|
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 22:51 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +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.appTrump just openly saying radicals on the right are justified, its the left that is the problem.
Far-right dipshit president repeating far-right talking point. The people at the Unite the Right rally that he said were "very fine people" weren't shouting 'We want less crime!', they were shouting "Blood and soil" and "Jews will not replace us".
Btw, a suspect was just announced in the Kirk shooting. Cisgender white Christian registered Republican with mental health issues, turned in by his dad. Queue the right-wingers going dark in this thread for a week before they pop up with more fake outrage at something else dumb.
|
On September 12 2025 22:51 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +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.appTrump just openly saying radicals on the right are justified, its the left that is the problem.
I can't wait to see our resident Republicans bend themselves into several pretzels defending this...
|
On September 12 2025 22:51 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +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.appTrump just openly saying radicals on the right are justified, its the left that is the problem.
They don't want to see crime so badly that they're going to commit crimes to stop crimes from happening.
|
The only way to stop a bad guy doing a crime is a good guy doing a crime.
|
On September 12 2025 22:38 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 22:15 oBlade wrote: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? 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:
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.
What PM? Did you mean Doug Ford? Ontario borders Minnesota.
On September 12 2025 22:38 Sermokala wrote:
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?
He did make a public comment. Otherwise, I don't know what support you expect other than FBI help in the investigation, which also was given, and is in fact so obvious you probably think it doesn't "count" but going to a funeral to get shit on for being unwelcome would.
On September 12 2025 22:38 Sermokala wrote:
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.
I specifically said "except the most antisocial among us." "Everyone" in a normal conversation doesn't mean without fail each and all of 330 million people. This is stupid. The vast majority felt exactly the same way about the Minnesota shootings. There was no controversy. I asked you a question you don't like the answer to and you don't want to play? Do you want me to show you a sampling of all the 100k+ likes Twitter posts of people laughing at Charlie Kirk's assassination, people saying it's justified, people shitting on him? We can weigh it against Mike Lee's 4 words "Nightmare on Waltz [sic] Street" and see where the hate lies. Or man up and say the latter is more of a problem because he was elected. You think politicians are more important in death, they must be more important in life too.
On September 12 2025 22:38 Sermokala wrote:
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.
US urban centers have varyingly enormous gang problems and this seeps into schools also.
|
Now that the lead suspect was revealed to be a registered Republican that donated to Trump, how about we shift this discussion to Charlie Kirk would still be alive today if we had universal healthcare and nationwide easy access to therapy/psychiatry?
+ Show Spoiler +It would be so fucking funny if a conservative replied to this with "How dare you try to politicize this tragedy"
|
On September 12 2025 23:07 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 22:38 Sermokala wrote:On September 12 2025 22:15 oBlade wrote: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? 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:
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. What PM? Did you mean Doug Ford? Ontario borders Minnesota. Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 22:38 Sermokala wrote:
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? He did make a public comment. Otherwise, I don't know what support you expect other than FBI help in the investigation, which also was given, and is in fact so obvious you probably think it doesn't "count" but going to a funeral to get shit on for being unwelcome would. Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 22:38 Sermokala wrote:
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. I specifically said "except the most antisocial among us." "Everyone" in a normal conversation doesn't mean without fail each and all of 330 million people. This is stupid. The vast majority felt exactly the same way about the Minnesota shootings. There was no controversy. I asked you a question you don't like the answer to and you don't want to play? Do you want me to show you a sampling of all the 100k+ likes Twitter posts of people laughing at Charlie Kirk's assassination, people saying it's justified, people shitting on him? We can weigh it against Mike Lee's 4 words "Nightmare on Waltz [sic] Street" and see where the hate lies. Or man up and say the latter is more of a problem because he was elected. You think politicians are more important in death, they must be more important in life too. Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 22:38 Sermokala wrote:
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. US urban centers have varyingly enormous gang problems and this seeps into schools also.
I don't know how the transision of powers works in canada but I know trudou called. Doug ford called as well yes.
He had a tweet sent out, Kirk got speeches to troops and an oval office adress. These are not comparable. FBI help in the investigation was a given yes but there is value in showing public sympathy and calls to unity, they help prevent future incidents from being inspired from the event. If not then why would the white house not have the same response to the kirk shooting?
Yes which is why I pointed to a nationally sitting republican who is not anti social as he got votes, didn't resign, and faced no repercussions for what he did. Even the term "Vast majority" isn't equivalent to "everyone agreeing". There was controversy with republicans and fox news reporting that he was actualy a dem and conspiracies about walz ordering the hit that was spread. If Trump had gone, or sent someone who got "shit on for going" that wouldn't be on trump or the person that went that would be about the people who shit on them. You're not going to score points for being too cowardly to show basic support or sympathy in times of tragedy, expecially when you expect the same when the shoe is on the other foot.
Again I'm not going to play "whats worse" olympics with you when the unconfortable thing to say would have to be that trump and kirk was responsible for his own death. I don't want to do that do you? Yes Trump and what he does is more important than what randoms on social media do. Yes elected sitting politicians are more important when they are assasinated for what they represent. They have power to influence your very real life and represent people the way private individuals don't.
Yes congratulations on repeating the talking point to diminish school shootings while we are discussing someone who was shot at a school. Don't know what you think that is suppose to do for you but yes that is how he felt I agree.
|
I wonder if shooters who have a statement to make have their manifest ready and openly notify their indent beforehand. Thus, in situations where nothing is initially available, the shooter is more likely to have more general mental health issues and no specific political message in mind. Also, attempts to survive could be a similar indicator. I also wonder if the suspect looked at Trump's assassination attempts and wanted to do a similar thing, thinking that he was a better shot and would succeed. Thus, this would be just someone inspired by the worsening political violence.
|
Some highlights from the FBI press conference just now.
- The suspect engraved "Notices bulges OWO What's this?", ⬆️➡️⬇️⬇️⬇️ (I'm told this is a Helldivers 2 reference), "If you read this, you are gay LMAO" on his bullets
- Kash Patel said he looks forward to meeting Kirk "in Valhalla"
- Patel saying "this is what happens when you let good cops be cops", not mentioning that the FBI has accomplished basically nothing because the suspect's dad turned him in
https://reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/1nf4gnf/the_fbi_announce_what_was_engraved_on_the_bullet/
|
Bold move to say that you will meet a Christian in a pagan afterlife.
|
On September 12 2025 20:49 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Mark Dice prolly identified a major contributing factor to Charlie Kirk's death. Kirk's persuasive explanation that Israel either permitted or directly contributed towards October 7, 2023 put him in grave danger. It starts at 20 minutes and 20 seconds.@22:18 "Israel was on the verge of civil war...Netanyahu now has an emergency government and a mandate to lead...". Dead bang on the money. It is inevitable that talking like this got him deader than Kennedy. If he didn't get killed September 10th he was on his way to getting killed. When you have the reach and influence Kirk had ... You can't talk like this. It'll be interesting to see if Candace Owens steers away from criticizing Israel after Kirk's death. Rest In Peace Charlie Kirk.
Ah yes, it's da j00s. lmao
|
On September 12 2025 23:47 LightSpectra wrote:Some highlights from the FBI press conference just now. - The suspect engraved "Notices bulges OWO What's this?", ⬆️➡️⬇️⬇️⬇️ (I'm told this is a Helldivers 2 reference), "If you read this, you are gay LMAO" on his bullets - Kash Patel said he looks forward to meeting Kirk "in Valhalla" - Patel saying "this is what happens when you let good cops be cops", not mentioning that the FBI has accomplished basically nothing because the suspect's dad turned him in https://reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/1nf4gnf/the_fbi_announce_what_was_engraved_on_the_bullet/
Quoting the BBC:
Cox says investigators found a bolt action rifle wrapped in a dark towel and the gun had a scope mount on top of it.
He notes there were inscriptions on bullet casings, including one which read: "Notices bulges owo". There were also inscriptions on three unfired casings, Cox explains.
Cox says some of the inscriptions include: "Hey fascist! Catch!", "o bella ciao, bella ciao" and "if you read this you are gay lmao".
("Bella ciao" is an Italian song dedicated to the Italian resistance who fought against the occupying troops of Nazi Germany.)
I expected "messages on bullet casings".
I did not expect "furry memes on bullet casings".
Pretty clear they considered Kirk to be a fascist though.
|
Northern Ireland25609 Posts
Isn’t the ‘OWO what’s this?’ meme frequently used to make fun of furries? The plot thickens…
There were many things I said wouldn’t surprise me if they came out in the wash, I gotta say this was not one of them
|
On September 12 2025 23:59 MJG wrote:
Pretty clear they considered Kirk to be a fascist though.
That would only be clear if the engravings were done after he made a conscious decision to assassinate Kirk, which isn't clear at all.
|
From my brief dip into the batshit sphere, I'm understanding that the Nick Fuentes "Groyper" white supremacists thought Charlie Kirk was a fake white supremacist. Signs are pointing to the shooter being a "Groyper"
|
On September 12 2025 23:47 LightSpectra wrote:Some highlights from the FBI press conference just now. - The suspect engraved "Notices bulges OWO What's this?", ⬆️➡️⬇️⬇️⬇️ (I'm told this is a Helldivers 2 reference), "If you read this, you are gay LMAO" on his bullets
- Kash Patel said he looks forward to meeting Kirk "in Valhalla"- Patel saying "this is what happens when you let good cops be cops", not mentioning that the FBI has accomplished basically nothing because the suspect's dad turned him in https://reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/1nf4gnf/the_fbi_announce_what_was_engraved_on_the_bullet/
This timeline is just too lame. What have we done to deserve that.
|
On September 12 2025 23:28 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 23:07 oBlade wrote:On September 12 2025 22:38 Sermokala wrote:On September 12 2025 22:15 oBlade wrote: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? 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:
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. What PM? Did you mean Doug Ford? Ontario borders Minnesota. On September 12 2025 22:38 Sermokala wrote:
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? He did make a public comment. Otherwise, I don't know what support you expect other than FBI help in the investigation, which also was given, and is in fact so obvious you probably think it doesn't "count" but going to a funeral to get shit on for being unwelcome would. On September 12 2025 22:38 Sermokala wrote:
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. I specifically said "except the most antisocial among us." "Everyone" in a normal conversation doesn't mean without fail each and all of 330 million people. This is stupid. The vast majority felt exactly the same way about the Minnesota shootings. There was no controversy. I asked you a question you don't like the answer to and you don't want to play? Do you want me to show you a sampling of all the 100k+ likes Twitter posts of people laughing at Charlie Kirk's assassination, people saying it's justified, people shitting on him? We can weigh it against Mike Lee's 4 words "Nightmare on Waltz [sic] Street" and see where the hate lies. Or man up and say the latter is more of a problem because he was elected. You think politicians are more important in death, they must be more important in life too. On September 12 2025 22:38 Sermokala wrote:
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. US urban centers have varyingly enormous gang problems and this seeps into schools also. I don't know how the transision of powers works in canada but I know trudou called. Doug ford called as well yes.
If Trudeau called it makes sense because they're literally closer by virtue of being on the left than Walz is to Trump, because Walz distanced himself greatly from his own president by calling him a fascist threat.
On September 12 2025 23:28 Sermokala wrote:
He had a tweet sent out, Kirk got speeches to troops and an oval office adress. These are not comparable. FBI help in the investigation was a given yes but there is value in showing public sympathy and calls to unity, they help prevent future incidents from being inspired from the event. If not then why would the white house not have the same response to the kirk shooting?
Because Kirk and Trump were personal friends. They are in the same circle. Walz is not. Nor were the Minnesota victims who were basically unknown.
Do you have a peer reviewed study that the president sitting behind a particular desk when he denounces violence is more or less effective at preventing future violence?
The only other thing I can think of as to why Trump's oval address seems to look like it goes harder, to you, than his response to the Minnesota killings, is obviously if something is escalating, later responses to it are stronger than earlier ones. You increase dosage after the infection doesn't clear. You don't go all in at the beginning.
On September 12 2025 23:28 Sermokala wrote:
Again I'm not going to play "whats worse" olympics with you when the unconfortable thing to say would have to be that trump and kirk was responsible for his own death. I don't want to do that do you? Yes Trump and what he does is more important than what randoms on social media do. Yes elected sitting politicians are more important when they are assasinated for what they represent. They have power to influence your very real life and represent people the way private individuals don't.
I wasn't asking you about Trump, I was asking you about Mike Lee. You are conflating or don't understand your own points.
You got mad that you found ONE politician, Mike Lee made an alleged joke about Minnesota. I wanted to know how mad you are or if you want to see the outright frothing celebration of hundreds of thousands or millions online, and you either can't make an opinion, are hiding it, don't know what you think, and think I can't ask you.
Even in the worst interpretation of Mike Lee, Trump didn't mock the shooting in Minnesota or insult the victims in any way. At all.
Obviously single elected politicians are not always more important, if Trump somehow manages to do everything you want him to according to the ever-changing standards you conjure up, being the most superficially PC and having the illusion of unifying decorum, while 5 million of his supporters for example started a race war, things are not on the up and up. Obviously.
On September 12 2025 23:28 Sermokala wrote:
Yes congratulations on repeating the talking point to diminish school shootings while we are discussing someone who was shot at a school. Don't know what you think that is suppose to do for you but yes that is how he felt I agree.
If you wanted to stop school shootings but didn't realize that what you're trying to stop is actually gang shootings, you're not going to get anywhere except mad and then maybe also shoot a Republican because they didn't let you save the world according to the rules of FantasyLand. So to start don't call an adult man sniping a public speaker at a university with a bolt action rifle a "school shooting." And don't expect shooting people to convince them.
|
Northern Ireland25609 Posts
On September 12 2025 23:58 Luolis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 20:49 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Mark Dice prolly identified a major contributing factor to Charlie Kirk's death. Kirk's persuasive explanation that Israel either permitted or directly contributed towards October 7, 2023 put him in grave danger. It starts at 20 minutes and 20 seconds.@22:18 "Israel was on the verge of civil war...Netanyahu now has an emergency government and a mandate to lead...". Dead bang on the money. It is inevitable that talking like this got him deader than Kennedy. If he didn't get killed September 10th he was on his way to getting killed. When you have the reach and influence Kirk had ... You can't talk like this. It'll be interesting to see if Candace Owens steers away from criticizing Israel after Kirk's death. Rest In Peace Charlie Kirk. Ah yes, it's da j00s. lmao
Jimmy gonna Jimmy, absolute bollocks. If vocal critics of Israel in the United States were an army, Charlie Kirk would be a reservist
Aye like Mossad go around assassinating people who are broadly pro-Israel now, it’s just too obvious to go after the vocal critics!
What utter, utter nonsense
|
Northern Ireland25609 Posts
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.
How do you simmer down an American right who’s going more Fascist or Fash-adjacent by the day? Who will lie completely without compunction?
The wolves are now rather comfortable in the throne room, good luck getting them to leave now. The way to fix it was not letting them in in the first place.
It doesn’t seem like this fire is going to go out by itself anytime soon, but neither does anything the wider left, or indeed centre does seem to affect it either.
The beast has been growing for a long time now, and its tendrils are spreading, many have had bright ideas to address it, few seem to work.
It’s no longer any kind of symbiotic relationship with other political ideas, if indeed it ever was. Even if the left, the centre behaved impeccably in trying to detoxify things, the beast isn’t going to de-escalate in commensurate fashion.
Sure it’s not exactly the Third Reich, but this very much is what an American flavour of Fascism looks like.
|
Northern Ireland25609 Posts
On September 13 2025 00:09 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 23:28 Sermokala wrote:On September 12 2025 23:07 oBlade wrote:On September 12 2025 22:38 Sermokala wrote:On September 12 2025 22:15 oBlade wrote: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? 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:
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. What PM? Did you mean Doug Ford? Ontario borders Minnesota. On September 12 2025 22:38 Sermokala wrote:
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? He did make a public comment. Otherwise, I don't know what support you expect other than FBI help in the investigation, which also was given, and is in fact so obvious you probably think it doesn't "count" but going to a funeral to get shit on for being unwelcome would. On September 12 2025 22:38 Sermokala wrote:
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. I specifically said "except the most antisocial among us." "Everyone" in a normal conversation doesn't mean without fail each and all of 330 million people. This is stupid. The vast majority felt exactly the same way about the Minnesota shootings. There was no controversy. I asked you a question you don't like the answer to and you don't want to play? Do you want me to show you a sampling of all the 100k+ likes Twitter posts of people laughing at Charlie Kirk's assassination, people saying it's justified, people shitting on him? We can weigh it against Mike Lee's 4 words "Nightmare on Waltz [sic] Street" and see where the hate lies. Or man up and say the latter is more of a problem because he was elected. You think politicians are more important in death, they must be more important in life too. On September 12 2025 22:38 Sermokala wrote:
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. US urban centers have varyingly enormous gang problems and this seeps into schools also. I don't know how the transision of powers works in canada but I know trudou called. Doug ford called as well yes. If Trudeau called it makes sense because they're literally closer by virtue of being on the left than Walz is to Trump, because Walz distanced himself greatly from his own president by calling him a fascist threat. Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 23:28 Sermokala wrote:
He had a tweet sent out, Kirk got speeches to troops and an oval office adress. These are not comparable. FBI help in the investigation was a given yes but there is value in showing public sympathy and calls to unity, they help prevent future incidents from being inspired from the event. If not then why would the white house not have the same response to the kirk shooting? Because Kirk and Trump were personal friends. They are in the same circle. Walz is not. Nor were the Minnesota victims who were basically unknown. Do you have a peer reviewed study that the president sitting behind a particular desk when he denounces violence is more or less effective at preventing future violence? The only other thing I can think of as to why Trump's oval address seems to look like it goes harder, to you, than his response to the Minnesota killings, is obviously if something is escalating, later responses to it are stronger than earlier ones. You increase dosage after the infection doesn't clear. You don't go all in at the beginning. Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 23:28 Sermokala wrote:
Again I'm not going to play "whats worse" olympics with you when the unconfortable thing to say would have to be that trump and kirk was responsible for his own death. I don't want to do that do you? Yes Trump and what he does is more important than what randoms on social media do. Yes elected sitting politicians are more important when they are assasinated for what they represent. They have power to influence your very real life and represent people the way private individuals don't. I wasn't asking you about Trump, I was asking you about Mike Lee. You are conflating or don't understand your own points. You got mad that you found ONE politician, Mike Lee made an alleged joke about Minnesota. I wanted to know how mad you are or if you want to see the outright frothing celebration of hundreds of thousands or millions online, and you either can't make an opinion, are hiding it, don't know what you think, and think I can't ask you. Even in the worst interpretation of Mike Lee, Trump didn't mock the shooting in Minnesota or insult the victims in any way. At all. Obviously single elected politicians are not always more important, if Trump somehow manages to do everything you want him to according to the ever-changing standards you conjure up, being the most superficially PC and having the illusion of unifying decorum, while 5 million of his supporters for example started a race war, things are not on the up and up. Obviously. Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 23:28 Sermokala wrote:
Yes congratulations on repeating the talking point to diminish school shootings while we are discussing someone who was shot at a school. Don't know what you think that is suppose to do for you but yes that is how he felt I agree. If you wanted to stop school shootings but didn't realize that what you're trying to stop is actually gang shootings, you're not going to get anywhere except mad and then maybe also shoot a Republican because they didn't let you save the world according to the rules of FantasyLand. So to start don't call an adult man sniping a public speaker at a university with a bolt action rifle a "school shooting." And don't expect shooting people to convince them.
Lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
