Printable View
^Read that bit back. It should remove your bafflement:)Quote:
It's a criticism of MAGA.
...and when they don't the process will have taken long enough for whatever he did to have become a fait acompli. He does seem to have found the silver bullet.Quote:
he knows that his corrupt SCOTUS will give him what he wants almost every time anyway.
One thing I find interesting is that many people don't believe that the text exchange between the shooter and his roommate/girlfriend is genuine and that's on both sides of the aisle. Obviously, many people on the left don't trust the FBI at the moment and with good reason. Kash Patel is obviously incompetent and it seems to be a hotbed of Tramp sycophancy at the moment, so it's not hard to believe that they would manipulate or outright falsify evidence to support their narrative but there are also two theories that I've heard for it not being genuine doing the rounds on the right as well. One I heard is that it was staged by the shooter to throw suspicion off the roommate/girlfriend and the rest of the trans terror cell that actually orchestrated the whole thing. It shouldn't come as a surprise that a contender for the world's biggest transphobe - Matt Walsh - is one prominent figure pushing this nonsense. I think that Nole Skum might be in on the action too. Another I've heard is that the FBI faked it at the behest of Israel because it was actually Israel that orchestrated the whole thing. To be frank, the second option sounds way more plausible to me. I bet Margarine is being tortured, having to choose between her hatred of the political left and her hatred of Israel. It's ironic that she's one of the few politicians on the right with the proper stance towards Israel but, in her case, it actually is driven by antisemitism.
It is outrageous that, on more than one occasion, they have basically said "we don't have time to decide whether what you're doing is legal or not at the moment so let's ignore the lower court's decision, assume that it's legal and we'll work out whether it really is at some indeterminate time in the future". If they can't provide a proper decision right now then it seems a no-brainer that you go with the lower court's decision until such time as you do. I don't think that this is a completely new phenomenon but I'm not sure why that wouldn't have always been the case. Based on numbers I've seen, these decisions seem to be favouring Tramp far more than they did Biden, but I'm sure it's just coincidence that SCOTUS is conservative right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Seems an utterly strange approach, after all why have the lower court if their decisions have no meaning at all? If they make a decision and you take it to the higher court you expect more from them than "meh, not sure - ignore the law for now"Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcilhinney
Then again what difference does it make when the president is technically above the law anyway?
In a country with approximately 20,000 murders a year, those are hardly as consequential as two botched hits on a former president and the assassination of a high-profile political activist. The left takes its violence seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcilhinney
I think you have the wrong impression of what's been going on here. They have tried ignoring court decisions a few times but it didn't work(so far). My bigger worry is how much the courts are being called on to decide the hundreds of activities of various government agencies. The agencies themselves are being run by people who have no respect for the law/constitution and must be forced to follow them by the courts. Add to that a SCOTUS that has let personal politics become more present in their case decisions. Many of the cases they are making the final decision on would have been turned away by the court in the past. They didn't really get involved in the day to day decisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcilhinney
Another baffling moment, Ted Cruz gave an honest assessment of the Kimmel situation,
The only thing he got wrong was Kimmel's comment were about Kirk. They were not about Kirk.Quote:
Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas sharply criticized Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr for his comments related to late-night host Jimmy Kimmel shortly before ABC pulled his show off the air.
Cruz said he took issue with Carr threatening to cancel ABC’s broadcast license over Kimmel’s remarks about the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
“He says, ‘We can do this the easy way, or we can do this the hard way,’” the senator said of Carr in the latest episode of his podcast, “Verdict with Ted Cruz,” which aired Friday morning.
“And I gotta say, that’s right out of ‘Goodfellas,’” Cruz said, referring to the classic mob film.
“That’s right out of a mafioso coming into a bar going, ‘Nice bar you have here, it’d be a shame if something happened to it,’” he said.
“Look, I like Brendan Carr. He’s a good guy, he’s the chairman of the FCC. I work closely with him, but what he said there is dangerous as hell,” Cruz said at another point in the episode.
Cruz’s comments put him at odds with President Donald Trump, who applauded Kimmel’s suspension and later called Carr “outstanding.”
Cruz said he’s no fan of Kimmel’s and that he is “thrilled that he was fired” over his comments about Kirk.
“But let me tell you, if the government gets in the business of saying, ‘We don’t like what you the media have said, we’re going to ban you from the airwaves if you don’t say what we like,’ that will end up bad for conservatives,” Cruz said.
Uhhh, what? I think I know what you meant to say, but that isn't quite it.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
You need to be more specific. It seems straight forward to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Cruz said
But Kimmel's comment was about MAGA's reactions after the murder. I never was strong in English class but MAGA seems to be the subject of the sentence in question.Quote:
“thrilled that he was fired” over his comments about Kirk
Maybe "kid"??Quote:
“The MAGA Gang [is] desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel said. “In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving.”
If you're wondering why it seems like nobody is being "civil" towards you, it's because this is just straight dishonest lying propaganda. It's bad faith and the complete opposite of reality. You're not being reasonable, you're not interest in facts, it's just lie lie lie projecting the qualities of the right onto the left.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
Well that's awfully convenient. You make your point using an arbitrary standard of importance that you pulled out of your ass to make your point, so the bullets from your side don't count as bullets. Bravo. Let me ask you this then. It was only by pure luck that the Minnesota shooter was limited to killing two inconsequential people and injuring two others. He apparently had a list of over 70 nominally left-wing targets, including state governor and previous VP candidate Tim Walz. How many of them would he have had to kill for you to consider his murders consequential enough? Also, the guy who attacked Paul Pelosi didn't use bullets but he sure wasn't there to torture and kill Nancy Pelosi with rhetoric. He seemed to be taking things pretty seriously. Please assume that my opinion of your comment is not allowed on this forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
Confusing comment when all 3 of those were by a right winger, even if the right wants to bury their heads so deep in the sand about it they risk getting burnt up by Earth's molten core.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
Charlie Kirk and Donald Trump were consequential enough to get threads here, the Minnesota shooting was not. Why should I care more about that than you do?Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcilhinney
So you say. Why should I believe you over anyone else saying otherwise?Quote:
Originally Posted by fafalone
That's just a disturbing statement. "Why should I care"Quote:
Charlie Kirk and Donald Trump were consequential enough to get threads here, the Minnesota shooting was not. Why should I care more about that than you do?
https://www.google.com/search?q=minn...hrome&ie=UTF-8Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
Not a single mention of it anywhere on this site except when it's convenient to promote your own political opinions in this thread but...
https://www.google.com/search?q=dona...hrome&ie=UTF-8
Donald Trump's name is everywhere, and Charlie Kirk gets a whole thread named after him. So again, why should I care about the Minnesota shooting more than you guys do? Very simple question.
You can care or not care all you want. My issue is that you're simply ignoring it when making the claim that the bullets are coming from one direction. That's lie. Whether or not you care about people being shot doesn't change whether or not they were shot. Again, you're just making up your own reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
I think that you're pushing it a bit there. The shooter in "The Miracle of the Regenerating Ear" has been reported as being a right winger, although not overly political from what I've read. That one actually sounds like someone doing it for notoriety rather than to make a political point. The guy at the golf course who never had the opportunity to take a shot seems to have been a bit all over the place politically but seemed to be more left than right at that time of the incident.Quote:
Originally Posted by fafalone
The guy in Utah is still a bit of an unknown. It appears that the evidence that he was a groyper may have been rather overplayed but even many right-wingers don't trust what's coming out of the FBI at the moment, so their claims that he was a leftie should probably be taken with a grain of salt. Ironically, the right playing up the trans angle actually makes the attack seem more personal than political. Of course, right wingers consider the very existence of trans people to be political, but that's their bigotry talking. Trans people exist and if you were actually in love with a trans person and someone like Charlie Kirk was using his platform to make their life worse, that would be personal motive to take him out, not a political one.
The thing is, it really doesn't even matter whether they were all far left. Actual statistics show that right wingers commit more political violence than left wingers, whether those they commit it against are famous enough for some people to care or not, and the rhetoric coming from the left is no worse than that coming from the right. Right wingers will deny that, of course, but we've seen how truthful the more prominent right-wing voices in this thread have been, so that rates pretty high on the BS scale.
They are coming from one direction. The right didn't try to assassinate Kamala Harris twice and only mocked the left's high-profile activists with memes instead of shooting them in the neck.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcilhinney
What a pathetic way to judge whether to care about something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
How can I care about something I knew nothing about? If you felt it was so important, you could have brought it up anytime since it happened instead of ranting about Trump all the time. The only reason I know about it is because it was convenient for jmc to make a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
Correct... as long as you ignore the ones coming from the other direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
The left didn't try to assassinate Tramp twice either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
The left didn't shoot anyone. A single person did. He may or may not have been prompted to do so by rhetoric from the left (which is no worse than that from the right anyway) but, based on the right's coverage, there's every chance that he went after Kirk specifically because he was a high-profile and influential transphobe and the shooter loved someone who was suffering as a result of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
And when you did know about it, this is your response,
You judge whether to care about people that were murdered on whether you think others care. I find that pathetic.Quote:
Why should I care more about that than you do?
Edit:
Perhaps pathetic is the wrong word. It's just sad to see someone that doesn't know whether to care about people being murdered and choses not to care because he doesn't see others care. I'm not sure what description to use. It's a foreign concept to me.
Really? Does everyone carry around a long list of people who are either politicians or otherwise demonised by their own side of politics, kill one of them and their spouse, shoot another and their spouse in an attempt to kill them, but it not be politically motivated? I think you're being more than a little bit disingenuous there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcilhinney
It's interesting how you use the facts in these incidents to frame them in a way that fits your own anti-right biases. Just an observation.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcilhinney
Then lead by example ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
So, I'm unironically being accused of framing the facts in a way that suits my bias by the guy who decides which bullets count as bullets based on how famous the target is and, coincidentally, the targets on his side are more famous?! Have you been pet-sitting RFK's brain worm?Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
But lets look at what I said and perhaps you can explain what's wrong with my framing.
The facts are that there is political violence on both sides and statistics show that it is more prevalent on the right. You arbitrarily chose to ignore all right-wing violence, including gun violence, because their left-wing targets weren't well-known enough. You also conveniently allowed yourself to ignore the intended torture and murder of Nancy Pelosi, who I'd say is pretty well-known, because it didn't involve a gun. So, what's actually wrong with what I said?Quote:
Correct... as long as you ignore the ones coming from the other direction.
Fact. The shooter at The Miracle of the Regenerating Ear was a right-winger. The guy at the golf course had a political history all over the place, including having supported Tramp, if I remember correctly. I'm quite prepared to accept that he was nominally left at the time of that incident though. So, what's wrong with what I said?Quote:
The left didn't try to assassinate Tramp twice either.
This is the one time where I can accept that you're not either lying or projecting, but only because you may have misunderstood what I was saying. Almost universally on the right at the moment, people are basically treating Kirk's death as something that everyone on the left wanted and facilitated but that's simply not the case. It was one person who choice to do something that most on the left have since condemned. Some have been celebrating Kirk's death but the prominent, well-known, famous people on the left - you know, the ones you actually care about - have pretty much universally condemned the killing. You might think that I'm trying to let the left off the hook by blaming an individual but I blame the individuals in every case. I don't think the entire right plotted the deaths of Democrats state reps in Minnesota. The difference is that there's been no widespread condemnation of that on the right. There are plenty of right-wingers who are claiming that he was actually a left-winger, despite the opposite being confirmed. Seems like they know that the motivation was political, or else why tell such a pointless lie? As for the trans angle being a personal motive rather than political, I have no idea if that's actually the case but it's right-wingers who are pushing that trans angle hard, so it's their own logic that makes a personal motive more likely. Without a trans girlfriend to protect, the political motive seems the only likely explanation. So, what's wrong with what I said?Quote:
The left didn't shoot anyone. A single person did. He may or may not have been prompted to do so by rhetoric from the left (which is no worse than that from the right anyway) but, based on the right's coverage, there's every chance that he went after Kirk specifically because he was a high-profile and influential transphobe and the shooter loved someone who was suffering as a result of that.
It's a fact that he had that list. It's a fact that it it was full of nominally left wing names. It's a fact that he had already shot two people on that list. It's a fact that he had the means to shoot the rest. It's a fact that it was just luck that he was caught when he was. Do you really believe that it's anti-right bias to suggest that, if he hadn;t been caught when he was, it's likely that more people on that list would be shot and probably killed? So what's actually wrong with what I said?Quote:
Really? Does everyone carry around a long list of people who are either politicians or otherwise demonised by their own side of politics, kill one of them and their spouse, shoot another and their spouse in an attempt to kill them, but it not be politically motivated? I think you're being more than a little bit disingenuous there.
Ah, I see it now. I misread it.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
The left didn't try to assassinate Trump twice, either. The first shooter had a set of targets that would gain him notoriety. They included Trump, Biden, Merrick Garland, Christopher Wray and even the Princess of Wales. Note that Trump was the only conservative on the list. He was also the most accessible, and aside from Biden, the highest profile, with the Princess of Wales being a close third (though kind of hard to get to).Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
That bullet wasn't coming from left or right, nor was it headed towards left or right, aside from the vagaries of chance.
You certainly had me doubting myself. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I didn’t read all of the posts in this thread, and as a UK citizen, it’s really not my business, but to quote Charlie Kirk, to keep your 2nd Amendment freedoms, you’ve got to accept a few gun deaths. Someone in this universe has a sick sense of humour. But in the aftermath nothing changes. No changes in gun laws and your government is practically business as usual. No amount of dead school kids are getting the guns off of the streets, and dead politicians make no difference either.
That same day there was a deadly school shooting. So, your right. If anything it's getting worse. In the last few years more states have legalized open carry or even canceled carry gun laws. It's insane.Quote:
Originally Posted by .paul.
Speaking of more states:
"Florida approved open carry starting September 25, 2025, following a First District Court of Appeals ruling on September 10, 2025, that found the state's ban on open carry to be unconstitutional. The ruling overturned a 1987 law that prohibited openly displaying firearms, leading to guidance from the state's Attorney General for law enforcement to stop enforcing the ban."
Last year ago or so, Florida even did away with needing a Conceal Carry License. Anyone that isn't a criminal can conceal AND OR open carry.
To bad Trump is a Felon.
Must be a nightmare for the police. Glad I live in a state with tighter gun laws.
It only takes 5 minutes on Google to see that states with looser carry laws also have higher gun violence rates. But we've known looser gun laws lead to increased violence for a long time. We've know about the exponential difference between the US and UK homicide rates for a long time.
Like I said, it's insane.
Just want to say kudos to Erika Kirk saying she forgave the killer and calling for peace. I don't think that was easy for her to say but was an actual Christian take.
And Kimmel's got his show back. Guess the finances that got it cancelled mysteriously changed.
And I can't wait to see what NexStar does....Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
EDIT:
"Beginning Tuesday night, Sinclair will be preempting ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ across our ABC affiliate stations and replacing it with news programming. Discussions with ABC are ongoing as we evaluate the show’s potential return," the company’s statement read.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/sincla...its-suspension
Now we know...