US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5254

On September 21 2025 07:45 LightSpectra wrote:


Does the "I would vote Dems for democracy, science, human rights and common decency, but they voted for this meaningless resolution so I'll stay home" person exist?

The right crawls over broken glass to vote for someone to destroy their own livelihood because it'll take down some minorities in the same sinking ship, while the left have to do this completely idiotic circular firing squad garbage every thirty seconds.

Democratic Congresswoman Yvette Clarke says she voted against a Republican-led resolution Friday honouring slain right-wing advocate Charlie Kirk.

“I will always condemn senseless acts of political violence,” Clarke, the daughter of Jamaican immigrants who represents the 9th Congressional District in Brooklyn, told the Caribbean Media Corporation (CMC) on Friday.

“No American—regardless of party or ideology—should fear retribution or violence for speaking freely. Charlie Kirk’s murder was a horrific act of political violence and a stain on the United States, and any nation where young children lose their father solely because of the opinions he espoused is a nation in desperate need of healing and a different path forward,” Clarke said.

“I extend my deepest condolences to the Kirk family, friends, and loved ones, and I pray for strength and comfort for his wife, Erika, their two young children, and all who mourn his loss,” added the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). “I also commend law enforcement and the suspect’s family for their cooperation in seeking justice for this heinous crime.

“As a Black woman in America, I am painfully mindful of our nation’s history and the violence rooted in bigotry and hate that continues to impact Black and brown communities,” Clarke continued. “And that is precisely why I cannot in good conscience vote to celebrate Charlie Kirk’s legacy. Mr. Kirk denounced the Civil Rights Act of 1964, describing it as a ‘mistake’ and an ‘anti-white weapon.’ He disparaged the transformative work of Dr Martin Luther King Jr, who gave his life for peace and equality. He demeaned Black women, including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and others in positions of leadership, dismissing their intelligence and accomplishments as nothing more than ‘DEI hires.’ He also spread disinformation and hate-fuelled rhetoric against Muslim, Jewish, and immigrant communities, while championing lax gun laws despite the devastating toll of gun violence in our nation.”

“Rather than seek to heal a wounded union, this bill aims only to push us further apart,” Clarke said. “For these reasons, I cannot and will not vote to honour a legacy defined by bigotry and division. To do so would dishonour the countless victims of political violence who are too often ignored. If we are to recognise one, we must recognise all.”

She said Kirk undoubtedly valued his right to exercise the First Amendment right to free speech.

“Yet, I am deeply troubled by how this administration has chosen to weaponise free speech, targeting critics under the guise of honouring his legacy,” Clarke said. “Free speech is essential to our democracy—but it cannot be used as a shield for hate.

“If my colleagues feel compelled to pass this legislation, that is their decision,” she added. “I have paid respects to Mr Kirk and his family, but I will not pretend to respect the painful words and ideas he so proudly held, nor will I honour a man who built a career out of dishonouring people like me. I, however, will instead lend my support to Representative Veasey and Pettersen’s resolution that ‘condemns all forms of political violence, including assassination and attempted assassination of public officials, candidates, and public figures, regardless of political party or ideology.’

“If Republican leadership is serious about addressing this crisis of political violence rather than scoring political points over Democrats, so will they,” Clarke continued.