|
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 12 2025 19:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I recently heard the following take on Charlie Kirk's assassination: "I don't support what happened to Charlie, but Charlie would have supported what happened to Charlie". I think that's a fair point.
I think thats blatantly dishonest take. Supporting 2nd amendment doesnt mean you supporting shooting people.
Here is his take on violence:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qlSIMoiuDjA
On September 12 2025 19:43 KT_Elwood wrote:
People losing their jobs for stating facts about Charlie Kirk.
I detested it when it was happening to the right wingers and detest it when it happens to left wingers. Way I see it when you go to work, you leave non work related opinions outside the building, and pick them up when leaving. In exchange whatever you post/say outside of work shouldnt matter (there are some obvious exceptions like teacher posting about r...g children, or policemen posting about shooting black people)
On September 12 2025 19:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Now that looks like the government is trying to infringe on someone's 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech, especially when "The State Department on Thursday indicated it would review the legal status of immigrants "praising, rationalizing, or making light" of conservative activist Charlie Kirk's fatal shooting."
On September 12 2025 20:01 Sadist wrote:
The republicans will just argue that those people arent citizens so the first amendment doesnt apply to them.
I think this is correct.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
|
Trump just announced on Fox News that someone has been taken into custody.
EDIT:
For the Charlie Kirk shooting. I should've specified.
|
What kept Candace Owens and her family safe is that the her emotional, hyperbolic critique of Israel appeared to be rage bait during a workplace dispute with Daily Wire ownership. Now that she no longer has that for cover let's see if Ms. Owens continues to criticize Israel or if she moves on to safer topics. Maybe she'll start her own cooking show? She could talk about abortion rights all day and all night. There are so many safe topics... she can just ask Megyn Kelly what to talk about.
there is no need to constant pessimism though guys... The Bills won a thriller last week!
|
On September 12 2025 21:15 MJG wrote:
Trump just announced on Fox News that someone has been taken into custody.
10 bucks says it's Kilmar Armando Ábrego García.
|
On September 12 2025 21:12 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 19:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I recently heard the following take on Charlie Kirk's assassination: "I don't support what happened to Charlie, but Charlie would have supported what happened to Charlie". I think that's a fair point. I think thats blatantly dishonest take. Supporting 2nd amendment doesnt mean you supporting shooting people.
Kirk said that annual gun deaths are worth the cost to keep the 2nd amendment: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-gun-deaths-quote/
And that's certainly a view that Kirk was allowed to have, but then his death - just like the other gun deaths that happen this year - are simply part of the price that Kirk found acceptable to pay, to ensure the 2nd amendment.
|
On September 12 2025 15:57 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 14:14 decafchicken wrote:On September 12 2025 13:14 Introvert wrote:On September 12 2025 12:44 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know what line Rayzda thinks hasn't been crossed but we already had Multiple democratic politicians shot in their homes earlier this year, and nary a peep about it from the president.
Conservatives have been taking Kirk getting killed far harder than democrats took the hortmans being gunned down in their home by a registered republican. We don't even know anything about the killer because the FBI was so incompetent that they posted their failings on social media right as it was happening. By this time the shooter in Minnesota was already in custody.
We're well on our way into the years of lead storyline and republicans seem genuinely eager for it to continue. I said my piece yesterday but just quickly everyone denounced what happened to the lawmakers in MN, regardless of the guy's motive (he claims other reasons but who knows). And Trump did put out a statement. I don't know what more you wanted in that case, but he did say something. The ratio of praise to condemnation isn't even close to comparable. edit: misremembered and didnt check closely, removed something His team put out a tweet then he insulted Walz instead of calling him vs instituting a nation wide mourning and flying his body home on fucking air force 2 lol If Trump lowered the flags, people would complain he didn't give them the medal of freedom. If he gave them the medal of freedom, people would complain why he didn't give them a gold funeral. If he gave them a gold funeral, they would complain he didn't start a task force. If he started a task force against right wing terrorism, they would complain he didn't magically vacuum all the guns in the country. The truth is Kirk is far more widely known than the victims in Minnesota. This does not make one murder better or worse than the other, and it has no implication that any of them were better or worse human beings. But it's connected to why it's more noteworthy. There was no nationwide campaign of dehumanization targeting the victims leading up to the assassination, they weren't known at all. Nobody was calling or rooting for them to be killed, encouraging the Michael Myers mask guy who acted alone, nobody was going on TV and filling social media with bullshit riling up the uninformed against them. Nor did anyone support or celebrate their deaths (except the most antisocial few among our societies which criminal justice reform advocates refuse to simply imprison). Everyone was on the same page. Don't kill politicians. In Kirk's case, all of those things have happened. Whoever shot Kirk did it to silence him. That has to be specifically, immediately, and ruthlessly opposed by the keepers of civilization. Too many people straddle a line, like Walz himself, when the genius rumor of Trump's passing came out a few weeks ago, Walz said like I know it's hard when you think there's news (of Trump's death) but there isn't, but don't worry one day there will be news. This is somebody who ran against Trump publicly explaining he wants Trump to die. Then a tragedy happens and it's oops we condemn violence.
This werid delusion about what people wanted is insane. The guy had his staff make one tweet before going into the fox news narratives and conspiracy theories about the shooter. Even on here you two can't help yourself but run interference for the reasons for the shooting, what kind of "same page" do you think we're on here? Trump put every flag to half staff, made an oval office adress, and his vice president went so far as to escort his body home, and he will be at the funeral. what public statement condeming the shooting did trump make? He couldn't be bothered to pick up the phone and speak to walz about it. Did anyone from the administration attend them laying in state?
There is a bare minimum "unity and hope" that is expected. The politicians in minnesota were sitting legislators that were apart of the states political leadership. Kirk was a social media influencer who had never had a vote cast for him. Their deaths were equally known throughout the world, There were people who cheered their deaths for what they were able to do in the state. There was a national politician who made a joke about their deaths.
Then a tragedy happens and it's oops we condemn violence.
Exactly how the other side feels about this. It would have been great to have this attitude before this or during this by republicans. Instead we've got calls for civil war and even more harassment of minorities or people who disagree with the glorious father. You can tell a lot about a person based on the reaction to their death. The guy who told people not to have empathy and that gun violence was the cost of doing business died from gun violence and you're asking me to condem deaths from gun violence as well to have empathy for him.
|
On September 12 2025 21:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 21:12 Razyda wrote:On September 12 2025 19:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I recently heard the following take on Charlie Kirk's assassination: "I don't support what happened to Charlie, but Charlie would have supported what happened to Charlie". I think that's a fair point. I think thats blatantly dishonest take. Supporting 2nd amendment doesnt mean you supporting shooting people. Kirk said that annual gun deaths are worth the cost to keep the 2nd amendment: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-gun-deaths-quote/ And that's certainly a view that Kirk was allowed to have, but then his death - just like the other gun deaths that happen this year - are simply part of the price that Kirk found acceptable to pay, to ensure the 2nd amendment.
That's completely disingenuous. He's probably not talking about cold blooded assassinations, but talking about accidents and self defense and these kinds of things instead.
Stoking the flames is the best idea. We need to find a loophole to simmer down the right wing rhetoric, not stoke the flames with them.
|
On September 12 2025 21:34 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 21:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 12 2025 21:12 Razyda wrote:On September 12 2025 19:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I recently heard the following take on Charlie Kirk's assassination: "I don't support what happened to Charlie, but Charlie would have supported what happened to Charlie". I think that's a fair point. I think thats blatantly dishonest take. Supporting 2nd amendment doesnt mean you supporting shooting people. Kirk said that annual gun deaths are worth the cost to keep the 2nd amendment: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-gun-deaths-quote/ And that's certainly a view that Kirk was allowed to have, but then his death - just like the other gun deaths that happen this year - are simply part of the price that Kirk found acceptable to pay, to ensure the 2nd amendment. That's completely disingenuous. He's probably not talking about cold blooded assassinations. He's probably talking about accidents and self defense and these kinds of things.
He was talking about school shootings.
|
Okay well never mind then lol
|
On September 12 2025 21:34 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 21:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 12 2025 21:12 Razyda wrote:On September 12 2025 19:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I recently heard the following take on Charlie Kirk's assassination: "I don't support what happened to Charlie, but Charlie would have supported what happened to Charlie". I think that's a fair point. I think thats blatantly dishonest take. Supporting 2nd amendment doesnt mean you supporting shooting people. Kirk said that annual gun deaths are worth the cost to keep the 2nd amendment: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-gun-deaths-quote/ And that's certainly a view that Kirk was allowed to have, but then his death - just like the other gun deaths that happen this year - are simply part of the price that Kirk found acceptable to pay, to ensure the 2nd amendment. That's completely disingenuous. He's probably not talking about cold blooded assassinations, but talking about accidents and self defense and these kinds of things instead.
(Extremely loud incorrect buzzer)
|
On September 12 2025 21:34 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 21:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 12 2025 21:12 Razyda wrote:On September 12 2025 19:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I recently heard the following take on Charlie Kirk's assassination: "I don't support what happened to Charlie, but Charlie would have supported what happened to Charlie". I think that's a fair point. I think thats blatantly dishonest take. Supporting 2nd amendment doesnt mean you supporting shooting people. Kirk said that annual gun deaths are worth the cost to keep the 2nd amendment: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-gun-deaths-quote/ And that's certainly a view that Kirk was allowed to have, but then his death - just like the other gun deaths that happen this year - are simply part of the price that Kirk found acceptable to pay, to ensure the 2nd amendment. That's completely disingenuous. He's probably not talking about cold blooded assassinations, but talking about accidents and self defense and these kinds of things instead.Stoking the flames is the best idea. We need to find a loophole to simmer down the right wing rhetoric, not stoke the flames with them.
The source I linked elaborates on what exactly he was talking about... he wasn't talking about those, unfortunately. Scroll down in the website to the yellow box for the full transcript.
|
Northern Ireland25610 Posts
On September 12 2025 16:13 MJG wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 15:57 oBlade wrote:On September 12 2025 14:14 decafchicken wrote:On September 12 2025 13:14 Introvert wrote:On September 12 2025 12:44 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know what line Rayzda thinks hasn't been crossed but we already had Multiple democratic politicians shot in their homes earlier this year, and nary a peep about it from the president.
Conservatives have been taking Kirk getting killed far harder than democrats took the hortmans being gunned down in their home by a registered republican. We don't even know anything about the killer because the FBI was so incompetent that they posted their failings on social media right as it was happening. By this time the shooter in Minnesota was already in custody.
We're well on our way into the years of lead storyline and republicans seem genuinely eager for it to continue. I said my piece yesterday but just quickly everyone denounced what happened to the lawmakers in MN, regardless of the guy's motive (he claims other reasons but who knows). And Trump did put out a statement. I don't know what more you wanted in that case, but he did say something. The ratio of praise to condemnation isn't even close to comparable. edit: misremembered and didnt check closely, removed something His team put out a tweet then he insulted Walz instead of calling him vs instituting a nation wide mourning and flying his body home on fucking air force 2 lol If Trump lowered the flags, people would complain he didn't give them the medal of freedom. If he gave them the medal of freedom, people would complain why he didn't give them a gold funeral. If he gave them a gold funeral, they would complain he didn't start a task force. If he started a task force against right wing terrorism, they would complain he didn't magically vacuum all the guns in the country. The correct thing to do would've been to condemn political violence and attempt to ease tensions. Trump and company poured gasoline on the fire instead. Like KwarK has said much more eloquently: Trump and his ilk opened Pandora's box despite all warnings that it was a bad idea. They don't get to complain about the contents.
Yep. Look fair enough he’s a figure of import to many conservatives, many admired him.
It is possible to acknowledge that without seemingly being desperate to make him into a martyr.
I think flying flags at half mast, repatriating his body via Air Force Two, a bit over the top, not especially egregious.
Indeed, I don’t think Trump has been great here, but not absolutely awful. It’s, in this instance people lower down the totem pole who are being grossly irresponsible this time.
Stuff such as this for example.
Feels rather sinister indeed, you must mourn the martyr! And, specifically the ones we deem worthy of martyrdom
|
On September 12 2025 15:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 07:58 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2025 07:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 12 2025 05:11 G5 wrote:On September 12 2025 00:32 ThunderJunk wrote:
Honestly... I don't feel even a little sad about Kirk's murder.
He was a morally grandstanding rage baiter who accrued a net worth of 12 million dollars by "DESTROYING" dumb college kids publicly. He was also intellectually dishonest. His entire life's thesis supposedly revolved around his faith in scripture and the basic protestant brand of Christianity, but when confronted with the simple reality that, in fact, the King James bible is necessarily a linguistically ambiguous translation through the British lens of the original language the bible was written in - which would by his own definition be the most technically holy type of scripture, and therefore not as a reliable source of what is right and good as he maintained.. he just ignored the point, pressed forward with his views, and never took that fundamental problem with his conceptual framework seriously - nor would he ever.
I have a problem with people who claim to be fighters for truth who refuse to look at their own beliefs critically when confronted with evidence contrary to what makes them rich and powerful. That, to my mind, is fundamentally evil.
Also... And this is more of a petty point - but still completely fair: He was a staunch advocate from the right to bear arms. So, this way of getting killed was pretty poetically satisfying.
If freedom of speech is truly at issue here - I'll maintain the right to express that I think whoever killed Charlie did humanity a big favor. This type of thinking is so dumb. To think murdering someone for voicing his opinions is doing humanity a favor is so backwards, I don't know where to even start. You have lost the entire point of what humanity is. If this guy was truly a threat to you and your ideology so much, you should take a hard look as to why he was connecting with so many people and question your own ideology. Taking an intellectual debate to the level of violence is an intellectually cowardly way of debating and everyone loses in that scenario. You can have your opinions but imo you are despicable for having those beliefs. You've let group think and tribalism ruin a beautiful part of your humanity and I hope you get it back some day. Charlie Kirk was a partisan political commentator, political fund raiser, and political influencer. He was a family man and most people described him as a very nice guy. He had strong opinions and even though I'm on the complete opposite side of him, I respected his courage to put himself and his beliefs out there. No person deserves to be killed for speech. No one. Say what you want about his beliefs and opinions but if you're cheering this murder, you're a disgusting human being who completely misses the point of humanity. Would you say the same thing about Alex Jones? And if not what’s the difference? To be clear, i am not a partisan of assassinations, ever. Just, that guy was an absolute and utter piece of shit, and while i think the escalation in political violence upsets there benefits of not having him absolutely poison people’s minds, I’m really not going to shed a tear for him. What is it that he said, that “it was worth it for people to die so that we could have the second amendment”? As Mark Twain once said, “I have never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure”. For some reason people excuse pushing for institutional violence against political opponents as not political violence. If you shoot one man then you're a terrorist but if you encourage the national guard to forcibly disperse a crowd of leaderless pacifist students milling around at Kent State then you're doing your job. Once you clothe it in uniform then it becomes fine. The idea that everything other than pulling the trigger is just words is baffling. Zambrah used the classic example of Hitler who, as far as I know, never killed anyone. And the people who did the killing generally argued that it was all legal under German law at the time. On a playground words are just words. Someone can call you names and you shouldn't beat the shit out of them. The world outside the playground isn't so simple and G5's "it's just words" absolutism is inapplicable to the complexity of the real political environment. A populist demanding that we clean up the streets and clear the homeless camps is speech. The police showing up with dogs and forcing the homeless into a group at gunpoint while the sanitation department throws everything they own into bin lorries is violence. Especially when they’re subsequently locked up for not being able to produce documents that were forcibly taken from them by the state. Criminalizing the existence of out groups is violence. I agree on a moral basis Kwark, but we live in constitutional republics where we have all agreed on some rules in order for things not to be resolved by repainting the walls with each others brains. I think some of those rules, especially in the US need urgently to be revised. I think that free speech is a horrible idea and that, for the reasons you gave, one shouldn’t be allowed to say certain things. That’s how it is in France, and I think it’s perfectly reasonable. Once society has lawfully deemed that Kirk has the right to say the horrible things he was saying, then he should have been protected from physical violence. The problem is solved by addressing whay is allowed, not by exploding the face of the guy who does horrible things when that frame is inadequate. Or we can make a point that we don’t believe that the law can provide an adequate frame and that we have to shoot each other, and we have entered speaking of a civil war. And all of that being said, good riddance. While i don’t approve the murder, fuck that guy.
I dunno. I think an argument could be made that the founding fathers had some idea of pistols at dawn in their mind when the first amendment was "you can say whatever you want", and the second amendment was "but everyone is allowed to carry guns around just in case!" 
|
The second Amendment was specifically about Militias, as every community still had the levy tradition from old england where you would drill on sundays after church. Home ownership, as it still is today, is very correlated to gun ownership. The people felt that the ability to defend their homes against the natives was critical to them keeping them and their families alive, from starvation as well as you could hunt with said guns.
I mean yeah the government probably had a hand in stoking this feeling to keep a ready activatable military force for local conflicts but it was a primary difference between the successful rural colonization of the English territories vs the french and Spanish rual colonization efforts that were not successful due to the lack of volunteers. Yes the territories did rebel sucsessfully in the end, which is why the french and spanish didn't go with free ownership of guns, but they had their grain and cotton sources very secure for an exploding urbanization of the home islands.
When the nation went away from having any sort of legal mechanism for organizing militia and instead went to a french national guard model the 2nd admendment is now in a very werid place. You're not allowed to poach anymore and the government doesn't need cheap meat to throw at an enemy. Home ownership and gun ownership are both declining as proportion of the population.
|
On September 12 2025 21:31 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 15:57 oBlade wrote:On September 12 2025 14:14 decafchicken wrote:On September 12 2025 13:14 Introvert wrote:On September 12 2025 12:44 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know what line Rayzda thinks hasn't been crossed but we already had Multiple democratic politicians shot in their homes earlier this year, and nary a peep about it from the president.
Conservatives have been taking Kirk getting killed far harder than democrats took the hortmans being gunned down in their home by a registered republican. We don't even know anything about the killer because the FBI was so incompetent that they posted their failings on social media right as it was happening. By this time the shooter in Minnesota was already in custody.
We're well on our way into the years of lead storyline and republicans seem genuinely eager for it to continue. I said my piece yesterday but just quickly everyone denounced what happened to the lawmakers in MN, regardless of the guy's motive (he claims other reasons but who knows). And Trump did put out a statement. I don't know what more you wanted in that case, but he did say something. The ratio of praise to condemnation isn't even close to comparable. edit: misremembered and didnt check closely, removed something His team put out a tweet then he insulted Walz instead of calling him vs instituting a nation wide mourning and flying his body home on fucking air force 2 lol If Trump lowered the flags, people would complain he didn't give them the medal of freedom. If he gave them the medal of freedom, people would complain why he didn't give them a gold funeral. If he gave them a gold funeral, they would complain he didn't start a task force. If he started a task force against right wing terrorism, they would complain he didn't magically vacuum all the guns in the country. The truth is Kirk is far more widely known than the victims in Minnesota. This does not make one murder better or worse than the other, and it has no implication that any of them were better or worse human beings. But it's connected to why it's more noteworthy. There was no nationwide campaign of dehumanization targeting the victims leading up to the assassination, they weren't known at all. Nobody was calling or rooting for them to be killed, encouraging the Michael Myers mask guy who acted alone, nobody was going on TV and filling social media with bullshit riling up the uninformed against them. Nor did anyone support or celebrate their deaths (except the most antisocial few among our societies which criminal justice reform advocates refuse to simply imprison). Everyone was on the same page. Don't kill politicians. In Kirk's case, all of those things have happened. Whoever shot Kirk did it to silence him. That has to be specifically, immediately, and ruthlessly opposed by the keepers of civilization. Too many people straddle a line, like Walz himself, when the genius rumor of Trump's passing came out a few weeks ago, Walz said like I know it's hard when you think there's news (of Trump's death) but there isn't, but don't worry one day there will be news. This is somebody who ran against Trump publicly explaining he wants Trump to die. Then a tragedy happens and it's oops we condemn violence. This werid delusion about what people wanted is insane. The guy had his staff make one tweet before going into the fox news narratives and conspiracy theories about the shooter. Even on here you two can't help yourself but run interference for the reasons for the shooting, what kind of "same page" do you think we're on here? Trump put every flag to half staff, made an oval office adress, and his vice president went so far as to escort his body home, and he will be at the funeral. what public statement condeming the shooting did trump make? He couldn't be bothered to pick up the phone and speak to walz about it. Did anyone from the administration attend them laying in state?
Had Trump "attended them laying in state" the reaction would be "Trump is making this political and putting on a show pretending not to support violence but secretly dog whistling."
Walz has publicly said it will be a day of good news when Trump is dead. I wrote that in the post you are quoting but it went in one ear and out the other. Are you not familiar with Walz's history of public statements about Trump? Why would Trump make a phone call to that? Did that phone call have the power to resurrect the dead people?
On September 12 2025 21:31 Sermokala wrote:
There is a bare minimum "unity and hope" that is expected. The politicians in minnesota were sitting legislators that were apart of the states political leadership. Kirk was a social media influencer who had never had a vote cast for him. Their deaths were equally known throughout the world, There were people who cheered their deaths for what they were able to do in the state. There was a national politician who made a joke about their deaths.
I don't see the point of the third and fourth sentences. Politicians should get priority interest in their deaths by virtue of being politicians, they deserve it more than someone who never ran in an election? I don't want to put words in your mouth but I don't see what any point could be besides that.
We are obviously not going to agree on the fact that Mike Lee was mocking the murderer, not the murdered, so let me try another angle. What's worse, one "NATIONAL POLITICIAN" making a joke or one million citizens cheering a death?
On September 12 2025 21:31 Sermokala wrote:Exactly how the other side feels about this. It would have been great to have this attitude before this or during this by republicans. Instead we've got calls for civil war and even more harassment of minorities or people who disagree with the glorious father. You can tell a lot about a person based on the reaction to their death. The guy who told people not to have empathy and that gun violence was the cost of doing business died from gun violence and you're asking me to condem deaths from gun violence as well to have empathy for him.
I'm not telling you to do anything.
But since you bring it up, you should phrase this as "cold-blooded murder" not "death from gun violence" as though it were an act of god just the same as the weather.
|
There's nothing to do but open-mouth guffaw when conservatives are still shedding their crocodile tears over tHe ViOlEnT lEfT even as Republicans are literally on the news right now calling for retribution.
|
Northern Ireland25610 Posts
On September 12 2025 22:15 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 21:31 Sermokala wrote:On September 12 2025 15:57 oBlade wrote:On September 12 2025 14:14 decafchicken wrote:On September 12 2025 13:14 Introvert wrote:On September 12 2025 12:44 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know what line Rayzda thinks hasn't been crossed but we already had Multiple democratic politicians shot in their homes earlier this year, and nary a peep about it from the president.
Conservatives have been taking Kirk getting killed far harder than democrats took the hortmans being gunned down in their home by a registered republican. We don't even know anything about the killer because the FBI was so incompetent that they posted their failings on social media right as it was happening. By this time the shooter in Minnesota was already in custody.
We're well on our way into the years of lead storyline and republicans seem genuinely eager for it to continue. I said my piece yesterday but just quickly everyone denounced what happened to the lawmakers in MN, regardless of the guy's motive (he claims other reasons but who knows). And Trump did put out a statement. I don't know what more you wanted in that case, but he did say something. The ratio of praise to condemnation isn't even close to comparable. edit: misremembered and didnt check closely, removed something His team put out a tweet then he insulted Walz instead of calling him vs instituting a nation wide mourning and flying his body home on fucking air force 2 lol If Trump lowered the flags, people would complain he didn't give them the medal of freedom. If he gave them the medal of freedom, people would complain why he didn't give them a gold funeral. If he gave them a gold funeral, they would complain he didn't start a task force. If he started a task force against right wing terrorism, they would complain he didn't magically vacuum all the guns in the country. The truth is Kirk is far more widely known than the victims in Minnesota. This does not make one murder better or worse than the other, and it has no implication that any of them were better or worse human beings. But it's connected to why it's more noteworthy. There was no nationwide campaign of dehumanization targeting the victims leading up to the assassination, they weren't known at all. Nobody was calling or rooting for them to be killed, encouraging the Michael Myers mask guy who acted alone, nobody was going on TV and filling social media with bullshit riling up the uninformed against them. Nor did anyone support or celebrate their deaths (except the most antisocial few among our societies which criminal justice reform advocates refuse to simply imprison). Everyone was on the same page. Don't kill politicians. In Kirk's case, all of those things have happened. Whoever shot Kirk did it to silence him. That has to be specifically, immediately, and ruthlessly opposed by the keepers of civilization. Too many people straddle a line, like Walz himself, when the genius rumor of Trump's passing came out a few weeks ago, Walz said like I know it's hard when you think there's news (of Trump's death) but there isn't, but don't worry one day there will be news. This is somebody who ran against Trump publicly explaining he wants Trump to die. Then a tragedy happens and it's oops we condemn violence. This werid delusion about what people wanted is insane. The guy had his staff make one tweet before going into the fox news narratives and conspiracy theories about the shooter. Even on here you two can't help yourself but run interference for the reasons for the shooting, what kind of "same page" do you think we're on here? Trump put every flag to half staff, made an oval office adress, and his vice president went so far as to escort his body home, and he will be at the funeral. what public statement condeming the shooting did trump make? He couldn't be bothered to pick up the phone and speak to walz about it. Did anyone from the administration attend them laying in state? Had Trump "attended them laying in state" the reaction would be "Trump is making this political and putting on a show pretending not to support violence but secretly dog whistling." Walz has publicly said it will be a day of good news when Trump is dead. I wrote that in the post you are quoting but it went in one ear and out the other. Are you not familiar with Walz's history of public statements about Trump? Why would Trump make a phone call to that? Did that phone call have the power to resurrect the dead people? Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 21:31 Sermokala wrote:
There is a bare minimum "unity and hope" that is expected. The politicians in minnesota were sitting legislators that were apart of the states political leadership. Kirk was a social media influencer who had never had a vote cast for him. Their deaths were equally known throughout the world, There were people who cheered their deaths for what they were able to do in the state. There was a national politician who made a joke about their deaths. I don't see the point of the third and fourth sentences. Politicians should get priority interest in their deaths by virtue of being politicians, they deserve it more than someone who never ran in an election? I don't want to put words in your mouth but I don't see what any point could be besides that. We are obviously not going to agree on the fact that Mike Lee was mocking the murderer, not the murdered, so let me try another angle. What's worse, one "NATIONAL POLITICIAN" making a joke or one million citizens cheering a death? Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 21:31 Sermokala wrote:
Then a tragedy happens and it's oops we condemn violence.
Exactly how the other side feels about this. It would have been great to have this attitude before this or during this by republicans. Instead we've got calls for civil war and even more harassment of minorities or people who disagree with the glorious father. You can tell a lot about a person based on the reaction to their death. The guy who told people not to have empathy and that gun violence was the cost of doing business died from gun violence and you're asking me to condem deaths from gun violence as well to have empathy for him. I'm not telling you to do anything. But since you bring it up, you should phrase this as "cold-blooded murder" not "death from gun violence" as though it were an act of god just the same as the weather.
So Trump shouldn’t do things that might be good conciliatory gestures, and maintain the illusion of some kind of decorum and united nation because some people mightn’t give him credit for it?
|
On September 12 2025 22:15 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 21:31 Sermokala wrote:On September 12 2025 15:57 oBlade wrote:On September 12 2025 14:14 decafchicken wrote:On September 12 2025 13:14 Introvert wrote:On September 12 2025 12:44 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know what line Rayzda thinks hasn't been crossed but we already had Multiple democratic politicians shot in their homes earlier this year, and nary a peep about it from the president.
Conservatives have been taking Kirk getting killed far harder than democrats took the hortmans being gunned down in their home by a registered republican. We don't even know anything about the killer because the FBI was so incompetent that they posted their failings on social media right as it was happening. By this time the shooter in Minnesota was already in custody.
We're well on our way into the years of lead storyline and republicans seem genuinely eager for it to continue. I said my piece yesterday but just quickly everyone denounced what happened to the lawmakers in MN, regardless of the guy's motive (he claims other reasons but who knows). And Trump did put out a statement. I don't know what more you wanted in that case, but he did say something. The ratio of praise to condemnation isn't even close to comparable. edit: misremembered and didnt check closely, removed something His team put out a tweet then he insulted Walz instead of calling him vs instituting a nation wide mourning and flying his body home on fucking air force 2 lol If Trump lowered the flags, people would complain he didn't give them the medal of freedom. If he gave them the medal of freedom, people would complain why he didn't give them a gold funeral. If he gave them a gold funeral, they would complain he didn't start a task force. If he started a task force against right wing terrorism, they would complain he didn't magically vacuum all the guns in the country. The truth is Kirk is far more widely known than the victims in Minnesota. This does not make one murder better or worse than the other, and it has no implication that any of them were better or worse human beings. But it's connected to why it's more noteworthy. There was no nationwide campaign of dehumanization targeting the victims leading up to the assassination, they weren't known at all. Nobody was calling or rooting for them to be killed, encouraging the Michael Myers mask guy who acted alone, nobody was going on TV and filling social media with bullshit riling up the uninformed against them. Nor did anyone support or celebrate their deaths (except the most antisocial few among our societies which criminal justice reform advocates refuse to simply imprison). Everyone was on the same page. Don't kill politicians. In Kirk's case, all of those things have happened. Whoever shot Kirk did it to silence him. That has to be specifically, immediately, and ruthlessly opposed by the keepers of civilization. Too many people straddle a line, like Walz himself, when the genius rumor of Trump's passing came out a few weeks ago, Walz said like I know it's hard when you think there's news (of Trump's death) but there isn't, but don't worry one day there will be news. This is somebody who ran against Trump publicly explaining he wants Trump to die. Then a tragedy happens and it's oops we condemn violence. This werid delusion about what people wanted is insane. The guy had his staff make one tweet before going into the fox news narratives and conspiracy theories about the shooter. Even on here you two can't help yourself but run interference for the reasons for the shooting, what kind of "same page" do you think we're on here? Trump put every flag to half staff, made an oval office adress, and his vice president went so far as to escort his body home, and he will be at the funeral. what public statement condeming the shooting did trump make? He couldn't be bothered to pick up the phone and speak to walz about it. Did anyone from the administration attend them laying in state? Had Trump "attended them laying in state" the reaction would be "Trump is making this political and putting on a show pretending not to support violence but secretly dog whistling." Walz has publicly said it will be a day of good news when Trump is dead. I wrote that in the post you are quoting but it went in one ear and out the other. Are you not familiar with Walz's history of public statements about Trump? Why would Trump make a phone call to that? Did that phone call have the power to resurrect the dead people? Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 21:31 Sermokala wrote:
There is a bare minimum "unity and hope" that is expected. The politicians in minnesota were sitting legislators that were apart of the states political leadership. Kirk was a social media influencer who had never had a vote cast for him. Their deaths were equally known throughout the world, There were people who cheered their deaths for what they were able to do in the state. There was a national politician who made a joke about their deaths. I don't see the point of the third and fourth sentences. Politicians should get priority interest in their deaths by virtue of being politicians, they deserve it more than someone who never ran in an election? I don't want to put words in your mouth but I don't see what any point could be besides that. We are obviously not going to agree on the fact that Mike Lee was mocking the murderer, not the murdered, so let me try another angle. What's worse, one "NATIONAL POLITICIAN" making a joke or one million citizens cheering a death? Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 21:31 Sermokala wrote:
Then a tragedy happens and it's oops we condemn violence.
Exactly how the other side feels about this. It would have been great to have this attitude before this or during this by republicans. Instead we've got calls for civil war and even more harassment of minorities or people who disagree with the glorious father. You can tell a lot about a person based on the reaction to their death. The guy who told people not to have empathy and that gun violence was the cost of doing business died from gun violence and you're asking me to condem deaths from gun violence as well to have empathy for him. I'm not telling you to do anything. But since you bring it up, you should phrase this as "cold-blooded murder" not "death from gun violence" as though it were an act of god just the same as the weather.
It is the peak of Trump derangement syndrome to create persecution fantasies about "what they would have done if he did a thing so its justified for him not to do the thing". A phone call from one politician to another expressing the offical sympathies of the adminisration is a very simple and easy symbol to show unity in times of tragedy. Why did the canadian prime minister take the time to give walz a phone call? Why do we get better treatment form foreign heads of state than our own? I know there are low expectations of decency about trump but that doesn't inherently justify his lack of decency.
I don't know what kind of timeline you're working with but walz made that comment after trump refused to call him. Wouldn't it be justified for Walz to say that after Trump refused to make a public comment or any public show of support for the state after such a tragedy?
Yes sitting politicians in political leadership being killed by the opposition should be taken more seriously than private citizens being killed by random other private citizens. I'm not here to play "whats worse" Olympics with you but even now you have to admit you've backed off the statement "everyone was in agreement this was a bad thing", which was my point. The hortmans and their dog were shot to death by an apointed civil servant who was a registered republican who voted in the republican primary for trump. We don't know for what reason kirk was killed, but this guy was not for stopping what happened to him in life, I don't know what kind of call to action you think is justified with his death.
The mans last word was to dispute the seriousness of mass shootings by trying to muddy what a school shooting with the gotcha "that includes gang violence doesn't it?" for a statistic he was about to be presented with. No I don't think in this case I'm going to be more careful about my phrasing for the mans death than the man who was killed. I'm listening to the dead and what message their life sent and what message their death is sending. The Hortamns would have wanted people to heal and avoid useing their deaths for punishing the other side, as those that knew them best have said. Kirk would have wanted his death to be used as much as possible for political points, as he did with others deaths, as the people who knew him best have said.
|
On September 12 2025 11:23 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 11:20 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 12 2025 10:52 Razyda wrote:On September 12 2025 10:48 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Free speech doesn't mean you're free from consequences.. It is exactly what it means. Otherwise you can argue Hitler as a champion of free speech. Of course you could go and say he is an idiot. You would have to face a consequences, but you were free to say it. If I think you're a moron for this post, does that mean I've violated your free speech? (I don't think you're a moron, just pointing out that 'free speech' very obviously does not mean 'freedom from consequence') No it doesnt. I dont even see argument here? You are free to think I am a moron, you are free to say it as well. That is entire point of free speech.
It isn't. The point of free speech as outlined in the First Amendment is that anyone in the US can express anything they wish (with some caveats) without interference from the government. The point of it is that I can tell my friends, I can tell a TV audience, I can tell my Twitter followers that I think that Donald Trump (or Biden or Obama or Bush or Schumer or McConnell or Newsom, etc) is doing a piss poor job of running the country and nobody is going to charge me with conduct unbecoming then throw me in prison or arrest me and imprison the next two generations of my family for it. There are a great many places in the world that do not allow their citizens to openly criticize the sitting government. The US has historically not been one of those places.
Freedom of speech doesn't apply to TL or Twitter or your mom's house or your social circle. Anyone anywhere is allowed to make a reply to you and to choose not to associate with you anymore. I literally cannot violate the free speech of my friends or my fellow posters or anyone at all as I do not hold a government job, nevermind one where I can authorize people's arrests. I hope that clears things up for you.
|
EARHARDT: We have radicals on the right as well. How do we fix this country?
TRUMP: I'll tell you something that's gonna get me in trouble but I couldn't care less. The radicals on the right oftentimes are radical because they don't want to see crime. The radicals on the left are the problem. bsky.app
Trump just openly saying radicals on the right are justified, its the left that is the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
