How so Many Democrats came to believe Kirk was murdered by a right winger..
The immediate aftermath of the Kirk assassination saw numerous claims from left wing journalists from outlets like the Atlantic falsely claiming the murderer was a "right winger" Within the closed left wing bubble it apparently took hold to the point Jimmy Kimmel fell for it (that was he was fooled is the most charitable way to describe his actions). So the intersting question is where did this conspiracy start? Reuters may be ground zero.
Last week, @Reuters published an article on the Charlie Kirk assassination that falsely attributed a quote to Rachel Kleinfeld , a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The article claimed Kleinfeld said “the bullet casings’ symbology suggested the shooter was affiliated with the Groyper movement, tied to far-right activist Nick Fuentes.” Kleinfeld never made this statement. After she complained, Reuters quietly removed the quote without acknowledging the error. Only after Kleinfeld and her colleagues demanded a formal retraction did Reuters comply—three days later.
https://x.com/CHSommers/status/1969493276802891990
Not only did Reuters violate a cardinal rule of journalism by making up a quote, they then compounded the problem by not publicizing the retraction and instead trying to cover up their lie with a stealth edit.
Hopefully, tracking down how this conspiracy became so widely believed on the left will make it harder for the next one to spread.
.
As I pointed out in one of my bygone articles is that the ridiculous claim that a MAGA person did it is one of the left's narratives. I numbered them if you recall. The claim that MAGA did it was narrative # 4. What you have to remember Sean is that their last narrative is the important one: the honest one. That is the one in which they admit what is in their hearts: WE ARE GALD THAT HE IS DEAD. HE DESERVED IT!
From what I have seen, the reality is MAGA actively complaining that others are saying he is MAGA; trying to make this into a much bigger deal than it is. While there are always fringe elements in every situation, mostly this is MAGA playing victim. Milking the accusations by a relative few to stir up their base for political gain.
MAGA voices, in aggregate, seem more concerned about this assassin being labeled as one of them than they are about his victim. As I noted on day one, this is yet another situation where partisans shamelessly exploit a tragedy.
Do you think that people wondered if John Wilkes Booth was actually a Lincoln supporter back in 1865?
Yet again you ignore the point instead of dealing with it.
What he's trying to prove is that any violence towards any MAGA must be the work of some disgruntled transgender Democrat, but any violence against liberals or transgender Americans must be just some random crazy person and we should never rush to judgement or blame the MAGA gang or conservatives for any violence or murders...
'Beyond depraved': 5 people charged in death of Minnesota transgender man
So, if liberals follow the way the MAGA gang jump to conclusions, we should assume anyone targeting and killing transgender Americans are full-fledged MAGA faithful Trump supporters, right? No investigation needed, let's all just Jump to conclusions because that's just so much more fun! Right? /s
Murders of trans people nearly doubled over past 4 years, and Black trans women are most at risk, report finds.
Murders of trans people nearly doubled over past 4 years, and Black trans women are most at risk, report finds - CBS News
MAGA: Murdering Americans Got Approved! As long as they're not white conservative Christians who love Trump!
Figment of a sick, disturbed (but all too common) imagination.
Next to no one says that. Yet you mistakenly, for the sake of creating a scapegoat, say that it is secretly in "their" (whomever you wish it to be) hearts. The logical extension of this scapegoating is that since you know the deeper truth, all you need do is take the surface characteristic (ie, left leaning) and you automatically get the result that you desire (ie, murderous lust).
This type of thinking that you displayed in the above post is a textbook example of prejudice and a prime example of Carl Schmidt 's Friends and Enemies...
Meh. There video evidence to the contrary.
There are always fringe elements who claim and do the most vile things.
A common mistake is faulty generalization of a tiny minority.
“A common mistake is faulty generalization of a tiny minority.”
And citing the anecdotal in justification…wielding the broadest of brushes.
The claim in question is " Next to no one ".
We're already over 60,000, and that's just those who have been reported.
We also have 24% of "very liberal" people saying political violence can be justified.
That's certainly not " Next to no one ".
I cannot access the Axios link, but the today link shows disturbing stats. Nobody should be glad that someone was killed for political reasons.
The stats also show that "Democrats and Republicans are more likely to say political violence is a big problem after attacks on members of their own party" so timing of the polls is a factor.
Regardless, this is a sad reflection on the state of US divisiveness.
It just verifies the 60k people who have been reported for inappropriate comments about Kirk's death on social media.
The concern seems to be that, while this should be an obvious thing, we as a society don't seem to agree on it as much as we once did.
Absolutely. Not to mention the wording of the question, the response format, the inflection of the pollster's voice (for verbal polling), and a number of other factors.
Agreed. That said, I do think we'll get through this. I just hope it doesn't take another 9/11 or Pearl Harbor style event to remind us we're all in this together.
If it were to happen, the solidarity would likely fade quickly.
The key is to have leaders who set an example of working together. Instead we have slimy tactics, hateful rhetoric, and at the top of the food chain, a corrupt, divisive, pathological liar creating chaos.
I'm going to cling stubbornly to unjustified optimism on this.
I agree that the landscape isn't what it was in 2001. But we don't actually know how Trump would behave in an actual emergency. I'm going to cling stubbornly to unjustified optimism on this one, too.
“I'm going to cling stubbornly to unjustified optimism on this one, too.”
As would I if there was just one member of his administration, or just one member of Congressional leadership, or just one member of his family or inner circle that had the courage and temerity to offer wise council. Unfortunately, and for whatever inexplicable reasons, that person has yet to make an appearance.
I ran afoul of some of our more high maintenance Trump haters here on the forum a couple of days ago when I suggested that most of what we're seeing now, we've seen before in one flavor or another.
Their consternation does not change the fact that we're basically re-enacting the 1970s.
So my stubborn optimism comes from remembering that not only did we survive all of that, we eventually thrived. I really believe we will this time, too.
To me, the question is not whether our nation will survive but rather the ill effects that are unnecessarily occurring because of the electorate's choices. Trump and his sick movement will eventually fade into history. The ill effects will eventually be remedied (or, possibly, worsened by other bad actors). Trump and his effects are of course temporary.
In the meantime, while this abysmal character continues to abuse the power and influence of the presidency, I will analyze, opine, and criticize.
Those are always there, also. I don't remember a presidency without unnecessary ill effects, or decisions that led to them.
Which is why I don't get too agitated one way or the other.
It is the frequency and degree of the ill effects and bad decisions that distinguish Trump from the presidential mode.
People can be highly critical without being agitated (or out of emotional control).
Without criticism, without opposition, bad actors will worsen.
I think there is a greater frequency of "wtf" eyerolling moments with Trump. (The Tylenol press conference springs to mind immediately.)
But I also think that, along with the natural bias people have to view things in the present as bigger than things in the past, there is a natural tendency to remember some of those other bad decisions as less impactful than they might actually have been.
I think it's also easy to forget that we (the public) see so much more than we did even 10 years ago that it's easy to get caught up in the shiny objects in front of our faces in the moment. Trump seems worse than the others because he's always on video, he's loud, and he's not smart enough to do nefarious shit behind closed doors like his predecessors did.
Nothing Trump has done (so far) is as significant as GWB entering us into a 20 year war. Nothing is as damaging as Gramm Leach Bliley under Clinton. Jimmy Kimmel was off the air for 72 hours, but we now know Biden censored people for years. For all of Tom Homan's bluster, he will never be able to deport all the people Biden let in.
Some, yes. Unfortunately, there are several folks around here who don't possess that composure.
Trump ...
In response to an historic attack on our nation, GWB got us into Afghanistan largely to find and kill OBL and his al-Qaeda organization. After he left office, our continued presence in Afghanistan was up to his successors, and they chose to continue our presence.
You are exaggerating the effect of GLB if you are trying to blame it for the 2008 crash. The crash was far more complex than that, as it was triggered by the end of the housing bubble, and enabled by irresponsible/greedy underwriting and risk-taking (e.g. unsafe mortgage-backed securities) by financial institutions.
Regardless of what you are vaguely referring to here, the issue is not censorship, per se. The issue is the federal government using its power to censor free speech simply because the PotUS does not like to be criticized. Not for public safety, national security, or other legitimate reasons, but for personal reasons dealing with the PotUS' ego and/or as part of a personal vendetta of the PotUS.
Another example of Trump's damage is his war on illegals. Not just criminals (per his campaign promise), but anyone illegal. His efforts are enormously expensive and are taking low-wage workers out of our economy. And, on the human level, he is ripping apart families where an illegal has married a US citizen, gainfully employed, law-abiding, and raising children (born in the USA).
What I was responding to was the claim about Charlie Kirk and the assumption that "the left" was categorically saying, well, here :
Your claim
As what. One would assume from context that you mean 60,000 people have celebrated the death of Charlie Kirk?
I could only see the beginning of the article mentioning the crowd sourced database
So I cannot be sure if the comments are broken down into constituent parts or not. So I will be generous and say that all 60,000 are celebratory of his death. There are estimates of over 330 million people who use the internet in the USA. I am going to be nice and just use a nice, round 300 million people for figuring purposes. When you divide 60,000 into 300,000,000 and convert to percentage, that gives 0.02% of the internet users celebrated the death of Charlie Kirk. 2/100 of 1 percent of all users of the internet, with overwhelming weight given to your claim. So, I evaluate these 60,000 people as a very minor portion or, next to none.
The stats I did have access to. The question that was asked is
This is truly depressing. Personally, I think that the question should be worded differently ("killing" instead of "death" and "political" instead of "public"), but that doesn't excuse callousness. Then again, I am not too sure when a leader of one of our enemies bites it (e.g Putin), some of our hearts are not totally grief stricken.
I feel like you're making my point. You're listing nebulous, subjective ideas from a highly partisan view.
Trump hurt Canada's feelings. Nixon hired burglars.
Trump fired govt watchdogs. LBJ promised we would not go to war and then sent 3.4 million of our sons to get shot at in an Asian shithole.
Trump hires sycophants. Do you imagine Clinton didn't? Hell, Jake Tapper has written an entire book on Biden sycophants.
Hardly. GLB removed the safeties that would have kept investment banking losses from destroying retail banks. BTW... it wasn't the first time we deregulated lending institutions, but apparently nobody remembered what the letters RTC stood for.
No, you're trying to rationalize away real, serious constitutional violations that actually happened in order to make Trump's attempted actions look worse. There are no "legitimate" reasons for the POTUS to violate the Constitution.
I think I've already expressed my frustration with what I view as the stupidity of our current deportation bonanza. That said, laws need to be enforced if civilization is to survive, and if congress was less corrupt we could have immigration reform by next weekend. It's difficult to defend the argument that law enforcement officers are "damaging the country" by enforcing the democratically enacted laws of that country.
While we're on immigration, we should probably tie that back to the "laughing stock" idea. The majority of western Europe is in turmoil, due largely to their own mismanagement and unrealistic liberal ideology, specifically with regard to immigration. They are seeing increasing civil unrest, with native born citizens furious that their daughters are not safe amd their social programs are being overrun by migrants, while their own children are turned away from the schools they pay for. They are more interested in stopping free speech than they are protecting the safety of their own citizens.
The idea that they're laughing at anybody is laughable in itself.
Over 60,000 people have had their comments reported to their employers.
Large numbers of them celebrated Charlie Kirk's death. There were large numbers of posts saying things like "Trump next" or "Matt Walsh next" or even "Erika next".
That's an awful lot of rationalization just to pretend liberals aren't in the wrong here, especially given the polling results.
If 60,000 people attended a Free Palestine march, you would declare it an enormous number. If only half of the "celebration" accusations were accurate, that's still a huge number. Tens of thousands of people celebrating a murder and/or calling for additional assassinations is indefensible.
Personally I was disappointed, but I do attribute a great deal of it to the age group in question and the lack of maturity that inherently comes with youth.
Also, surely you're not comparing Charlie Kirk to Vladimir Putin?
Tell that to the Russian Kulaks.
Large numbers, until you consider the total population, then they become vanishingly small. If you distribute 60,000 people across the country, they disperse to the point of near invisibility.
Yes, because they would be in the same place, at the same time, doing the same thing. Recognizing the difference between online spouting off and political rallies is a very important distinction to make. It takes time, planning, and organization to hold a rally of just 100 people. 60,000 people giving callous opinions on the internet, over some span of time and with no organization to them takes effort on the part of the data gatherers, but next to no effort on the part of the poster.
Which is why I have not attempted to defend them. I merely try to put the proper perspective on information that can be inflammatory. There are seemingly always people who will disagree with any stance that you or I put out there, some may be hasty and emotion driven, some more considered and well reasoned. It is the former kind that mostly inhabit the celebratory posts, I would think.
No. I was giving an example of a foreign leader who we might not be totally dismayed to see die. Once again, though, the online posts give vent to immediate feelings, and the consideration of factors like who fills the power vacuum thus left might take a little bit more judicious thought.
But similarities do exist in basic world view, that is they both purportedly held traditional families with a patriarchal structure, anti-gay, as ideal. These similarities are largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Obviously you cannot rebut my list so instead you merely falsely categorize the items to dismiss them.
So you take three items and then list bad things other PotUS' did as if to suggest that everything on that list has an equal counterpart done by a single PotUS . We all know that prior PotUS have done bad things. One can go through history and collect bad moves by all prior PotUS' and match them against the bad moves I listed by a single PotUS. My list illustrates what Trump alone has done in a mere 9 months (except for the last item).
Instead of acknowledging the facts, you attempt to defend Trump.
Further, you downplay the aggregate harm to Canada as merely "Trump hurt Canada's feelings" rather than recognize the unnecessary harm that Trump has done to our trade relationships. You downplay Trump surrounding himself with sycophants to ignore the reality that Trump, unlike other PotUS', does not surround himself with strong advisors but rather mere 'yes-men'. Clinton, and every other PotUS, of course surrounded themselves with allies, but NOT unqualified individuals whose primary characteristic was 100% loyalty to Trump (not to the office, the CotUS, or the nation).
In short, your comparisons are weak.
That is a false claim. GLBA allowed affiliations between banks and investment firms (removed that one firewall), but did not remove the GL safety mechanisms:
Well that is quite a fine example of a bullshit claim. Not more than a 'nuh-uh'. Being specific, Trump used the power of the government to censor a comedian who got under his skin. There is no denying this. There is no rationalization in my comment. Your response reads like a cookie-cutter response that can be tossed into any 'debate' when one has no real rebuttal.
There is a profound difference between going after recent illegals and illegals who are criminals (outside of illegal entry). Going after those who are bad for society is one thing. That is what Trump campaigned on. But going after domiciled illegals who have been here for years, raising families, parents to jus soli citizen children, gainfully employed, etc. and just deporting them is both inhumane and stupid. It should be obvious why it is inhumane. It is stupid because these people are part of our economy and society. People who have been here for years and are being responsible citizens should be given a pathway to citizenship. The illegal immigration problem should be addressed by stopping NEW illegal immigration and deporting recent immigrants. NOT going after people who have been here for years.
My position has always been to control our borders. Every nation needs to vet those coming across its borders and needs to govern immigration with the ability of the nation to assimilate the increased population. Border control is key here.
So, repeating myself, the smart way to handle this is to control the border, remove bad elements, remove recent illegals, and then deal separately with those who have been here for years and are part of our society and economy. While they should never have been allowed to stay in this nation, that should have been addressed at the onset, not after they are integrated into our society for years raising families and part of the workforce.
What Trump is doing is both stupid and cruel.
There are tens of millions of people in the US who would not 'shed a single tear' if Donald Trump dropped dead this afternoon.
Not death wishing, just reality.
That is the legacy he created for himself.
Why would that be the thing we compare against? If we're doing the math correctly we would compare against expected outcomes established by previous trials.
I figured that must be it. I just wanted to make sure you had the chance to eliminate any possibility of being misinterpreted.
Oh... wait... they're not subjective? Then by all means, provide empirical data on "lowered the bar" or "weakened leadership". They're not partisan? Why is Trump winning an election "hijacking the GOP" but Obama winning an election not?
Yes. That's the point. None of the things Trump has done (so far) have nearly the significance or impact of some of the decisions made by his predecessors. 100 years from now, kids in school will still learn about the Cuban missile crisis. Nobody will remember a year from now who Trump hired and fired.
Wait... are we talking about harm to Canada or harm to us? I don't care about harm to Canada, partially because no harm we're doing to them could possibly come close to the harm they're inflicting on themselves.
I merely point out that you hold Trump to an entirely different standard than you do any other president.
It is not. As you now demonstrate
Exactly. Allowing trillions of retail banking dollars to pile into the mortgage derivative market, artificially inflating it and and putting those dollars at extreme risk. GLB enabled a $100 billion problem to become a $7.77 trillion problem.
Kimmel doesn't seem very censored, does he? The people Biden censored stayed that way until after Joe was out of office.
Legally, there isn't actually much difference. They're enforcing the law, either way. I agree the law is stupid and self destructive, and I would see it changed. That said, "inhumane" is another wholly subjective assessment. Why wasn't it "inhumane" when the Obama Administration was doing it?
I agree completely. But let's don't talk like failure to follow our plan constitutes "damaging America".
Undoubtedly his death would be celebrated much more enthusiastically than Kirk's.
It's not about "the legacy he created for himself". It's the lack of character of those who would rejoice.
Show where my items are wrong instead of falsely categorizing them and demanding empirical data as if these were scientific theories.
The hijacking of the GoP refers to the GoP turning into something substantially different than the party prior to Trump. If you cannot see the difference between GoP TRUMP and GoP REAGAN|BUSH then you are not paying attention. That did not happen with Obama (you chose him) or any other PotUS. I have not seen it happen in either party with any PotUS other than Trump.
Three obvious key examples:
I listed items that Trump has done in 9 months and you compare these items to decisions made across time by multiple presidents. Faulty comparison. An accurate comparison is to look at what Trump has done (damage-wise) by himself, in 9 months, to any other PotUS individually.
Trump will most likely be regarded as the worst PotUS in our history. And that will be based on his words and deeds in aggregate, not because he presided over a remarkable single event in history (unless such an event occurs).
Obtuseness tactic. Harm to Canadian relationship. Just read what I wrote without cherry-picking from within a single sentence, it is obvious: " Further, you downplay the aggregate harm to Canada as merely "Trump hurt Canada's feelings" rather than recognize the unnecessary harm that Trump has done to our trade relationships ."
The reality is that you are desperately trying to normalize Trump ... a futile attempt to downplay all that he has done and pretend that this is perfectly normal based on our history.
A ridiculous exaggeration. The removal of the firewall did not stop the normal safety measures. It was a small factor yet you insist that it was the cause. It was not. Do some research.
So now you dismiss the obvious attempt by Trump to censor a comedian he does not like using the power of the federal government.
It should have been obvious that I am arguing for how to execute the law based on circumstances. There is no debate that illegal immigrants are here illegally.
Of course, nothing to see here folks. No matter what Trump does it is normal and harmless.
Those who would celebrate it the most are those hoping and praying for another civil war where they believe they'll get to shoot any liberals and Democrats they see as Trumps death would inevitably be considered an act of war for his MAGA faithful even if it was shown to be natural causes because his faithful would never believe that and claim it was a deep state conspiracy theory and they'd be out in the streets shooting anything they suspect of being a "leftist".
That is why I want Trump to live a long, albeit miserable, life. The worst thing that could happen to the United States right now is the Mango Mussolini being turned into a fucking disgusting conservative Christian martyr.
"Liberal political commentator Keith Olbermann deleted a social media post Monday in which he appeared to threaten conservative CNN analyst Scott Jennings.
“You’re next motherf–ker,” read Olbermann’s deleted X post, according to a screenshot shared by Townhall columnist Dustin Grage ."
Keith Olbermann appears to threaten CNN's conservative pundit Scott Jennings
Exhibit A
Why? That was never the point. Review the conversation.
OK. Did he actually do that? Or did he simply capitalize on what had already happened? Do we just ignore the rise of the Tea Party? If you don't see them as the intermediate step between Reagan/Bush and Trump, I suggest you're not paying attention.
That was exactly true of Democrats passing the ACA. We could say the same thing about the Patriot Act.
Yes. Why do you keep pretending I'm making a different point than the one I keep repeating?
Unless he does something significant, that's incredibly unlikely. But thank you for demonstrating the point about natural tendencies to inflate the present at the expense of the past.
Maybe you should be more clear.
A "harm" you cannot measure or quantify over a treaty that hasn't been finalized yet. But that's not subjective at all. *eyeroll*
The reality is that you grossly overreact to most of what he does. Which was the entire point.
I am differentiating between and "attempt" and a "accomplishment". It's an obvious point unless Trump obsession causes you to miss it.
Pouting because I won't validate your overreactions.
So much batshit congealed into a single barely coherent sentence. Impressive.
Well congratulations? I guess?
I'm glad to hear you won't be celebrating the death of another human being. People who do that are pieces of shit, so it's good to know you're above that.
As I noted, you have no argument, just false labeling.
The GoP initially rejected Trump. Remember? Now the GoP (writ large) seems to follow him like a cult leader. Congress (GoP part) is going along with everything he does.
No it is not exactly the same. What is normal is for a party to push through legislation when it controls both branches. What is not normal is for Congress to essentially defer to the PotUS on every turn (and, worse, the SCotUS deferring more than one would expect).
Yet again with this stupid tactic of pretending that every statement must be quantified like a scientific theory to be valid. Most everything is subjective in nature. We use logic and facts to approximate truth and to test validity. That is how human beings operate. Your reasoning suggests that every legal judgement is of no value because it is subjective (i.e. it is not quantified, formal, and based solely on sound, corroborated evidence). It is a ridiculous bar ... one that you do not and cannot follow.
You exaggerate criticism of Trump to ridiculous levels and downplay acts of Trump to make them appear to be 'nothing special' ... 'perfectly normal'. A common Trump supporter tactic because there is no defending Trump in most cases.
And I am speaking of what Trump is trying to do. Pay attention.
Childish taunting. Get serious.
[✘]
Sommers also identifies another starting point, from the Los Angeles times, who cited a discredited liar as an "expert".
And the author of one of the popular newsletters in the country piled on: " The alleged killer, Tyler Robinson, is a young white man from a Republican, gun enthusiast family, who appears to have embraced the far right, disliking Kirk for being insufficiently radical."
There was never any evidence of this.
How do you know it was a lie and not merely a misattribution? What's more, why do you continue to say that
You seem to be the only one that I have seen pushing the story.
We know that he was murdered by a lone nut who thought that by killing him he could silence him. That very evening Trump went live to rail at the left, ignoring his daily part in igniting and fanning the flames. Now the MAGA /evangelist wing has responded by taking the killing and warping it into a war against anything that they want to attack.
Stephen Miller's incendiary speech exemplifies the use of any excuse, no matter how inappropriate, to whip the Maga and the evangelical base into madness at an unknown and undefined "left". It is sickening how he drapes the cross with vile thoughts, elevates a common shyster to sainthood, and encourages violence in his name and in
Miller is a spiteful and vindictive little man with no redeeming features that I can see.
. It's hard to honestly make up a fake quote. That Reuters is that spectacularly incompetent isn't much of a defense.
o u seem to be the only one that I have seen pushing the story.
Among Democrats, 41% believed the shooter was a Republican compared to just 8% who thought he was a Democrat
Who the fuck cares? All the President's men, whether they are all called MAGA, Right-wing, GOP or whatever were told just hours after his killing that
This was meant to focus the anger and animosity of the country on "The radical left", a boogeyman who the President can tack a picture of whomever he does not like.
The person who deserves the anger is in jail. Focus on him if trying to affix blame, because he killed Charlie Kirk. Where's all the talk of personal responsibility?
First of all, it was the right that first made a claim, sans any evidence, that it was the left that shot Kirk.
Then we heard crickets from law enforcement. There is no such evidence to prove that.
Now, let's proceed with the Atlantic story.
Let's say you are right. They got it wrong and then deleted the story without providing a retraction notice. How is that any different from the right publications not retracting the claim that it was a leftist shooter, which stands as false information?
Two wrongs still make a wrong.
Except there was evidence as soon as the gun was found
How is that any different from the right publications not retracting the claim that it was a leftist shooter, which stands as false information?
Are you kidding me? That would be a lie if they did. Listen to law enforcement.
Perrie, if a guy with pro-life markings on his weapons, whose family said he was become increasingly right wing, shot an abortionist and admitted he shot him because he was an abortionist are you are gonna pretend like you wouldn't call that shooter right wing?
C'mon.
Sean,
Your question had nothing to do with my statement. Within minutes of Kirk being shot, right-wingers everywhere had proclaimed that this guy was a leftist. Right media did the same thing. None of them retracted. They just left it out there without any amendments to their initial call to clarify the facts.
So my question to you was how different that is from what the Atlantic did.
Sure it does. You just can't answer it honestly without blowing up your claim that there is no evidence the shooter is left wing.
Support your claim. What right wing media outlet falsely claimed it was a left wing shooter and made up quotes from an expert to confirm it?
None of them retracted.
Why would they ever retract an accurate statement?
to you was how different that is from what the Atlantic did.
The story is actually about Reuters, but sure, a journalist for the Atlantic claimed Kirk was the victim of a white supremacist gang hit, which we know is false.
What are you talking about? Show me proof that the shooter was left-wing. There is no credible evidence at this point.
No problem Sean:
Our president even claimed it:
But worse, when I used the Wayback Machine to see what Fox said, it got this message:
Which means they scrubbed any news about this.
I don't know what to tell you. If you are going to claim there's no evidence of him being left wing despite what the police said, the markings on the casings, the reports from his family etc...I don't know what to say. I can't ignore evidence for partisan purposes.
But it does make clear why you can't admit that you would call an abortion shooter right wing based on the exact same evidence.
No problem Sean:
Let's compare what you are calling the same:
Reuters using a fake quote to claim the shooter was right wing.
Fox News accurately reporting what government officials claims and trump saying there's a problem with left wing extremism after the evidence o ...
This is crazy town if you think accurately reporting what government officials are saying is the same as making up quotes. They aren't remotely in the same ballpark.
Which means they scrubbed any news about this.
If Fox News made any inaccurate claims, it would be all over social media. Soros pays MediaMatters millions to pour over every piece of of content they put out.
What would you consider evidence of being left-wing?
I dont know what Perrie will say, but I would say something in social media, or first person testimony by some of his friends that he advocated left wing ideology. Ideological zealots dont keep it to themselves.
What difference does this make? The evidence suggests to me that this assassin was incensed with Kirk's views on homosexuality and gender identity. Does it not occur to some that his motivations might not be ideological or, in particular, political?
Further, even if this guy was shown to be some far left whackjob, rational minds should not make the truly stupid suggestion that this is the norm for those on 'the Left'. Same logic when applied to 'the Right', by the way.
Sean,
Then show me proof that he was from the left. The casings where shown to be inconclusive (even the police commissioner said that).
Also, that was not what this discussion was about. It was about whether or not the Atlantic did something that the right media didn't do.
As for Fox, Newsmax etc, it was all over social media. I saw it for days on Facebook. But besides that, they basically say it here:
This is a fruitless discussion. My only point was to say, that the Atlantic, like any other political paper with an agenda, did what they all do, deny it as you may.
I'd like to expound a bit on what Tig said:
Sexuality has nothing to do wth politics. One of my closest friends has a gay son who has voted for Trump twice. Being gay or trans does not make you hate conservatives or a killer.
For sure!
That trans rights isn't "political" is crazy talk. If a someone murders a prominent trans right activist , there's simply no way you or any other left winger would say it's not ideological. This argument is Orwellian. Reality denying is an understatement.
He murdered a man while marking bullets with "catch this." fascist and a popular anti-fa ballad.
Calling someone you've never met a fascist and then shooting them is about the most political act one can possibly do.
Yet again you totally misrepresent what I wrote. I did not claim his act was apolitical. I suggested that his act does not mean that he is of a particular major ideology or party.
Trans rights is a political issue. But having a position on trans-rights does not mean that one ascribes to a major ideology or to a major party.
See?
Thank you. Since you used TiG's comment to expound on, I'll assume you largely agree with it so I will include that in my response.
First, whether this guy came from the right or the left, I think we can all agree that what the murderer did was an extremist act. He took out a major influencer of the political right at a political event in the most public way possible. The question is what led him to do it?
To suggest ideology might not be a motive is unsupportable from the start. Every single one of us live an act according to an ideology we hold to be true. Ideology is most often used to refer to political or economic concerns but they also include what one holds as a worldview as well. Nor does one have to ascribe to the totality of a major ideology of either side.
Since this is true, what we are left with concerning whether the right or the left influenced the murderer is to decide which most likely informed his worldview. We know he was in a relationship with another man who was also transitioning to presenting as a female. We know one of the rounds in his gun made reference to fascism. We know there is a statement made by him that he had to stop the hate or words to that effect.
In other words, it isn't necessary to prove his actions were strictly political. And one cannot observe the debate over sexuality in the US over the last several decades and credibly claim it isn't a political issue. It isn't necessary to prove that doing something is approved of by the left, although it seems a large portion of it does. All one has to decide is, which side holds the values, mores and ideology which best explains why this guy did what he did.
To my mind, the answer is pretty clear and it wasn't from the right.
The argument is NOT that ideology played no part. That remains to be seen. The argument (actually just a hypothesis) is that, based on the evidence, it looks like the motive was an issue, not based on the aggregate views of a major ideology or major party. Do you reject that possibility?
To my mind, the answer is pretty clear and it wasn't from the right.
Then it seems that you see only two possibilities: the assassin was motivated by being part of 'the Left' or by being part of 'the Right' and because the evidence identifies issues that fall under 'the Left' that means (to you) that the assassin was a 'leftist'.
Do you not recognize that some people do not act according to the aggregate views of a particular major ideology or major political party?
I have. You want to deny it, there's not much more I can do.
he casings where shown to be inconclusive (even the police commissioner said that)
I searched contemporary reporting, press coverage and fact-checks for any Utah official publicly saying the markings on the bullet casings were “inconclusive.”
But besides that, they basically say it here:
EXACTLLY!!!!!!!! Fox news accurately quoted a public official giving information about the case.
The Atlantic pushed fake information.
They are not the same in any sense of the word. Foxnews was practicing journalism.
He was clearly motivated by left wing ideology when he murdered Kirk. His opinion on taxes isn't really relevant.
And how do you know that he was someone who ascribed to an aggregate ideology?
You are generalizing because his issue, seemingly based on the evidence, was a left-wing issue.
Just goes to show how some will translate everything (even a tragedy) into a partisan/ideological opportunity.
Already answered in the post you are responding to.
You mean someone like Jimmy Kimmel?
Then you conclude the assassin ascribed to the ideology of ‘the Left’ (as if well-defined) because ‘the Left’ is where support for homosexuality and sexual identity arises. There is no chance, in your mind, that he was not a member of the Ds. No chance that he might agree with some ideological positions on ‘the Left’ and some on ‘the Right’?
It is not possible for someone to reject all parties and have an ideological view that sometimes aligns with liberals and other times align with conservatives?
You know this?
He literally murdered someone over this left wing issue. That's what relevant.
ow how some will translate everything (even a tragedy) into a partisan/ideological opportunity
Yes, it's sad how far people make up crazy ass rationalizations in the name of partisanship. Left wing ideology clearly inspired him to murder. Pretending it didn't will just keep making the problem worse as left wing apologists get further and further detached from reality.
The murderer took the action that he did. Considering the evidence to date, the general view of the left toward the issues suggested by the evidence, the extremist rhetoric from the left designed to ramp up emotion rather than reason and who the target was all suggests a leftist mindset.
The question is not whether he was a card carrying Democrat, a member of antifa, wrote blogs about any particular ideology or was a member of the Sunny Acres Book Club. The question is which side's worldviews most likely influenced his actions.
And you falsely generalize and declare that he is ipso facto a left-winger.
So if a conservative fully supports gay rights (one major issue) that conservative is ipso-facto a left-winger?
Your logic is faulty.
That is an outstanding question. Was he influenced mostly by left views, right views, or was he focused on one or a few issues? We do not know.
As I noted, I think he was motivated by Kirk's anti-gay, anti-trans rhetoric. However, that is based solely on the evidence. I do not presume he was mostly influenced by conservatives views (e.g. the right to bear and use arms) merely because he was raised in an R household. Similarly, I do not presume he was mostly influenced by progressive views merely because he (apparently) was heavily emotionally charged on gay/trans issues.
Finally, I will repeat what I have stated since day one. Sadly, people are more concerned with tagging political/ideological opposites with this assassin being 'one of them' than they are with the senseless, violent taking of a human life.
Yes. I understand that's the way you see it.
Or, they are concerned with it not simply because it's a senseless murder but, rather, one committed by someone who was obviously radicalized. It's not irrational to want to identify the source.
Of course!
You are right that everyone has some sort of ideology, but it doesn't have to be political. For instance, both David Berkowitz and Mark David Chapman had ideologies, none of which were political and had nothing to do with "worldview"
For sure, sexuality can be political, but as I pointed out, my friend's gay son voted for Trump twice. To paint people's motivation as defined by their sexual being is to say that we are one-dimensional beings, which I don't think we are.
And saying that he wasn't from the right doesn't mean he was from the left either. People are far more complex than binary. He could have had some other twisted agenda, which I am sure will come out.
Bottom line to me is he killed someone, which is just morally wrong.
Of course not. What is sad, as I stated, is that so many are willing to exploit an assassination to grab yet another opportunity to attack political / ideological opponents.
If Tyler Robinson had been radicalized by "left wing ideology" there would have been some evidence by now. I havent seen any.
The supposed evidence is that one of the bullets mentioned fascism. But we already know that "fascist" is a word tossed around rather loosely these days.
From what has come out, I think it would be fair to speculate that the shooter thought Kirk was a homophobe trying to turn the world against someone he loved.
Is that really an ironclad indication of "leftist ideology" ? I dont think so.
WHERE is the social media from Robinson that indicates he was immersed in leftist ideology? Without that or some sort of eyewitness testimony that he promoted leftist ideology to his friends, they have nothing.
hmm.. He killed a man premised on left wing ideology. He marked the bullet casings with left wing messages. His family said he'd become increasingly left wing. The police say he was immersed in left wing ideology.
Sure sounds like a right winger to me...
ey have nothing.
The replay of the "abrego garcia is just a Maryland man and there's no evidence he wasn't anything but a normal American" defense.
He thought Kirk was a fascist. I dont think that is evidence he was immersed in leftist ideology. If there was such evidence we would be drowning in it by now.
Lol. Who else slings "fascist" around like like breathing air and can even reference anti-fascist marching songs? Do you think someone who isn't immersed in anti-fa ideology would know what ciao bella represents?
This is like saying "the toddler's face is covered in icing. I don't think that is evidence he ate the cupcake."
Do you have any evidence that Robinson was immersed in leftist ideology other than he wrote fascist on a bullet?
I dont think thats a complicated question.
Besides what the police said? He literally murdered someone over an ideological issue. People who aren't political don't do that.
Do you think normal, non politicized people go around calling pundits "spreaders of hate" and "fascist" for disagreeing with them? Do you think normal, non politicized people understand the reference ciao bella?
Most people who aren't immersed in politics have no idea who Chalie Kirk was before last week, wouldn't obsessviely attack him to their families and certainly wouldn't have any clue about a song that is only meaningful to anti-fa supporters.
Someone who isn't left wing when told Charlie Kirk is coming to town would probably say "who cares," not "I need to murder the fascist"..... That you think that is how non ideological people think is bizarre.
You've already heard a symphony of it, you're just determined to deny the blatantly obvious.
The very fact he convinced himself Kirk was a fascist and that Kirk's opinions constituted "hate" is immersion in left wing ideology.
No.
Many of Charlie Kirks opinions did constitute hate.
Charlie Kirk was basically Rush Limbaugh on steroids. He made many many comments that could be fairly described as hate.
That opinion would be a lot more believable if left wing media didn't just resort to faking quotes or taking them completely out of context, but sure. Would a non-left-winger, in your mind, shoot a fairly unknown right wing pundit using a casing marked with a song title known only to those immersed in anti-fa lore?
You really want to sit here and publicly claim someone who isn't a leftist would do that? It just borders on the ridiculous at this point and there is no way in hell you'd make these same arguments if this were a left wing victim. You know that.
I'm sure you want everyone to think so.
The militant left has been desperately trying to sell that to anyone and everyone since the moment he died.
The problem is that you've overused the term to the point where it's become meaningless. It's in the same apathy zone as "fascist", "nazi", "racism", "misogyny", and many other accusations liberals have thrown indiscriminately for a decade or more.
Oh FFS.
Why stop there? Why not go ahead and call him Hitler? (You know you want to.) Or is that solely reserved for Trump?
Charlie Kirk said, explicitly, that four prominent black women did not have the brain power to make it without affirmative action , and they took spots from white people. You dont consider that hateful?
They said that.
Huh ?
Sheila Jackson Lee said outright she was only admitted to college because of Affirmative Action.
Three of the women Kirk claimed lacked "brain processing power" were Harvard graduates, and Jackson Lee graduated from Yale. Presumably Kirk knew that when he said they were too stupid to succeed without taking a white persons spot.
“But we already know that "fascist" is a word tossed around rather loosely these days.”
yes! We see it on nt allllll the time. But tossed around by who? Here’s a hint, it’s not the right.
I haven’t paid much attention to it. However, it is obvious this guy was raised with religion, guns, and heavy conservative influences. Not shocked at all that this is how he turned out.
Now do the Dallas ICE shooter