him up one morning and shot him. Otherwise good Google flex.
Ah, like what law enforcement did to Breonna Taylor?
Which Charlie Kirk went on a week-long bender to justify?
If the second is to be taken as a strong candidate for being a proximate cause of someone shooting Charlie Kirk, I would say Trump should put the National Guard on every street corner in the country.
"We need martial law to crack down on the violence we created", I wonder what political ideology in history has utilized that exact mindset to come to power?
|
United States43674 Posts
On September 11 2025 23:17 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2025 23:12 KwarK wrote:On September 11 2025 23:09 oBlade wrote:
However, on the 24th anniversary of 9/11, remember whether the federal government makes a mistake or not, the safest thing is a society that doesn't permit people to kill random moderate innocents because they disagree with the thoughts or speech or actions of someone else entirely, who society also must not permit them to kill. Yeah, so why are you still so passionately defending opening the door and letting the fucking wolf in. We told you this is what would happen. When the guy proposed letting the wolf in then we were shouting at the top of our voices that this was a huge fucking deal and that we should very much not let the wolf in. We told you that a wolf was a bad fucking idea because it's a fucking wolf. Now we're all having to live with the fucking wolf and you're here crying about how you don't like the wolf while insisting that there was no problem with the policy of letting the wolf in. Again, he promised you would win so hard you would get tired of winning. That's what you're experiencing today. What am I experiencing today? Is that a threat?
Today you're not liking the political environment in America. The one we all saw coming while you continue to defend the construction of it.
It's not a threat. Although I guess in the broader sense we should all feel threatened by where we are and where we're going. This is not a safe ride that we're all on.
|
On September 11 2025 23:17 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2025 23:12 KwarK wrote:On September 11 2025 23:09 oBlade wrote:
However, on the 24th anniversary of 9/11, remember whether the federal government makes a mistake or not, the safest thing is a society that doesn't permit people to kill random moderate innocents because they disagree with the thoughts or speech or actions of someone else entirely, who society also must not permit them to kill. Yeah, so why are you still so passionately defending opening the door and letting the fucking wolf in. We told you this is what would happen. When the guy proposed letting the wolf in then we were shouting at the top of our voices that this was a huge fucking deal and that we should very much not let the wolf in. We told you that a wolf was a bad fucking idea because it's a fucking wolf. Now we're all having to live with the fucking wolf and you're here crying about how you don't like the wolf while insisting that there was no problem with the policy of letting the wolf in. Again, he promised you would win so hard you would get tired of winning. That's what you're experiencing today. What am I experiencing today? Is that a threat?
How is KwarK saying that you shouldn't complain about getting what you wanted "a threat"? Is it just, like, a random moderate threat?
|
On September 11 2025 23:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2025 23:17 oBlade wrote:On September 11 2025 23:12 KwarK wrote:On September 11 2025 23:09 oBlade wrote:
However, on the 24th anniversary of 9/11, remember whether the federal government makes a mistake or not, the safest thing is a society that doesn't permit people to kill random moderate innocents because they disagree with the thoughts or speech or actions of someone else entirely, who society also must not permit them to kill. Yeah, so why are you still so passionately defending opening the door and letting the fucking wolf in. We told you this is what would happen. When the guy proposed letting the wolf in then we were shouting at the top of our voices that this was a huge fucking deal and that we should very much not let the wolf in. We told you that a wolf was a bad fucking idea because it's a fucking wolf. Now we're all having to live with the fucking wolf and you're here crying about how you don't like the wolf while insisting that there was no problem with the policy of letting the wolf in. Again, he promised you would win so hard you would get tired of winning. That's what you're experiencing today. What am I experiencing today? Is that a threat? Today you're not liking the political environment in America. The one we all saw coming while you continue to defend the construction of it. It's not a threat. Although I guess in the broader sense we should all feel threatened by where we are and where we're going. This is not a safe ride that we're all on.
I haven't liked the political environment in America for 15 years.
|
What type of environment would you prefer?
|
rage baiting and raging yourself with outlandish claims does not get you points here, nor should it anywhere else OBlade.
and not even in a funny or interesting way.
Kirk was the youthful face of the 24' Trump election victory, apparently instrumental in deals with influencers and TikTok ads were based on his input. his own operation(s) and efforts notwithstanding.
that alone makes him both hated and loved in a time this polarized, and a potential target as sad as that sounds. the problem is, it is also polarization he helped foster and create... he rose to the top very much like Trump on this wave.
that certain right wing influence and outrage peddlers are calling for civil war when we know NOTHING AT ALL about the shooter is absolutely crazy and deplorable. also not that they would even know what shame is, but shame and a pox on those R politicians fanning the flames instead of defusing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
