Charlie Kirk Assassinated
We lost a great man today.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Some people thought Kirk was some sort of monster. Hope they catch the real one.
Article is LOCKED by moderator [Split Personality]
Who is online
86 visitors
This sucks!
thoughts and prayers ...
Indeed...
I'd put up the video here, but youtube is taking them down almost as fast as they're going up.
No need, I've seen it. Did you notice the distinctive sound of the shot?
Probably a good thing.
I have seen it too. I saw 'everything' including (an angle where) the blood is gushing from the wound online. Yes, I heard the shot in varying videos. Loud.
not really on any of the videos I saw, but I'd guess a rifle and it's probably subsonic. not being familiar with the layout of the area, there's going to be an echo off the buildings. the only thing for certain is that the shot came from a distance. nobody aims for the neck, so I'd speculate the trajectory of the bullet dropped at least a foot under the crosshairs. I really couldn't tell if it was an entry or exit wound from what I saw. a ballistic bullet from a rifle should have passed all the way thru the soft tissue of the neck, even if it hit the spine, but without more details any theory is as good as the next.
I have since. it sure as hell didn't sound like my 30.06 springfield 1903 rifle when I shot it, which is why I got rid of it. the report would still be echoing and it kicked like a mule. my fucking shoulder still hurts and I sold it 15 years ago.
We can do better than that. We can vote the democrats out in the midterm election.
Register and vote! Do it in memory of him.
Pardon me, but isn't your avatar a man sighting down the barrel of a rifle?
Of course not, he's obviously just pulled up to another Rolls Royce and inquiring: Pardon me, but do you liberals have any Grey Poupon...?
with the trump economy teetering on the brink of a recession, good luck with that. americans, that vote with their wallets, are still waiting for the day 1 reductions of gas and grocery prices the criminal/traitor/pedophile promised a year ago ...
zero sympathy for hypocrites that promote unamerican ideals and circumvention of the constitution, while hiding behind it.
You do like to make it personal. Chris Kyle is an American military hero. I am proud to use the actor who played the role so well.
I believe the topic was the assassination of a man whose cause was civil discourse.
Ya, that's what I'm talking about. Charlie Kirk was murdered by someone who wanted to silence him and was told that he was a "fascist."
I urge all those who cared about what Charlie stood for to vote against democrats in the midterm.
Do it in memory of him.
Well, democrats have martyrs and memorializers too. So. . . .
I urge all those who care about what the constitution stands for to vote against maga republicans in the midterms.
do it for your children, your grand children and to preserve, protect, and defend america from christo-fascism.
they hardly measure up to the current selection of maga racists and theocrats ... /s
I have a video of Charlie Kirk calling Democrats "maggots, vermin, and swine". Wanna see it?
But of course!
That brings back memories . . . (of the actual commercial!...)
Now you are making excuses for murder.
No, I am giving reasons for not praising Charlie Kirk. Watching some Charlie Kirk clips I am reminded of someone else. In his You Tube show Kirk gave daily long monologues, just like Rush Limbaugh did for 25 years, except Kirk is worse. The idea that someone with this stark constant disparagement of other people should be given the Presidential Medal of Freedom is sick.
The media doesnt want Trump to sue or cancel them, and frankly dont want to lose their MAGA audience, and because of the natural sympathy for someone who was murdered, so the media is soft soaping the things Charlie Kirk has been saying for the past 10 years.
Kirk's cause was the support and promotion of MAGA supposed values.
I find the MAGA definition of values, ie. The promotion of some people at the expense of others rights and freedoms, to be abhorrent and anti-American.
Let us put Charlie Kirk aside for a minute. In post 2.3.9 you used the term "democrats." Could you define what a modern-day democrat is?
I ask that question because when I think of democrat I kind of think of John Fetterman, but he is far different than those who have so much influence on the party like Sanders and AOC.
Partly, in that he went directly to universities where students had been indoctrinated and challenged them to explain/defend what they were being taught. More importantly, I am right in that he did it with civil discourse and if you opposed him, he'd put you right at the front of the line.
I'm so glad that his widow has taken up the torch.
There is a myth being perpetrated now that Kirk was some sort of great debater. Not true. What he was is someone who had an array of core beliefs that he over time perfected into a spiel. He was not well educated and I dont see any evidence he has ever even considered viewpoints other than far right Christian nationalism.
This is what you get when Kirk debated people who were prepared for him
What he did was make people defend their positions, kind of like when he asked a young student to explain why she called him a "fascist." She failed miserably. Here is one on abortion:
He was not well educated
He made a conscious decision not to go to college, yet he held his own against your "well educated" educators. He was highly intelligent.
I dont see any evidence he has ever even considered viewpoints other than far right Christian nationalism.
"far right Christian nationalism." LOL!
Here is what you need to worry about:
I think Kirk's widow will find that this work is not as easy as it appears at first blush. She is operating on emotion right now and that is normal under duress. However, I am offended that she thinks Kirk's message can not be pushed back against. . . because I see a great many holes that can be punched in Kirk's message. After all, he is/was a young intellectual out to make a name and life-long career for himself (he did) and many 'old' intellectuals will take up the mantle now to expose the holes in his arguments.
This is exactly what I have been writing about throughout my time on NT. The right has runaway with specious arguments for which they get a great deal of traction from the 'amenable' public. The 'problem' for me is the right is constantly layering a new stack of faulty arguments (because they are industrious busybodies) that it nearly drowns out pushback. And, the right simply falls silent in response when they are exposed as inaccurate.
This first video is the one I have listened to so far (half-way through at this writing. It is. . . 'refreshing' to hear how the announcer has 'diagnosed' the specious and faulty logic of Kirk's tactics and strategy. It's really, really, really, nice to have someone take the time to do this.
However, the right will be epistemologically ignorant of "this," because it is the sort of knowledge that they CHOOSE not to reckon or reconcile.
In the opening (first video) Kirk seems to be doing one thing (that stands out to me): He is testing to see if this young woman understands the nature of the debate on abortion. And so, he ask her an 'easy' question with a snuck premise in it: "Do you think murder should be illegal?"
The answer is yes: Murder is illegal.
And what should be her follow-up: 'Courts decided in a landmark 1973 thereabouts decision abortion is not illegal.'
The courts being the determiners of legal rights and wrongs in our society.
But, since she 'stumbled' he can assess her level and familiarity with this debate tactic.
(Got to run. Back later.)
In 1973 the Supreme Court erroneously claimed that abortion was a right under the Constitution.
That is where we disagree
That is a deeper discussion saved for another (separate) article!
A deeper discussion yes, but somehow I don't think that there would ever be agreement on it. I happen to agree that the SCOTUS ruling in 73 was wrong and the recent one returning it to the states was correct. It is not a right under the Constitution in my opinion. I would like to see a federal law on it as I dislike the current patchwork process we have and i do agree that abortions should be legal but controlled.
But I doubt there would ever be universal agreement on the topic, the sides are too far apart.
I would participate in that discussion of legalized abortion, and yet this article (or one of the many on Kirk's murder, it's hard to keep them mentally separated) is bloated as it is with additional subject matter seeking a 'home.' I will pass this. . . opportunity to say more, and patiently wait for an abortion article to address this.
I hope we aren't careening towards 60-70s level of political violence, but I'm not optimistic.
(deleted)
[✘]
[✘]
[✘]
[✘]
“Another progressive animal…”
It’s 6:00 Eastern, and no suspect(s) have been apprehended, yes?
The giddiness apparent in your projecting a ‘progressive animal’ is responsible is in itself irresponsible. How about having the sound judgment to wait until the facts are clear before the celebratory convulsions commence?
[✘]
Hit a nerve, eah?
“i will wait for your links…”
Funny stuff this. You’ll wait for something that has no relevance to the issue at hand, but you will not, can not wait for something as important as the identity of the assassin, much less the political leanings of same. Out to sea…
I disagree with the use of the term "animal" in this context.
That said, I doubt seriously you would wager actual dollars against the idea that this particular murderer holds progressive views.
Look, while I do not wish assassination on anybody for fear that it could be anybody that it happens to- I am familiar with Mr. Kirk's work on TBN (he has/had a show there). He was unapologetic in his delivery of his perspectives/worldview - which lend little or limited opening for compromise.
NOTE: As I write on Mr. Kirk's recent demise, I want to be respectful and mindful of the dead. As it is my personal belief that one should be careful of how one speaks about the dead whom can not defend themselves.
Agreed.
Or.... how about just because it's morally reprehensible?
A key point of argument on this and another seed is the use of these additional statements about his politics when people express their disgust over his killing. The additional statements are viewed as implications that he brought his own assassination upon himself.
I'm not sure if that's what these people mean to imply. If it is, they're horrific people.
I personally don't believe most liberals/progressives/Democrats are horrific people, and so I sort of take these comments as simply a way for those folks to come to terms emotionally with a shocking and horrible act.
I respect that about you and I think that's a great example to follow.
I dont think he brought this upon himself. From everything I have heard about him he wanted to win people over with his ideas.
Having said that, people who say what is going on with Trump did not lead up to this are kidding themselves.
As soon as he got away with the plot around Jan 6th and was renominated by the Republican Party the stage was being set for things like this.
That goes without stating literally. . . as I do not wish death on any-b-o-d-y. Remember the mantra: Do no harm.
What was on my mind was to make sure that I did not get distracted by what I have 'witnessed' in video clips of the shooting (I saw it all-blood-letting from the wound and all). . . and leave off that others should not do this to. . .Others.
I 'resisted' Mr. Kirk's politics because it occurred in my 'frame' anyway on a Christian network: Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN). The show ran even today with commentary about his shooting/death.
An elderly family member of mine is a 'captured' audience to the religiosity on TBN and so is fixated to hear if not watch the Charlie Kirk Show on the network. I look over her shoulder. . .and am appalled that TBN allows politics to air with 'abandon' from a one-sided conservative perspective. Though, we all know TBN is 'Trump Country.'
So yes, I think conservatives could stand to not profit from the misery of minorities-simply because they have a worldview that disagrees with Others. What I see is conservatives making a living and developing their careers off keeping minorities as Outsiders to the American way of life.
(I must be off, so I am mildly distracted right now. I hope this comment states my views correctly or I will correct any 'blunder' once identified to me.)
Hard to see them as not implying it. A statement such as, "I completely condemn the murder of X, but..." is implicitly saying X has at least some blame for what happened. The correct way to do it is "I completely condemn the murder of X." Then, if one wants to have a conversation about what X believed, have a separate conversation.
So... you're saying it's really Trump that is to blame for Kirk's death?
The atmosphere of desperation has been created and nourished by Trump, yes.
The particular of pulling the trigger is the responsibility of the person who did it.
Then the shooter is really a victim of Trump?
Our society is a victim of Trump.
Donald Trump is a traitor who tried to steal the 2020 election and then pardoned the people who fought like hell to help him steal it.
Its amazing that some of you people think that this would not damage our body politic. This is actually one of the major reasons all this shit is going to get worse.
Do Democratic media/politicians deserve any blame whatsoever in your mind?
Democrats have been calling Republicans Nazis since Trump was in diapers. Has that had any impact, at all, to this atmosphere of desperation?
Right? The defection from the Republican party has been record setting....
So, Charlie Kirk would still be alive if Trump wasn't president? Like, if Harris was president, Kirk would not have continued to tour college campuses and said the things he said which, presumably, lead to his murder? That is, Kirk is dead not for his political activism, but because Trump is president?
Hmm. So Trump, in your eyes, is going to be the excuse if more people off other people for saying things they don't like?
Its amazing that some of you people think that this would not damage our body politic. This is actually one of the major reasons all this shit is going to get worse.
Just for once - try to go a complete day of hiding your Trump hatred and contribute to the rest of the discussions.
Please John - please.
In other words, get rid of trump and vance and put policies in place that “we” approve of or these type actions will occur more frequently? That seems to be what you’re saying.
Trump adviser Laura Loomer
This person has Trumps ear.
What are your thoughts?
Oh, we know. Strange, though. You think it's Trump, but Trump himself is a reaction to the left's ever-increasing shift further to the left. You don't believe that, though.
Possibly, but I think it has more to do with our children being indoctrinated by a woke school system into neo-Marxist ideologies purging them of any ability to think critically but are, instead, just voids waiting to be filled with whatever the Leftist soup of the day happens to be.
Is Donald Trump a critical thinker?
The right in this country has become so obsessed with "woke" and alleged marxism that they have totally lost their bearings and their way.
You would rather have the most unfit person IN HISTORY be president than deal with "woke". It is obscene.
That you're, once again, not on topic. The topic is Kirk, not Trump. Last warning.
Donald Trump called Kamala Harris a communist. Because he knows dumbasses would listen to him and vote for him. He is an extreme demagogue.
Delete whatever you want, I couldnt care less.
My thoughts?? You're bored.
This seed/thread IS NOT ABOUT TRUMP.
Please put a pin into your hatred for a little while.
Where do I start with this . . .since 'nobody' on either side seems to wish to listen. This death of Mr. Kirk can go one or two ways:
1. Decrease the divide in the country by coming together.
2. People become more entrenched and determined to deepen the divide.
For the love of God and Nature, we are the 'heroes' of tomorrow we seek today. This is a 'golden' opportunity for all, I do mean all, influencers to get off social media (including youtube channels) with rhetoric that is harsh and divisive. Clearly, we are one nation made up as it always has been of diverse people. We will all either rise together or fall together.
Which will it be: Rise of Fall?
Note: This is an 'appeal' to everybody-including you Drakkonis. We can do better, because if we can't we potentially will be doomed to running from a great deal of violence in this country similar to how we see 'the herd' scatterings doing mass shooting events.
7.1.27
I think there may also be another possibility--- that vivid memory of this death will start to fade... and nothing much will actually change either way.
"This person has Trumps ear. What are your thoughts?"
She's absolutely right.
(Sigh.) It will fade as our regular news cycle 'crests' and 'falls' -yet again. We are stunned for now.
Mr. Kirk's death will stay with me. . .it will not haunt me, nevertheless. It will stay with me for a very long time, because I viewed something I had not watched before. . . a man bleeding out from this neck in 'real-time.' That will endure.
Possibly a false flag shooting by someone trying to start a fire against the left. By all accounts the shooter was a trained professional. There are far more conservatives than liberals who fit that description.
Hours ago, you flagged comments about Trump as off topic, and I removed them. You have now commented about Trump several times, and that opens up the discussion to comments about Trump.
trump probably ordered gabby to clip him in another attempt to get his epstein scandal out of the news cycle ... /s
Your proof of this is..........
It doesn’t matter if the shooter was another kook who thought he was receiving secret messages from Tim Walz, or trump , or an Iranian hit squad, or an elected democratic member of congress who did this.
the issue is the thousands of posts celebrating it on social media, just like there were when trump was shot, or the healthcare exec murdered on sites like blue sky, Reddit and twitter. This is the effect that will have:
If Charlie Kirk is mainstream traditional America than the country is fucked.
Now we will see the rising sainthood of Charlie Kirk. And it will be a fairly easy narrative to push , given the power and reach of right wing media.
Thank you for demonstrating the point so perfectly. Just keep twisting and stretching to justify violence against anyone who isn’t in the progressive cult..
“mitt Romney is going to put you back in chains” so any Romney voters want to enslave black people and violence against slave owners is justified so ….
Who's justifying violence?
This sort of lying as you are engaging in is a monstrous problem in this country.
What did you think of Trump's oval office statement last night Sean?
The one where he blamed the "radical left" for all of Americas troubles, and pledged to crack down on liberal groups and organizations which HE deems violent ?
Where he read a list of violent political acts in recent America and tied every single one (of the ones he mentioned) to "the left", leaving out all the violent political acts done by "the right".
I said yesterday afternoon that Trump would behave like this, and it was the easiest prediction I have ever made.
What BS. There are tons of examples of every day progressives celebrating this murder. Bluesky (formed because Twitter is "unsafe") is teeming with them.
Again, literally celebrating a murder. The next pundit to be killed is a topic of debate.
And your response to someone pointing that out how this unhinged joy at a assassination makes them angry is to write "well actually, Kirk said..." implying his murder is understandable. Rationalize all you want. The posts celebrating the murder from teachers, medical professionals etc are all out there.
So can you list these violent political acts by the right that trump left out?
You mean the cult that
Guess who said that ?
It's not like he is wrong.
I am not saying that Kirk's views justify his murder. I am saying that he was not nothing but a spokesperson for traditional American values, as you claimed. You might also claim Trump is a spokesman for traditional American values. What would those be , cheating? lying? bigotry?
What did you think of Trumps statement last night? It should be an easy question for you to answer.
These bottom feeding assclowns:
The fake quote to misrepresent what Kirk said?
That's misinformation you are spreading created by someone called apparently called Elizabeth.
and what has trump given us ? 15 years of rage and hatred and vile language.
Guess who twisted it and took it out of context?
I haven't seen it. I'm sure its over the top and less than Presidential. That's what he does.
and that is perfectly ok with you.
Charlie Kirk said that Michele Obama (and others) does not have the brain power to be taken seriously, and that she stole a white persons slot through affirmative action. Maybe he was trying to be facetious, or to tiptoe some sort of line, but that is what he said.
You guys never want what a conservative says to be scrutinized for what it is.
Scrutinize what he actually said, not what you wished he said. Kirk cited specific people (not black women). There's a world of difference between those two things.
Again, it's not. But there's no evidence at this point that Trump's language incited the assassination. It's much more likely this is more left wing violence.
Why is violent language from left wingers like Senator Murphy "We're in a war right now to save this country. And so you have to be willing to do whatever is necessary in order to save the country" perfectly acceptable to you? That stuff is so commonplace its not even news.
How about the exact quote and context of where he said it and not just your interpretation of what was said?
I know what he said . He said that if conservatives accused black women , such as Michele Obama and Ketanji Brown Jackson , of getting their positions through affirmative action they would be called racist. Then he says "they are telling us themselves" and plays a video of Jackson Lee. He says "you do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously" and "you had to go and steal a white person's slot to be taken somewhat seriously."
That is what he says.
What is the context you would like to apply to that?
oh please. enough with this shit.
LOL. He knows damn well what he is doing. Does he disapprove of affirmative action because it helped Sheryl Jackson Lee, or does he disapprove of affirmative action because it lets blacks steal white persons spots?
I know you are more intelligent than what you are letting on here.
Michele Obama is a graduate of Princeton and Harvard Law School. Brown Jackson is a graduate of Harvard and Harvard Law School. Joy Reid is a graduate of Harvard.
Charlie Kirk was a college dropout (not that there is anything wrong with that.)
His comments were straight up race baiting.
I will call out bullshit when I see it. Get used to it.
yes, because he lists people who admit affirmative action got them where they are. What is your issue with that?
d plays a video of Jackson Le
Are you familiar with "Today we have two Vietnams, side by side, north and south," Sheila Jackson Lee? She was not a first rate intellect. Pointing that out is not "racist" anymore than pointing out a white person who says dumb things all the time "does not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously"
It's actually racist not to admit that out of some misplaced racial paternalism.
What is the context you would like to apply to that?
Affirmative action allows people who are less qualified, less intelligent to take spots in schools, jobs etc from those who are more. The people who lose out are whites and Asians. That's literally the entire point of AA. Denying it is like denying humans need oxygen.
I didn't mention him and will not take part in your deflection in order to give in to your unfounded accusations and crying.
That only seems to be a problem for some folks who LOOK for dog whistles.
Brown Jackson is smart. She certainly has 99% percentile intelligence. But she's on the Supreme Court. One of nine spots for 300 million people.
It's the equivalent of making the all NBA first or second team. The level of basketball prowess it takes to make that level is 99.999 something percentile. 99% percentile skill at basketball makes you a starter on a high school basketball team. Still really good at basketball, but not extraordinary. I think to most observers, it's pretty clear that Brown Jackson is a varsity high school player playing against NBA players on the Court. She's way over her head and she's there because of her race/gender. That's just reality and pointing it out isn't "race baiting" it's how the system you support is designed to work.
LOL.
Plagiarism and dishonest practice, Harvard isn't the flex it used to be.
The justice that is running on unprofessional opinion and feelings?
Yeah, I don't give racists any attention.
Link them.
And doesn't know what a woman is.
Not Charlie Kirk.
Not at all. Watched the clip. Kirk should not have said "white person's slot" since saying it was a white person's slot would go against the point he's trying to make. That is, saying it's a white person's slot is just as bad as saying DEI is a good thing. In reality, he should have said "whoever might have earned the slot on merit."
Kirk mentioned four people as examples of affirmative action , Michele Obama , Joy Reid, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Sheryl Jackson Lee. He then said "they" had now admitted they got where they are because of affirmative action, and "they" didnt have the brain processing power to get anywhere without taking white peoples slots.
That is what he said.
Did you read what I said? If so, what's your point?
that's violent rhetoric
Kirk was race baiting, period.
Laura Loomer is an adviser to the president of the United States, and she is calling for the other political party to be arrested. Has this country lost its mind?
The United States needs to GROW UP already. It's time. Persisting to act like you did as a nation at birth is causing all sorts of problems that can be alleviated if you just grow up!
So suddenly now that's a bad thing?
You're welcome to your opinion, JR.
And is that not violent? She wants to duct tape the mouths of half this country. I guess she doesn't believe in the First Amendment.
If someone commits a criminal act based on her rhetoric I hope she's arrested and charged with every crime they can think of
So you're calling for the people that oppose you to be arrested?
Talk about having an echo chamber...
I do not know where some MAGA supporters live, but I am getting the real impression that is in white conclaves where mostly everything is done for their benefit alone. BTW, minorities are permitted to join and mix in with these groups of whites as long as they ASSIMILATE and do not cause 'trouble' for the leaders through bringing in their "minority" rhetoric and viewpoints.
Half of it seems to have, especially after this most recent tragedy. I don't recall Democrats calling for everyone on the right to be arrested after Democrat US Representative Gabby Giffords was shot. But both fringes are fucking nuts right now and sadly you have about a quarter of Republicans who are out on their fringe and a quarter of Democrats on the opposite fringe. If the centrist half in the middle on both sides don't reign in their own crazies and instead use the fringe of their opponents to justify attacking everyone on the other side of the aisle, then this will only grow worse.
Well you are wrong.
I live in a highly mixed middle class neighborhood where working class people of all races live and get along.
The only problem we ever had in my 20 years there was a black kid who lived in one of the houses would break into the houses that immediately were next to him as the owners were not home. Got busted by a doorbell camera.
[✘] a leftist makes these types of accusations, it shows the ignorance of liberalism.
Maybe you can tell us the political makeup of the "white enclave" of The Hamptons?
I highly doubt they are a bunch of "MAGAs", whatever that is.
Trump would just pardon her
America "normalized" Donald Trump and its all been downhill since then.
Trump's ascendance was mainly based on one thing - white people afraid they were losing "their" country to non whites and to a lesser extent, LBGTQ. Without that particular grievance Trump would have never been able to get started. The Republican Party never had the guts to stand up to him and the country is paying the price every day.
100 percent bullshit
When did the democratic party stand up to Biden during all of those years of racist comments?
Trumps entire political career was predicated on the lies he told about Barack Obama in 2011.
Well, not 100% bullshit. I’d estimate closer to say …… 95-97% bullshit.
why don;t you just pop my balloon and kick my pony while you're at it?
Nah. Trumps whole political career start was predicated on the fact that he wasn’t a politician.
Why would Trumps lying about Obamas birth give him credibility among far right circles ?
Old news, the birther movement started long before Trump came on the political scene. Around 2008, by the Clinton camp as I recall. Besides, Trump accepted Obama’s birth documents almost ten years ago.
Find a new shtick.
Cool. If the left would stop shooting and celebrating the death of people for disagreeing with them, things would be going in the right direction.
That is true. In fact the birther movement had somewhat died down when Trump decided to amp it up in 2011 to create a political base for himself for a 2012 presidential run.
As far as Clinton starting it, that is disproven nonsense. One minor staffer at one of her field offices somewhat spread the rumor. Clinton immediately disavowed it.
That’s a historically accurate framing—and one that’s backed by multiple sources.
🔥 Trump’s Strategic Revival of Birtherism in 2011
While the birther conspiracy theory originated in fringe circles during the 2008 Democratic primary—some loosely tied to Hillary Clinton supporters—it had largely faded from mainstream attention by 2010. Then came Donald Trump.
In early 2011, Trump began aggressively promoting birther claims on national television and talk radio, saying things like:
He claimed Obama spent “millions of dollars in legal fees” to hide the truth and speculated that the birth certificate might list Obama’s religion as “Muslim”2.
This wasn’t just idle speculation—it was a calculated media blitz. Trump was testing the waters for a 2012 presidential run, and birtherism gave him a populist wedge issue that resonated with a segment of the Republican base.
📈 Political Payoff
A New York Times poll in April 2011 showed that a plurality of Republicans believed Obama was not born in the U.S., a direct result of Trump’s amplification.
Obama released his long-form birth certificate in April 2011, but Trump continued to cast doubt on its authenticity for years.
Though he didn’t run in 2012, Trump’s birther crusade built a loyal media following and laid the groundwork for his 2016 campaign.
🧠 Bottom Line
Trump didn’t invent birtherism—but he revived and weaponized it at a moment when it had lost steam, using it to build a political identity rooted in grievance, suspicion, and racialized nationalism. It was a masterclass in populist branding, albeit one built on a falsehood.
Lol. Great example. Remember, Democrats blamed the tea party, Sarah Palin and right wing media for the shooting. They wanted Palin arrested for incitement.
Of course, the shooter was a crazy person who wanted her dead because she ignored his question about grammar, but that didn't stop Democrats from calling for arrests and blaming it on Republicans.
Shocking I tell you!!
So it did start in the Clinton camp. Great. Now just admit Trump accepted Obama’s birth documents like ten years ago and move on.
Muy bueno
Always funny when the people who normalized a President who committed felonies while President and was credibly accused of rape and other sex crimes because "character doesn't matter" get angry that Donald Trump was elected. Everybody who justified Clinton remaining in office made that possible. So blame yourself.
Details, details ….. it’s always in those pesky details …
Exactly where did I do that? I'm merely pointing out that it was the left that has been trying to do. Not that you are going to admit to it.
Bill Clinton was morally reprehensible. Trump is evil. Maybe one day you will understand the difference.
I hope for the same for you.
The FBI (pre Trump) indicates that political violence is a phenomenon much more closely linked to the political right than to the political left.
Just as with the Trump shooter we'll likely find that the Kirk shooter was a registered republican with especially bad wiring who was mad that his girlfriend liked Kirk (or something equally idiotic).
If you would admit to your own race baiting I will admit to mine. So what about it?
I think you would be quite happy to see all of us that don't think like you rounded up and put in camps
Also, and more importantly, thousands of Republicans weren't on social media openly celebrating the shooting
How do you go from arresting political opponents to ignorant shit like race?
As Wayne Campbell said...........
No link? Then bullshit.........
et another bullshit statement.
Some of us need to come out of our silos on a regular 'day' basis. The conclaves are 'loud' right now.
People are proficient in different areas of life and professions because of focus and interest. . . pretending that is not so is an instigator's way of stirring up divisions between people group. Asians, for example, are good at what they dedicate themselves to, but it does not mean they are high achievers in other endeavors or careers.
One more thing, if we do not fix this country's 'bottom' - then the top won't be able to stand. . . educate and help those who need the 'hand' up and damn all the bull that surrounds them serving to put people down as not in any way helping US!
If as you say an individual or collection of individuals are smart and deserving then this country is big and strong enough to lift all of us. . . stop pretending that locking s9me people in ghettos and squalor is a proper place for them. Because then you get more of what you GOT already!
Of course, we could point out that dog whistles work on 'dogs.'
I condemn this remark. Whatever god there is needs to help us right now as we are really floating on the bottom. I am appalled at the level this discussion has sunken to right now. Really? We have no respect for others and it makes me 'ill' to be around.
Just like Republicans are doing now. And to be clear, there were no calls to arrest everyone on the right back then and there weren't even any calls to arrest Palin over her add that had the bullseye stamped over a map of democrat's districts. Here is one of the articles noting peoples reactions to her ads and the Gifford shooting at the time:
No calls for arrests, merely "opponents suggesting she may have fueled the gunman's rage". Not really the same as Loomers comments by a long stretch. It's also quite telling how back then Republicans were saying that it was "grotesque" to blame her and to politicize the tragedy" but that's exactly what they are doing now with Kirk.
We will find agreement here.
The Church and State should be separate, for the benefit of both.
John, Trump is not the source of all the evils in the world. Portraying him as such is simply a poor and transparent effort to transfer accountability for their own actions away from other people.
maybe somebody on the right should explain that concept to trump, before it's too late ...
Trump most certainly has exposed US to what was formally taboo and often required hidden for a politician to aspire, for his vehement vicious voice, has done much to inspire hatred among US. I hold the individual always in the end, responsible for their own malleable mind being so easily manipulated, yet, I recall a time when the GOP had standards and they were stipulated so as to enable the R's to be the 'Family Values' but now they allow Trumps' little hands to smell like poon tang, while they guzzel Kool Aid as Trump catches for what Putin pitches, cause the Repubs are Trump Bitches, all as Trump, the FBI Epstein informant snitches, leaving thinking individuals in stitches as the Trump clown car is crashing hard into Epstein ditches, cause Trump sure as hell can't, Ditch that is, cause he is ripe in the middle, stuck in the muck, and exactly where the stupidasz Fck, should be.
Why does whatever was deleted in your post count as a sweeping generalization when the term "MAGA" is itself an often used and never deleted generalization? MAGA is a term that is generalized to mean anyone who supports Trump or doesn't sufficiently denounce him, regardless of reason. It might be the biggest generalization on this site.
[✘] deleted[✘]
[deleted][✘]
Yes.
And tens of millions of people voted for him.
Why do you think it's "hatred"? And why would you think Trump "inspired" it rather than simply rode the wave?
Why would you think they've been manipulated? Does it ever occur to you that you've been manipulated also?
Why do I have the sneaking suspicion there is significant overlap between these "family values" and the things you call "hatred"?
For my part, I remember a time when both parties had standards. If you had ever suggested to Lloyd Bentsen or Bob Graham or Tip O'Neill that Democrats should defend little kids going to drag shows, puberty blockers for kids whose parents wanted to call them transgender, men playing women's sports, or eliminating hundreds of SCOTUS justice candidates solely based on race and gender, they would have asked WTF was wrong with you.
Trump's election has now twice confirmed what most of us in Generation X could have told you long ago.... voters care a lot less about infidelity than they used to, and the people leading both parties still think like "the new century" is describing the 20th.
“Trump's ascendance was mainly based on one thing - white people afraid they were losing "their" country to non whites and to a lesser extent, LBGTQ.”
that is a completely moronic statement. It shows that you don’t know shit.
Good argument .
co-pilot
Okay. Now that is rich. Of all the things to suggest: A woman does not know what a WOMAN is . There seems to be an implication that a woman being a woman is too complicated to comprehend. The 'running joke' should end here.
As we can see her daughters are young and beautiful. It suggest that Ketanji Brown, a woman in her own right, knows what it takes to make girls into child-bearing women of themselves. Oh, and let us not dismiss the image of her adorable "traditional" male husband pictured behind her whose last name is hers also.
I agree with JR. If Kirk said those words, then he said what he meant. You can not come back and "clean it up" for Kirk! That would be UNFAIR to Kirk's intentions. Moreover, he did not and can not now ask for a 'recasting' of his statement.
It’s certainly a better argument than the batshit crazy theory you aspire to
I don't live in the Hamptons, so it probably would not be the white conclave/s causing my concern. As for this 'perfect' little mixed neighborhood you live in. . . with a black rogue in it. . . you can't prove it so it is not valid and wasted on this discussion. Besides, your partisanship makes mostly everything you write-want for authenticity.
As for what I wrote. It is clear to all here that there are white people whom know little or lack associate with the groups they seek to demonize and otherwise, because if they did 'freely associate' themselves with minorities they would not have the worldview they persist in using their power to suppress.
I didn't suggest it, she said it
I persist in blaming the white evangelical church as they are right now on the air (Trinity Broadcast Network) casting anybody not in agreement with Trump, republicans, and MAGA supporters as pagans, socialists, communist, and worse demons acting against the will of God. And so they act in the stead of God (as if God can not act on behalf of God) to try to overpower the 'world' and make it 'come to Jesus.' What a corporate-body self-delusion.
I have seen enough of Kirk to know what his intention most likely was. Have you?
No, I only listened in to Kirk in passing by a relative that would lie in bed sometimes sleeping, with Kirk doing his live show on TBN. That being said here Mr. Kirk is in the first minute - just the first minute is sufficient of your time - of this podcast saying those lines. . . do note his facial features as he makes his "pronouncement" about these women :
Charlie Kirk HUMILIATES Himself In Attack On Michelle Obama, Affirmative Action
Note: I tried hard to find a video on Youtube, youtube mind you since its vids are easier to post on NT and alas could not. Maybe you can, I don't know-we'll have to wait and see if you can/do.
So now we can discuss the video. . . only if you are willing- no compelling okay. So, . . . what do you think Kirk's intentions were in making the comments?
There is no Left or Right or liberal or conservative in a grown-up US. We are all stunned 'kids' in the larger scheme of a big world picture right now. How small we are and it appears we just lost a few "inches" more of recent.
Look, damn it. . .we have 3 years and several months to go in a Trump administration (and MAGA supporters) . . .do not sit and complain when for 6-7 months now I have exhaustively asked what those griping about 'labels' wish to be called. I asked politely. And the only response I got came from a non-MAGA supporter on NT. I temporarily used the label provided by that member. . . until I opted to just say MAGA supporters.
Y'all have nothing to bitch about. If you wish to be properly identified to your satisfaction then give a legitimate answer to the question: "What should NTers call MAGA supporters?"
Tell us. Because surely we are going to call/label you something or the other in lieu of any sharing of names by the collective You.
Isn't discussing site policy reserved for METAFIED or something? Why is it a deepening discussion here? It's distracting.
So why is Trump a populist again?
She said what exactly? Be clear!
Let me explain. MAGA is Trump's own movement, so other than saying something about all MAGAs, it is not a sweeping generalization.
The comment you are referring to (and only a very small part was removed) was a sweeping generalization. I checked.
This will be my one and only meta on this article.
There are multiple comments every day that say MAGA believes this or MAGA that. They are all, by definition, sweeping generalizations and they are typically directed at people who don't claim to be MAGA.
I wonder if Trump agrees with your definition of MAGA. I have a feeling Trump thinks MAGA is everyone who supports him.
“but I'm not optimistic”
i agree.[✘]
I'm sure you have links.
[✘]
[✘]
[✘]
[✘]
clever to post four links under the pretense that they represent more than one person
[✘]
He frowns on it because he is unable to back up his claims
What lkinks? I said no conservatives here condemned the attack on Paul Pelosi. You want me to post links about something that didnt happen?
You post links of right wingers here condemning the attack on Pelosi.
[✘] deleted[✘]
ask someone who knows something about it
[✘]
Here ya go, will you read it?
Chirp chirp chirp....
He would talk to and debate anyone and almost always give people something to think about. He galvanized young people and made them realize it was ok to be a conservative. He was 31 years old and a force to be reckoned with. He scared many on the left shitless.
“He scared many on the left shitless.”
because he usually made a lot of sense. There is a lot of mental instability on the left, i hope this isn’t the start of a trend.
We Paid Some Etsy Witches to Curse Charlie Kirk
This is left wing media from a couple days ago... The rot it deep.
Unbelievable how whacked out some people are.
Problem was that many of those who opposed him had no argument. Only slogans and labels. He wanted to have honest debates based on facts and reasons. All he got was labels like "racist" because what he was saying didn't support the victim narrative. Once in a while you did see some attempt an actual argument, and cudos for them trying, but usually their arguments were based on ideology, not observable facts.
The truly ignorant would call him a fascist, and yet only one person was shot for saying what they believe, i guess we know who the true intolerant fascists are now don't we?
That's a pretty good point. Either believe what I believe or, at least, be a quiet sheep and do not oppose us or we'll kill you. Of course, I'm not talking about everyone on the left, but you watch some of these videos and it doesn't take many to see that a lot of people are probably pretty happy about this.
Obviously, this shooter didn't like Kirk but I wonder if the person hoped murdering such a followed influencer would cause some on the right to lose it and start retaliating in kind. I pray to God they do not. That would be even more stupid than the riot at the Captital was.
Charlie Kirk was a 2020 election denier. What facts was that based on ?
[✘]
No one is right about everything, JR.
The rest of this thread was removed for trolling and no value.
Charlie Kirk offended me, and not in the way one would think. I was (deeply) offended spiritually and actually continue to hold it against Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) that Charlie Kirk has a show on a religion-themed network where his conduct was nothing more spiritual than what Rush Limbaugh did on Clear Channel: Make conservative policy visible and 'bank' from his sponsors. My opinion is Kirk (and several other political hosts-some are pastors on the network too) use the network as a forum to build their influence 'empires.' And, it is wrong from a religious perspective to exploit minorities in this country and profit from their misery.
Charlie Kirk was a far right wing fascist who specialized in poisoning children's minds with propaganda.
What position did he hold that made him a fascist in your mind?
I have seen may people call him a fascist (including to his face at his events). When asked about it none have been able to say why.
I saw an interesting quote the other day, from podcaster Chris Williamson.
I'd never heard it put exactly like that. It seems such an obviously rampant phenomenon, but it was interesting to hear it stated so clearly.
He had already quoted Gurwinder Bhogal:
We also see that a lot.
[✘]
What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Come on, come right out and say it, don’t hide behind vague bullshit.
its not that vague
I wonder if trump will send the national guard in to utah because of the violence ...
Utah has the death penalty, i hope they botch the execution twice[✘]
I doubt it, there are way too many dem run shitholes that need it far worse.
He sent them into DC because big balls got himself car jacked so......
Could it be possible that BB set up his own car jacking to give Trump an excuse to bring in the troops? Sounds like something they would both do.
“its not that vague”
No it’s not, but it is a cowardly way to make a threat.
I think its more of a commentary than a threat.
Then you don’t know what it means.
And there are red cities and states that are far worse than blue cities and states. Face it, Trump is playing politics and punishing those who didn't vote for him.
Can you name some of those red cities?
[✘]
That is manifestly wrong. Blue cities lead the top ten most violent cities. And it isn’t even close.
It's an easy Google. Do it yourself.
Here we see the usual lack of accountability and follow through we’ve come to expect from many of our friends on the left.
And where is that is this seed/thread???
I looked and I looked and I looked and I looked and I couldn't find a damn thing to back up this claim.
[✘]
I calls em the way I sees em.
The definition of fascism has been posted on this site many times.
So what about Charlie made you conclude he was a fascist? Because he liked Trump is not an answer
And if you use that definition, then what about Charlie makes you believe he was a fascist? I would love to hear the reasoning.
And you sees em wrong a lot. A lot …..
The left's definition of fascism is "anything and anyone I don't like"
Nope.
The only things the rightwing hasn't done yet that would put the cherry on top of their blatant Christo-fascism is to round up all their opposition and prosecute them, which of course is exactly what Laura Loomer appears to be suggesting they do next. Fucking rightwing fascists. Never thought they would rear their ugly heads in America but apparently the Southern conservatives who once said that they 'didn't leave the Democratic party, the Democratic party left them', are basically claiming they didn't leave the United States of America, The United States of America left them. To be fair, I suppose over the last few decades the majority of America was trying to leave them behind because of their rampant racism, sexism and undeserved superiority complex and arrogant stupidity.
All 16 points you showed describes democrats to a tee.
The rest of your rant does not qualify for a response. Not worth the effort.
Great job displaying the classic schoolyard tactic "No, you are!". Not a lick of substance, but I don't expect any from those on the right so I'm not surprised. I find it hilarious though that you believe Democrats can be described as " Powerful, often exclusionary, populist nationalism centered on cult of a redemptive, “infallible” leader who never admits mistakes." I mean, that just screams Trump and yet I haven't the foggiest who on the left would fit that description. But whatever, it's not like I think I can even reach any of the minds that are clearly stuffed deep in Trumps ass.
Lol. Please, please cite the actual author of that list and when it was created. That's high comedy.
The Nazi Party in the 1930's outlawed all other political parties and put political dissidents in camps. That is exactly waht Loony Laura is suggesting
They do? That wasn't in my memo for the world take over
Anything Loomer says doesnt matter to the conservatives here. She doesnt fit their preferred spin.
Her words only matter to Donald Trump.
They should because she "advises" trmp, doesn't she?
Yes she does.
Do they? Outlawed a lot of other parties has he? Put a lot of simple political dissents in jail has he?
Maybe because very few people of ever heard of her and even fewer care.
I had never heard of her until you started ranting about her here....and I still don't care who she is.
She is an adviser to the president of the United States. If she tells Trump I want to meet with you to propose something Trump will say come on over. What you do or dont know about her is less than meaningless.
So what?
All presidents have MANY advisors.
How do you know he listens to her more than the others?
I believe your hatred for Trump has overridden most coherent thought.
You don't have to point out the obvious, they just don't care. Loomer and all the other insane Trump advisors and his entire feckless cabinet are a feature, not a bug. This is what his supporters wanted, a destruction of the government that wasn't treating them or their religion as special anymore. We have to just accept that these brain-dead bigots are simply a lost cause. They are dead weight and have nothing to contribute to our constitutional Republic (which is why they're trying to burn it down and replace it with their Christo-fascism) and should be treated as such. January 6th was just the first salvo of these pathetic piece of shit conservative bigots.
“…his entire feckless cabinet…”
Lincoln seated a “Team of Rivals” while trump has assembled a ‘ship of fools.’
bondi, hegsgeth, rfk,jr., noem, gabbard, vought, et.al. take turns uttering outrageous, ridiculous policy points ignoring established constitutional principles, scientific evidence, and moral reasoning in their sole purpose of bowing to the demands of their sole constituent. Frightening.
Wow. You claim to not know who Laura Loomer is. Now that is rich. I know who Laura Loomer is: A confidant of President Trump. I know this because I am not stupid and/or mentally lazy to just attempt to speak to MAGA supporters through epistemological ignorance (deliberate not-knowing).
So you are stating our nation should get ready and stay ready for what may turn out to be inevitable.
That's right, I never heard of her until JR started incessantly posting about her on her.
" I know this because I am not stupid and/or mentally lazy to just attempt to speak to MAGA supporters through epistemological ignorance "
Never said you were. I just don't spend every waking moment thinking about someone that has zero effect on my life. Maybe some on the left need to start doing the same.
who the hell cares if you've never heard of her or not?
There are "leftists" I've never heard of and dont care anything about. Will you shut up about them?
That is the error of your thinking: "I just don't spend every waking moment thinking about someone that has zero effect on my life. Maybe some on the left need to start doing the same.
Hyperbole aside, you claim you do not know of Ms. Loomer (even though Trump knows her well), and you are a Trump supporter. Thus, whether than disassociate yourself from her. . . the obvious action would be for you to seek her view out to confirm/align yourself/condemn according to your understanding.
Instead you take the 'easy' way out and attempt to bash liberals for calling HER out. Clearly, since you do not know 'about' her and won't bother to discover or learn - you can not know if we are right or wrong to confront and oppose her.
Perhaps JR (and me) should give an OBJECT lesson to MAGA supporters whom are not ready for prime time debate about Loomer. . .and the Right's agenda both!
Tell you what. You name those "leftists" that I name here incessantly and I will see what I can do.
I think the problem you will have is that you will have zero names.
Exactly what was that propaganda?
See 5.3.1.
So nothing
He may have been killed for precisely that reason.
I think I missed the part in the bible talking about firearms. Face it, Charlie Kirk was just another MAGA idiot, but he did not deserve this.
That’s a good catch. I missed the fact that he said “other.”
MSNBC floating the first conspiracy theory. A guest suggested it was a celebratory gunshot from a Kirk fan.
My nephew said he saw someone on MSNBC who essentially said he deserved it because he was divisive. Not in those words of course, but that's what it came down to. Didn't see it myself.
I had MSNBC on all afternoon. Almost without exception the hosts and guests decried the use of violence and some of them even praised Kirk for standing up for his beliefs.
[✘]
Seems to me Kirk had said "some gun deaths were acceptable" as long as we retain our 2nd Amend. Rights. Guess its all O.K. Too bad, so sad. /S
Sorry John, I somehow missed your "6" posting.
Funny stuff.
They've already issued an apology.
That is about 1/100th of similar comments Trump has made, some of it even worse. The idea that his language does not deteriorate the social fabric of this country is ridiculous.
Trump talking about the people around Kamala Harris.
Mmmmm, didn't Biden call Trump supporters garbage?...
It's all part of the authoritarian playbook. Trump's "no politican has been treated worse" could be translated into German as "mein kampf".
This is what pisses me off. Trump has said and written things like this many many dozens of times. He had a streak going where for 10 or 15 national holidays in a row his message to the country was how his opponents are scum or losers or degenerates or communists or stupid low IQ. Dozens and dozens of times he has done this.
And you equate it with one public remark from Joe Biden.
That reactionary post is disgusting.
I know right?,.... that whole both sides thing. Tuff shit...
I'm glad you agree. All of Trump's reactionary posts are disgusting. He even said he's been treated worse than Lincoln, who was shot in the back of the head! It's hard to imagine anything more disgusting, but I'm sure Trump will find a way to say something even more disgusting than that.
yeah, 10 years of trump's violent and divisive rhetoric had nothing to do with normalizing it ... /s
What a hypocritical post. How is the subject of this seed not the result of at least 10 years of Democrats violent and divisive rhetoric?...
I was referring to 7.1.10
This is not about Trump - please lighten up.
Right. Where I quoted one of Trump's reactionary posts. I already got it.
Because there hasn't been 10 years of Democrats violent and divisive rhetoric, or any for that matter.
Did you?...
Mmmkay
Denying reality doesn't change it....
Yes, of course. And what do you think of Trump's other reactionary post where he said he's been treated worse than Lincoln? Disgusting, right? I'm sure you agree.
That's a good lesson and you should always keep it in mind, as should everyone.
Funny - not in the German language I learned.
What dialect did you get that from?
Amen!....
Cold goes to hot, you can't push a chain, what comes around goes around, play with fire you get burned.............
Silesian (Joking!)
Many people are saying Trump is writing another book (well, someone is writing it for him as always), a book like no one has ever seen before, and Trump thinks that "My Struggle" is a much catchier title than "No Politician Has Been Treated Worse" while expressing the same basic concept, don't you think?
[deleted][✘]
Possibly you did not live through the violence of democrats of the 60s and 70s, all in the name of politics.
... like kent state. /s
I was alive then and know there wasn't any. Probably you weren't and now you're just spreading reactionary propaganda. There was white supremacist violence by Southern Democrats at the time, the ones who are now affiliated with the Republican Party.
You can't name any Democrats you're claiming committed violence. Groups like the Weather Underground were, of course, NOT Democrats.
Who could forget the weathermen and other left wing terrorist groups and their subsequent rehabilitation into teachers. Pushing that sort of heavy handed propaganda would be even too much for Stalin.
Not true. Google the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Talk amongst yourselves.
Sure you can. Just weld the links together
Until it doesn’t
Only for the learning challenged.
I marched against Viet Nam. A war that LBJ started for no good reason.
[✘]
[✘]
[✘]
That is some serious bullshit...
Weather Underground - Wikipedia
From the link
All matching Democrat ideologies.
Don't need to name names. It was GROUPS of leftists that committed violence.
Here isa little light reading for you..
The Rise of Political Violence in the United States | Journal of Democracy
From the article....
" olitical violence has a long history in the United States. Since the late 1960s, it was carried out by intensely ideological groups that pulled adherents out of the mainstream into clandestine cells, such as the anti-imperialist Weather Underground Organization or the anti-abortion Operation Rescue. In the late 1960s and 1970s, these violent fringes were mostly on the far left. They committed extensive violence, largely against property (with notable exceptions), in the name of social, environmental, and animal-rights causes."
Now, admittedly, if you read a little further, the article admits that the violence shifted, but decreased, towards the right.
You claim the left did not commit violence in the 60s/70/s and that the Weather Underground were not democrats.
I blew your "argument" away with the same article.
Your entire post is a FRAUD. Name one member of the Weather Underground who was a Democrat. You can't. And your claim that Communism is a "matching Democrat" ideology is just so ridiculous it's pathetic. Surely, then, you admit that Nazism is a "matching Republican" ideology.
I was going to mention that but then decided it was a waste of time.
talking to any of them is a waste of time
going for ticket #7
As I stated, correctly, you can't name a Democrat that you claim committed violence. Again, your post is a FRAUD.
More FRAUD from you. Where did I "claim the left did not commit violence in the 60s/70s"? NOWHERE.
You still haven't named a single member of the Weather Underground who was a Democrat, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T.
The ignorance of your Comments 7.1.30, 7.1.39 and 7.1.40 is appalling.
And just to compound the FRAUDULENT nature of your comments, Comment 7.1.16, to which I was initially responding, and my response at Comment 7.1.20, discuss "violent and divisive rhetoric" (Emphasis added). Maybe you don't know what rhetoric means. Of course, that is almost besides the point since you changed the discussion to your allegation of violence by Democrats, which YOU CAN'T PROVE.
The only thing you blew is any chance to claim that your comments contain any element of the truth.
Your entire response is a fraud.
It is not me that tied the weather underground to democratic ideologies, the same then as they are now. Take your frustration out on wikipedia, a publication that has mostly left wing editors.
Take it out on the article I posted that, again, stated...
"these violent fringes were mostly on the far left. They committed extensive violence, largely against property (with notable exceptions), in the name of social, environmental, and animal-rights causes."
Not my problem that most domestic terrorists have the same leanings as democrats.
Only reactionaries see it otherwise.
Does wikipedia say they have the same leanings as Democrats, or do YOU say it?
If there is something in the wikipedia article that says the Weathermen were Democrats then just post it. We will wait.
This you?
From post 7.1.30 where I posted..
"Possibly you did not live through the violence of democrats of the 60s and 70s"
Where you responded in post 7.1.32
"I was alive then and know there wasn't any."
Reactionaries can continue to claim these incidents by domestic terrorists in the 60s and 70s were not done by democrats, just because those domestic terrorists did not openly identify as democrats, but when the ideology of these groups matched the ideology of democrats then and now, it is stupid to try and gaslight those that are smart enough to recognize that gaslighting.
You need to read 7.1.47. It has the answers you seek
Bill Ayers' ideology is rooted in Marxist-Leninist and Maoist thought ,
Very similar to democratic ideology of today. If he was public about his party leanings, it would almost undoubtedly be democratic
The Weather Underground was a radical, militant organization founded in 1969 at the University of Michigan . It emerged from opposition to the Vietnam War and adhered to a communist and anti-war ideology
Mamdami is a communist (claims to be democratic socialist, but essentially is the same as communist) and is running for mayor of NYC under the democratic party.
There is no argument that will prove me wrong
I asked you if wikipedia said the Weathermen were aligned with Democratic party. I already know what you think. Just say it is your own opinion and stop attributing it to wikipedia.
So tell us what belief/ideology the Weather Underground had that did/does not align with the democratic party.
I already showed you what they had/have in common.
Ayers, the man who launched Obama's political career, wrote on op-ed on 9/11/01 saying he didn't regret setting bombs and that he felt he didn't do enough.
He was rewarded for his terrorism with a teaching position at a university and was given tax payer dollars to influence another generation. It's explains a lot about American universities that a literal Marxist terrorist was able to fit in so seamlessly there.
Another fraudulent comment from you. Absolute nonsense.
Then you're contradicting yourself. Your comments are pure reactionary propaganda.
Now you're claiming these incidents of domestic terrorists in the 60s and 70s were not done by democrats? You're contradicting your own reactionary propaganda.
The blatant ignorance of that comment is astounding, or knowingly fraudulent. Or both.
A complete fantasy and just more reactionary propaganda.
And yet ….. no ticket ….
and why is that ? cause I doubt you think she deserves one. Gonna guess you see favoritism ? Never flagged any comment and never will. Believe we may possibly have thicker skins than some.
But what's truly hilarious is that these dishonest rightwing conservatives want to paint Democrats with the old "Southern conservative Democrat" who fought desegregation while also painting them as the 'crazed liberals' like the Weather Underground who are on the complete opposite side of the fence that the Southern Democrats were vehemently opposed to and were outright hostile towards. So according to these knuckleheads, apparently conservative Southern Democrats who had a political stranglehold on the Southern States abandoned their conservatism and embraced liberal ideals, and then moved out of the States that they had held under white conservative rule (also the States they were born in with many having deep roots going back to the civil war). And when those conservative Southern Democrats moved away, as if by magic, white conservative Republicans moved into those Southern Democrats homes, waved their confederate flags, protect confederate monuments and keep a white conservative stranglehold on the politics ruling over the Southern States. But don't call them Southern Democrats, no sir, that's not them, nope, these are not the racist droids you're looking for...
"We want our cake and eat it, too!"
How is it not the output of the past 20 years of Trump and associated complicit "entertainment only" media outlets lying to the masses repeatedly and continually, demonizing and degrading anyone who questions any move by him?
Trump preaches hate and division every day, and from what I have seen, so did Kirk.
To listen to some Charlie Kirk was only defending "norms".
Calling his political opponents "scum" and "animals" probably qualifies as hate, not to mention "they're eating the cats , they're eating the dogs".
There are no sides on a spiral, and I do not like where this spiral is apparently leading.
Quite a large portion of the younger men in this country have bought into the reactionary beliefs of Kirk and Trump, et al. These beliefs are a perversion of human rights and dignities, based on interpretation of an interpretation of what someone is supposed to have said 2000 years ago.
We used to have discussions about the actual stuff that makes up living, now we are reduced to arguing about what people are saying about stuff. Not if what they said was right or wrong, but just that they said it at all. It seems that we cannot, as a nation, comprehend what actually is, and so we run around in circles while the concepts of morality and liberty and basic kindness are turned on their heads by a regressive and destructive administration bent on reducing the liberties of many so that the few can gain wealth and power.
It is true that Kirk was a 'servant' of the team in good standing.
We spend too much time (here) on the defense. We need to put forward our vision for 'today' and tomorrow and why it works for all people to be included, given equity and equality, and allowed to benefit from being in and members of a productive society.
Conservative 'arrows and slings' are par for the course. . . obviously. Address those being derisive about what liberals want. . . and move back into strengthening why liberalism works best for a country that calls itself a union: A nation where many become one.
Democratic Socialism is definitely not the same as Communism! For starters: Democratic Socialism is legal in the USA. OTOH Communism is illegal. (That’s quite a difference!!!)
So why is Communism illegal? Its really quite simple: Communism wants to see the end of Capitalism— by the overthrow of the U.S. government by violence!!!
Democratic Socialism wants a Socialist government— but through democratic means (which of course is legal ….).
But you offer nothing to counter it, only insults.
The typical leftist response when they have nothing else.
Uh, no. I said that the members of the Weather Underground never listed their political association, that I know of, however, their actions and their ideology lines up with exactly what democrats believed then and now.
Take for instance Bernie Sanders. I has never claimed to be a democrat, claiming to be an "Independent" , but lines up 100 percent with democratic party ideals.
Same exact thing with the WU.
Your "argument" is moot.
So prove it wrong
It was wrong on the face of it, but you still don't get it. What you posted to supposedly "prove" the weather underground were Democrats was:
No where in your moronic rebuttal does it say the Weather Underground were Democrats. It says they were part of "these violent fringes were mostly on the far left" and I guess because Fox News has bashed the brains of their viewers into a soft mush that apparently many on the right believe ALL FUCKING VIOLENT LEFTIST FRINGE MUST BE DEMOCRATS! They are stupid and moronic and wrong, but that's apparently what they believe and apparently think that "violent fringes" of the "far left" is just synonymous with the Democratic Party.
So, are ALL of the violent fringes on the right Republicans? Were the violent rightwing groups like the Boogaloo boys who assassinated officers in an attempt to start a civil war during the George Floyd riots all Republicans? Are you openly admitting they are part of your party? I mean, they do consider themselves "rightwing" so that MUST make them Republicans according to your post at 7.1.45, right?
Or you can admit you're wrong and accept that there can be groups out on the fringes of the left and right that ARE NOT part of the political parties that represent right of center and left of center. I'm predicting you choose to ignore logic and claim anyone of the far left or on the fringes must be a Democrat by your careful fantasy estimations, therefore you can't be wrong because Trump supporters hate admitting they're wrong even when it is blatantly obvious they could not be more wrong, like in this case.
That was a funny post.
And nowhere did I say they were.
Your moronic response shows you do not read entire posts and only respond of emotion.
In a sad way that some actually think like that.
MSNBC issued a direct apology for the commentary from Matthew Dowd and this morning I see they have fired him.
Surprising that MSNBC actually has a line that shouldn't be crossed.
Off topic comments cleaned up @3.1.
What was great about him?
What he was doing when he was assassinated. Empowering young conservatives on campuses to have a voice.
A voice for what, I guess would be my question. I’m all for having conservative voices on campus, but I would hope that conservatism would be guided by truth and respect. I can’t say I spent a lot of time listening to him, so I don’t know everything on his agenda, but it sure seems like he had a reputation for getting people amped up over things that just weren’t true. And a lot of what he was doing seemed to be encouraging people to judge or hate others based on what they are or how they lived.
Kirk was an activist. Thus, like for most activist, the longer it takes to achieve a goal. . . the more 'brain-power' activist deploy in order to compel persuasion. That is, the agenda itself becomes self-preserving and self-consuming (for all activists). It is a real problem for society when 'push' goes too far that it leaves truth and consequences struggling to keep up.
He had an argument for the things he said, not a label. He stood for accountability vs victimhood mentality. He usually identified the correct causes of many of the problems our country faces. He knew where to find the answers.
No one who empowers Trump is a great man.
A lot of people liked Charlie Kirk, and he is friendly in videos that I have seen, and Im sure he was good to many people. But "great"? Not a chance.
That’s just exaggerated nonsense. Most conservatives don’t feel that way. It’s comments like that, that likely spooled up this shooter. Hyperbolic comments like that accomplish nothing good.
their silence is tacit approval ...
Nonsense.
According to what or whom? Is it a law or something? Or is it just another BS rule progressives pulled out their backside?
[deleted][✘]
Of what???
Jesse Waters of Fox News, who denigrates people who are not from his right wing tribe every single day of his miserable life, said today that the left has declared war on conservatives.
He declared war on everyone who is not MAGA a long time ago.
More hyperbolic nonsense.
Oh, so he’s like his counterparts on cnn and msnbc?
Pretty much. I don't watch the guy because he's just as bad as them. In my opinion, he operates on emotion more than fact. Distorts the issue.
I agree, that’s one reason i don’t watch him. The other is that he’s so full of himself.
That, too.
As do many on NT.
I looked and I looked and I looked and I looked and I looked and found no link to that claim. Could it be due to it being fictional?
That poor family ….
This is just sad! My heart goes out to his family. He leaves behind a wife and two young children whose daddy is never coming home again because some piece of shit decided his opinion was too much for their weak mind to handle.
We don’t have to agree with someone to see their life as valuable. We don’t have to like what someone stands for to understand that no one deserves to be silenced with a bullet!
Rest in peace and may your family find the strength they need to face the days ahead.
Damn Jane - it is so good to see you - thanks. I hope you're back.
Thanks 1st.
I saw a small clip yesterday, his little girl running to him saying daddy, both so happy. It just made my heart hurt! She’s about the same age as my granddaughter and I can’t imagine having to tell her she will never see her daddy again.
No one should die because someone doesn’t like their opinion. I mean he’s gone, now the only people who suffer are his family, friends and his two precious children. The only thing that this murderer actually accomplished was to ruin the lives of all he left behind. I hope they are found soon and justice prevails!
Have missed your comments. Welcome back.
Thank you
It's a terrible thing. It should never have happened.
One critical point is being overlooked in this discussion we are having here. We do not know WHY Charlie Kirk was killed. We are assuming it was politically motivated because of the nature of his work and the Governor of Utah statement about a "political assassination" - it does beg the question that the governor did not explain how he came to that determination.
It may be so, but we do need to rely on discipline to wait until someone is caught and explains why, or at the least more definite information is presented for a final cause.
Some observers have motioned that this could be a professional and well-planned hit job. There were reports of a person dressed in black on a building top about 200 feet away from the booth that gave an excellent line of sight. Shooter had to be well trained and experienced to be that accurate, although I think he got lucky in hitting the carotid at that distance. Apparently left no clues. Ex military or law enforcement?
A deranged political killer would probably screw up and be captured right away.
I take your 'consideration' under serious reflection. At the same time, we need to not jump to finality, . . .for much is yet not stated. Outdoor political venues are not looking safe anymore overall.
Not so sure about that, typically you would, from that distance 250 yards (note not feet), aim for center mass, because the bullet went through the neck the shooter must have trained at shooting that distance from the level ground. This is where a trained professional would've known that when shooting from an elevated position you have to aim lower.
If one knows how to use a ballistic calculator, which is available in a phone app, and they trust it through practice , it wont matter if the distance is in feet or yards .
Greg had stated 200 feet, which I knew wasn't the case, and now have heard it was 455 feet just over 150 yards. But what does matter is the assumption that the neck was the target, it wasn't, and therefore this was a flubbed shot (even though it had the same result), so not done by a professional.
Personally, I think perp was a amateur wannabe who was probably trying to hit center mass, missed and hit the neck by accident. And he did drop the rifle he used and was found by police.
physics and gravity be damned ... /s
like exiting the scene holding a rifle wouldn't have attracted any attention among others that were fleeing. we'll find out soon enough if this was a professional hit. I have a gut feeling the shooter only left behind what he/she wanted to be found. the possibilities of a clean escape increase with each passing day
I just read on one of the articles i have been reading for the last 2 hrs , that the distance from what they are calling the snipers nest , to where kirk was sitting is in the 130 yard range or there abouts .
I have also read the rifle found is of 30.06 cal.
Until a couple years ago i exclusively hunted /harvested , deer and elk with that round so have a little understanding of how it behaves .
depending on how the rifle is set up ( optics or not and how good they are ) and at what distance it was zeroed for comes into play .
If zeroed for 300 yards ( common for western area hunting ) all one has to remember is bullet climb and drop for ranges greater and less than zero . With that zero my rifles will shoot 5.5 inches high at 100 yards , will actually go up just over 6 inches at 200 yrds , and be dead on at 300. so a dead on hold out to 300 works , person could have did a dead on hold center of mass chest shot , and because of range hit high and in the neck, but with same results . .
Kirk made a career of pissing people off... FAFO. He did this to himself.
Charlie didn't piss people off; the younger people liked a lot. Pissing people off is no excuse for being killed
I think Kirk will be made a martyr by the younger, smarter, conservative generations.
Much better than the drug addicted George Floyd who had a statue raised for him. If the sculptor had put a bag of meth in the statue's hand, it would have been more accurate.
Bitter obsession towards a member of the black race won't fix the political violence we are immersed in as a country. And, one does not have to wonder at all when we see the black/white contrast you repeatedly establish why race is still front and center in our country.
Continue to divide us with toxic rhetoric. . . some of us here will continue to push back and do our damnedest to pave over what is ruined by 'hot' rhetoric.
So you think pissing people off is a license for someone to kill you?
This coming from the guy that doesn't think George Floyd was murdered LOL
So, in your mind this murder is justified? That's a pretty pathetic and fascist point of view.
I guess challenging snowflakes to defend their position pissed them off. Poor widdle snowflakes.
Trump: "The media is so unfair to me!!!!!!" LOL Speaking of snowflakes.
Nope. Try again
[✘]
Exactly in this case.............thank you
Specious rhetoric. Tearing out a man's tongue is simply what it is tearing out of a tongue. We all should learn something valuable from this sad and painful experience: To be better to each Other! And more to the point, drop the aggression on both sides!
Damn all the finger-pointing!
So, Trump is blaming the 'lefts' tongue and is threatening to cut it out. He's not promising to go after the person actually responsible for this reprehensible act, the shooter, but going after those who spoke out against rightwing fascism in general. Guess he is just fearing what those dissenters might say according to Kirk.
My comment had nothing to do with Trump but I guess you just needed a rant.
Your meme appeared to be a quote from Kirk. Kirk is a vocal supporter of Trump. I pointed out that what Trump is doing is exactly what Kirk is saying you shouldn't do. How is this not completely obvious?
My comment had nothing to do with Trump but I guess you just needed a rant.
Wow, a right winger promoting violence.... how shocking.
Try again
The guy who turned in the shooters direction and immediately started cheering has been identified.
he claims he was trying to help security.
Also, the WSJ confirms that they found a gun with cultural messages on it. Earlier reports said the messages were promoting transgender and anti-fascist ideology.
Ghoulish to say the least.
So the blogger site MSNBC has an opening for an on air dickwad:
Good
Now here’s a case of the truth hitting just a little bit too close to home. Highlighting the toxicity that persists with many of the triggered on the far left. And the same could be said for some on the far right.
[deleted][✘]
Nothing in Mr. Onder's comment even resembles 'truth', it was just more tired moronic rightwing conservative opinion. So yeah, he can fuck off.
Maybe to the partisan mind.
Pot, meet kettle.
All this back and forth serves no purpose other than to tear at the other side. The comments are coming as expected.
But one thing that this overshadows is that today is the 24th Anniversary of the 9/11 attack. I saw something today that I would like everyone to actually think about because it also applies here.
The best way to honor those who fell on 9/11 is to be the people we were on 9/12.
Assassinations should not be the foundation for political / ideological arguments.
We have far too much divisiveness in our nation. This feeds those in the fringe whose mental states are so fucked up that they engage in violent acts such as this one.
I don't think folks that keep the rhetoric going realize the effect it has on some mentally challenged people. All they think about is making their base happy and assuming no one will take action on the shit they spew.
https://www.mcall.com/2025/09/11/charlie-kirk-shooting-shooter-search/?utm_email=45A264DAB40DD439E4B314E8B1&active=no&lctg=45A264DAB40DD439E4B314E8B1&utm_source=listrak&utm_medium=email&utm_term=https%3a%2f%2fwww.mcall.com%2f2025%2f09%2f11%2fcharlie-kirk-shooting-shooter-search%2f&utm_campaign=trib-morning_call-breaking_news-nl&utm_content=alert
I hope they are statues for defender of free speech
I have no problem with that. We live in a diverse nation and people should have their heroes. . .with or without the controversy/ies. Of course, without controversy would be better all around. It is what it is.
Today is, I think, a very appropriate day to revive this famous quote from the late, great Charles Krauthammer
To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law:
Conservatives think liberals are stupid.
Liberals think conservatives are evil.”
___________________________________
So if you think someone is stupid, you go to where they live and try to convince them of their stupid errors. Like Charlie Kirk did.
But if you really, truly believe someone is "evil," you kill them. Like what some stupid, evil person did to Charlie Kirk.
WTF ?
He's obviously in deep mourning for his friend, but hey we've all been waiting 150 years for a magnificent new best any where in the world White House ballroom.
Trump never lets us down.
Meanwhile "civil war" is trending on twitter (X).
There is video of this at the Mediaite link.
Trump is asked how he is holding up after the death of his friend Charlie Kirk. He says "I think very well", and then not even a half second later he starts bragging about the ballroom.
It is strange, but par for the course for him.
He is consistent, isn't he? Consistent in his assholishness.
There are some right wingers who have been calling for a civil war for a long time.
Strange is par for the course for him. It's his default position.
A white house ballroom . Reminds me of the scene from Bridgerton Season 1 Episode 1:
Bridgerton | Daphne is Flawless
How will Melania ever manage the palace intrigue? And imagine all the gossip and writer's columns that will spring up and flourish around the 'happenings' at these soirees. Does Trump really know what he is setting himself and his administration for to occur?
So many triggered folks these days. Toxic people desperately trying to justify a murder in any way possible. And in the end they gravitate to the fetish that now rules their lives. A hatred of Trump.
It’s all Trumps fault and always will be in their Trump centric, hate filled existence.
Sad.
The only ones who are "Trump centric" are those enabling and empowering him. And it's hilarious that you believe those of us who can't stand the man baby in the oval office live "hate filled existences" when the whole reason Trump was elected was because of a angry bitter sour mob of bigoted conservatives screaming at the sky over liberals treating blacks and gays with respect and fairness. Talk about hate-filled existences.
Yup, no "hate-filled" existences shown here... /s
shooter's granny gives an interview and states the entire family are trump supporting maga republicans that don't even know any democrats ...
LOL!!!
newsweek has the shooter belonging to the gropers/gripers, a nick fuentes group that's in a war with charlie kirk, because kirk was too moderate ...
LOL, you just can't make this maga civil war bullshit up ...
It would be nice if they have something definitive that was the motive.
Otherwise the right will just claim it is all a hoax
A left winger who told his family he thought Charlie Kirk spreads hate then shoots Kirk with a bullet he marked "Hey fascist, catch"
It's a real mystery.
“It's a real mystery.”
Lol 👍
It would be nice if they have something definitive that was the motive.
Otherwise the right will just claim it is all a hoax
A good example of how left wing media manipulate it's less literate consumers. The Daily beast runs a blip saying shooter's grandma says the whole family is conservative, hoping no one reads the actual article where she admits she has no idea what the shooter's politics were. Sad people fell for it.
Making up quotes from Kirk, lying about the evidence and resorting to cheap stunts to mislead their readers. A bang up job by left wing media covering this.
It this kind of 'competition' which leads us to 'days' and incident like this! We can talk about what the shooter/murderer says about himself (he is alive - and will eventually speak) and not look for just gossip for its own sake!
oh yeah, the alt-right media has been on top of this story all along ...
Yep. A classic case of gaslighting. Shameless and ugly.
It is sad to see so much hate for a person. I wish I could say I am surprised.
Kirk was killed three days ago, and the suspect was caught after apparently admitting it to his father.
There is still no evidence he was a leftist or Democrat. There is a lot of presumption. The fact that literally millions of right wingers are ranting about how "they" killed Charlie Kirk with no evidence is disgraceful.
The same sorts of people said "they" shot at Trump in Pennsylvania. No "they" demonstrated there either. The shooter was a Republican who seems to have been simply trying to become famous.
Other than the governor of Utah saying that's what the investigation shows, his family reporting his words attacking Kirk as hateful, the messages he put on his bullet casings, and of course that he shot a conservative, right? No evidence at all...
It's like all the Biden scandals redux. Just keep saying "no evidence" no matter how much evidence you are shown.
But really, it's the reaction to the shooting that is the scandal for progressives. There's no escaping that no matter what the shooter's motivations were.
All that has nothing to do with my comment.
I did see yesterday where it was said there was a possible connection with salt lake democratic socialist of america , source of influence for a college aged individual? debatable, they have chapters on college campuses just like turning point or any other political org . have to wait and see how that report pans out .
and please notice , i used the word influence , not indoctrination , i feel there is a difference .
I did look them up and saw in their about section , there could be a cross over of ideals between them , and someone raised mormon .
I usually take the stereotypical thoughts of mormonism, which i have found to be untrue with a grain of salt , mainly because i spent 20 years living , working and socializing in an 80% predominantly mormon community.
*UPDATE* it crossed my feed that SLDSA has stated that the mentioned individual that shot Kirk , is NOT on any membership lists of the SLDSA locally or the DSA nationally .
this does not mean he did not join in discussions or round table talks to discuss ideas since they keep a policy of open discussion in public .
Not according to a relative. He developed a hatred for conservatives and Christians.
Sound like a Republican to you?
Believe he was talking about the dude that shot and knicked Trump
Charlie Kirk’s alleged shooter Tyler Robinson was living with a transgender partner who was in the process of transitioning from a male to a female, a law enforcement source confirmed to The Post Saturday.
That individual, who has yet to be identified by the authorities, is now fully cooperating with the FBI on its investigation into the fatal shooting of the conservative activist, the source added. The relationship was first reported by Fox News’ Brooke Singman.
Text messages and other communications that the transgender individual traded with Robinson, 22 , helped the feds nab the accused assassin.
Since Drak announced his self imposed vacation 4 days ago, this article should have been closed at that point.
Closing it now.