Charlie Kirk dead
Trump's calls the left scum...
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1967358710491279614Professor Shows Students How Close CIVIL WAR Really is After Charlie Kirk's Murder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E24_2dyPr0Q
Your future leaders of America...
Common Sense... Critical Thinking... consequences...
Is it an age thing? Were we all that clueless at that age?
Full Class Debate - Timestamped to when it begins:
https://youtu.be/xV96GwA3lZg?t=273"No one here needs to prove anything to anyone." - Can you believe that nonsense, Mike? That is the problem with the right, they will believe and promulgate anything without any regard for the truth. Isn't that what that ridiculous statement means. The author must be really desperate to get their lies out.
I'm not shocked that the left isn't upset by all the disgusting ignorant things said about Charlie Kirk since his death. I expected better, but I was wrong. I've come to accept that this is the left, it is who they are. Sad really.
"Bob Vylan responds to Charlie Kirk's assassination with 'rest in piss' comment during his show
Controversial British punk-rap artist Bob Vylan appeared to revel in the assassination of Charlie Kirk, calling for the slain father of two to "rest in piss."
"I want to dedicate this next one to an absolute piece of s--- of a human being," Vylan said at a concert in Amsterdam Saturday.
"The pronouns was/were. Because if you talk s---, you will get banged. Rest in piss Charlie Kirk, you piece of s---," Bob Vylan said as the crowd cheered in approval.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/bob-vylan … g-his-show
School resource officer removed after 'unacceptable' posts about Charlie Kirk assassination
Westchester County Police Department has reassigned officer to administrative duties pending an investigation
A school resource officer (SRO) in an affluent suburban New York school district was pulled from her post over inappropriate social media comments about the assassination of Charlie Kirk, local law enforcement confirmed to Fox News Digital on Sunday.
Screenshots of several social media posts from SRO Tanisha Blanche — employed by the Westchester County Police Department and assigned to Somers Intermediate School in Westchester County — began circulating online this week.
One of Blanche's alleged social media posts, along with a video of Kirk, read, "Well that white sniper was over qualified when he put that hole in your neck hunni bunni."
"This is who y'all crying about on my feed? Get a life," Blanche allegedly wrote in a separate post.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/school-resou … assinationBased on what Utah Gov, Cox says, we might infer that Robinson's killing of Kirk might be a form of self-defense by this Trumper. Given all the violent things Kirk has said about gay and trans people, Robinson may have felt extremely threatened for his roommate and himself.
Of course, since Kirk did not present an imminent threat, that wouldn't hold up in a court of law, but it might have been enough to trigger that kind of impulse.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/15/politics … illing-wwk"After Charlie Kirk’s killing, conservative evangelical leaders hail him as a martyr"
It seems this is what some radical Christians believe to be true:
* “Transgender people are a throbbing middle finger to God … [an] abomination.”
* On Leviticus 20:13: he described it as “God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.”
* “The great replacement strategy … is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.”
* “America does not need more visas for people from India … [the U.S. is] full.”
* “Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people — that’s a fact.”
* “If I see a Black pilot, I’m gonna be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified.’”
* “Large dedicated Islamic areas are a threat to America… Europe is now a conquered continent.”
* On wives who keep their vote private from their husbands: “You have to ask, what else is she lying to him about? Is she stealing money?”
*“Groomers can’t reproduce, so instead they recruit… they go serve on school boards… and do drag queens.”
“Prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people.”
Media Matters
“If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman…”
Media Matters
“Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge.”
Media Matters
“We need to have a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor.”
Media Matters
“It’s worth… some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment.”
Media Matters
“America was at its peak when we halted immigration for 40 years.”
Media Matters
“They love it when America becomes less white.”
Media Matters
“The great replacement strategy… [will] replace white rural America with something different.”
Media Matters
* “Large dedicated Islamic areas are a threat to America.”
Media Matters
* “Islam is not compatible with western civilization.”
Media Matters
* “There is no separation of church and state. It’s a fabrication.”
Media Matters
* “Sending 80+ buses full of patriots to DC to fight for this president.”
Newsweek
* “If you’re a WNBA, pot-smoking, Black lesbian, do you get treated better than a United States Marine?”
Media Matters
* “We should have a uniculturalism. One culture, Americanism.”
Media Matters
* “Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America.”
The Guardian
* “Transgenderism is a social contagion.”
Advocate.com
* “He’s a giant F YOU to the feminist establishment.”
ABC
Shouldn't real, Jesus-loving Christians ex-communicate these radicals?"'The radicals on the left are the problem, and they’re vicious and they’re horrible.."
OKAY ...
And yet, biden never had an attempt on his life.
So that makes the rhetoric and images all okay then???
What kind of reasoning is that?
We've got examples of POTUS literally acting like a middle school child..."So that makes the rhetoric and images all okay then???"
You might want to look at some of the images and rhetoric with the current president.
Talk about hypocrisy.
In what scenario, how on earth, in what reality is it okay for the leader of a Nation to post something like this??
This is Middle School shit. This is ignorant shit..
Celebrating Charlie’s Life. Promoting his Messages Of Peace, Hope, Love with absolutely no Racism or Misogyny...
Have a wonderful Monday. AND NO, HE DIDN'T DESERVE TO BE MURDERED.... It doesn't change the fact that his rhetoric was ugly.
Sorry folks...How Kirk died does not redeem how he lived....
https://x.com/Matthewtravis08/status/19 … 0975031367Kirk is technically right about that, until it leads to harm. And clearly, that is what Kirk is hoping will happen, otherwise, why would he be so hateful?
Interesting polling data: Those with unfavorable views of Donald Trump are the LEAST LIKELY to support political violence.
The corollary is "Those with favorable views of Donald Trump are the MOST LIKELY to support political violence. " - And that is what the facts bear out - the Right has been much more active in causing political violence.
That is something else the apologists can agree on here by being silent.
BTW, why did Robinson stop being a Trumper?
The sheer gall of this administration is just breathtaking.... Fanning the flames of violence with bullshit... This is not a statistical fact at all and it is unbelievably irresponsible. This was a sick ass response from a man who should know better...
https://x.com/jonfavs/status/1967660039205961744Several things can be true at the same time: (1) Political violence is never acceptable and needs to be condemned in the strongest terms, (2) Political violence must not be the pretext for silencing political speech...
https://x.com/stillgray/status/1965905871977984386
Scary... he knew how bad it was getting."We have a president who is a master at navigating the federal courts, and he has been winning the majority of his cases. "
ROFL. I don't know, Willow, Credence, how many times must these people be led to the TRUTH before that realize what they are saying is simply a lie?Lots reporting that Trump did not attend Charlie Kirk’s Washington DC vigil because he was golfing at his country club in New Jersey instead.
oh and tell me more about hate speech..
https://x.com/MzSgtPepper/status/1967658085880897596Vance just outright lying today...
AND Kirk's statement is ignorant..
https://x.com/ReallyAmerican1/status/19 … 1021520299A morally responsible leader would use a tragedy to foster compassion and solidarity nationwide.
But Trump? He is seizing the opportunity to deepen the partisan divide.
He’s publicly scolding "the Left" for inciting the violence that led to Kirk’s death.... When we know little to nothing of the motive.
What we do know at this point? He wasn't affiliated with any party and he had never voted... He was also apparently deeply engrained in certain online culture as well as meme culture... As evidenced by the writings on the shell casings. We also know that he grew up in a deeply conservative and religious family. But that's about it.The death of Charlie Kirk has put on display the horribleness and ugliness of the left.
Everything from celebrating his death to trying to destroy his memorial as well as disgusting political cartoons and more.
There is something very wrong with those on the left.
Their ugliness and horribleness is being witnessed by people all over the world.
Young people restore Charlie Kirk memorial mural with Bible verses after vandals deface tribute
Vandals wrote 'a good Nazi is a dead Nazi' and 'Free Palestine' across Kirk memorial at Pensacola's Graffiti Bridge
https://www.foxnews.com/us/young-people … ce-tribute
Nurse put on leave at major hospital after comments supporting Charlie Kirk's death
Henry Ford Health in Michigan launches internal investigation, says it 'condemns violence in all forms'
https://www.foxnews.com/health/nurse-pu … irks-death
Long Island newspaper Newsday apologizes for 'insensitive and offensive' Charlie Kirk assassination cartoon
Newsday removes syndicated editorial cartoon from digital platforms following widespread backlash on social media
https://www.foxnews.com/media/long-isla … on-cartoon"insensitive and offensive"???
Should we really start running dow the "insensitive and offensive" actions of "the right"
There's plenty of ugliness to go around, give me a break...If this is all you have, you have nothing.
Are you familiar with the concept known as "false equivalents?""Are you familiar with the concept known as "false equivalents?"
Certainly...you and others here use the fallacy often.Seems to me she hit it on the head with her reference to right-wing violence. Nothing false about it.
Why are you insulting her?Repeat, and repeat, sooner or later, someone will take the hook. Troll Handbook, page 1. I mean, how many times has the pic been posted?
Sorry, I will continue to point out the hypocrisy over and over and over and over... The hypocrisy will continue to be challenged.
Show me all the celebrations around the country by those on the right concerning this incident.
Waiting.I saw none. I did not see any of our Congress coming out with disgusting remarks or right-leaning outlets jumping on the bashing bandwagon. I do know social media was not so nice, but that was a gimmie. The pic is getting very repetitive here.
The pic is a sign of desperation and having nothing to make a point.
Lol no it's a sign of how hypocritical some are that they cannot condemn such an action but want to nail "the left" to the wall on Kirk's murder BEFORE a motive is even known.
Not even considering that there is incendiary talk cross the political spectrum...Yes, it’s a mix of desperation, anger, and stubbornness. When people feel cornered, many lash out, while a few might pause to take a hard look in the mirror. The flailing is obvious here, with all the “but, but, look at this” arguments. My God, how can anyone cling to debates and talking points that have no connection to, or correlation with, the tragic killing of a well-known Republican activist? How can one even attempt an intelligent conversation with those who try to link a planned murder of someone admired by millions to completely unrelated matters? This senseless murder bears no resemblance to the issues they’re raising. I have to say, my exchanges with the leftists here have been revealing, and they are precisely what prompted me to share these thoughts.
It's completely and utterly irrelevant how many people admired Kirk...
Hmmm, both are dead. That seems related. I think Hortman's murder was worse because that clearly was political, remember the guy tried to kill at LEAST two others the same night.
Robinson killed Kirk because Kirk spread hate and violence. Oh, I guess your are right, they aren't the same.
Did you condemn it? Did you condemn the Hortman murder?
What's nice about this forum is it's really easy to go back and look at what has been posted... No one who affiliates with Maga on this forum condemned either...Do that... I don't remember if anyone made mention or constructed a thread on the Hortman Murder--- so do offer a permalink. I assume you may have brought up the subject; it should be easy to find the thread.
I've already posted a recent conversation under that thread and low and behold, the only one who made a reasonable argument was wilderness... He was the only one among the conservative group that even mentioned it. No one else was outraged. Certainly didn't at all rise to the level of the Kirk murder... Really didn't seem to register at all for a lot of folks.. go figure
I mean murder is murder in my book, doesn't really matter how many followers you have on social media it's still a loss.
And certainly no one was ready to claim that her murder represented all of "the right" viewpoints or ideology. Certainly not the way conservatives now want to completely blame democrats for kirk, calling them horrific scum..."calling them horrific scum..."
Only the many, many people on the left who celebrate the death of Charlie Kirk and believe it was justified. Yes, they are scum.I think it’s long past time the left got used to facing some of what they’ve dished out. In my view, their relentless use of vile and inflammatory rhetoric played a role in Kirk’s death. Why is there no accountability on their side for what is obvious and, with today’s technology, very much provable?
I see nothing but flailing from the left, likely just an attempt to soothe their own guilty consciences. They can’t even muster the basic common sense to acknowledge the harm their rhetoric fuels. My God, the death of this young man should be a burden too heavy for anyone to ignore.
Did you catch the Utah prosecutor today on Fox? So very revealing, and so many details were shared. I am still digesting it all. Oh my GodShar,
I did watch the Utah prosecutor.
The more I read about it, the more horrified I am about it.
There were people on these platforms who knew what he was going to do and were okay with it.
What is wrong with those people?
I think Vice President JD Vance said it the best.
"There is no unity with people who scream at children over their parents' politics," Vance said. "There is no unity with someone who lies about what Charlie Kirk said in order to excuse his murder. There is no unity with someone who harasses an innocent family the day after the father of that family lost a dear friend. There is no unity with the people who celebrate Charlie Kirk's assassination."
Vance added, "And there is no unity with the people who fund these articles, who pay the salaries of these terrorist sympathizers, who argue that Charlie Kirk, a loving husband and father, deserved a shot to the neck because he spoke words with which they disagree.""Charlie Kirk, a loving husband and father, deserved a shot to the neck because he spoke words with which they disagree."
And Melissa Hortman, along with her actual husband were murdered in their bed and left behind children because she stood for and spoke words the shooter disagreed with... A man who had an actual list of Democrats that he planned to go house to house, let's remember he did attack one other Democrat also...
Does that man represent "the right"
Yes or no.You seem obsessed with false equivalents.
Let me know who on the right celebrated her death.It's abundantly clear you don't understand the concept false equivalency. Furthermore, this has nothing to do with who "celebrates" a death. This is about blaming half of the country for a murder...that is what trump and others on "the right" are doing.
"It's abundantly clear you don't understand the concept false equivalency."
I believe the same about you.
It's not just about a murder, but those on the left who justified the murder, those on the left who celebrated the murder. Those on the left who threaten more murders.
This is something that is done on the left.This is one example from Michael Knowles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgGjG6egCLYYou are friggin being brainwashed by these a holes. Where did those statistics come from that he read. You must think that Steve Bonnell is typical of the average liberal...give me a break. I asked you for the name of somebody on the left who is threating more murders. I thought you were more intelligent than that.
Fox News is totally one sided and frames all their news against liberals and for conservatives..
We both know he is simply making that up to get attention.
In my view, those who lean left on this forum rarely answer a question. Just repeatedly ask questions and divert.
I’m still waiting to see if you had anything to say about this horrific crime back when it happened in June. From where I stand, it looks like you’re only bringing up the murders now as a form of whataboutism. If you can share a comment you actually made at the time, I’ll gladly consider it. But if not, I can’t respect using this woman’s tragic death as a talking point in a chat.
Surely you saw the information today on Robinson's motive? So who's rhetoric played a role?
Sharlee wrote:
I think it’s long past time the left got used to facing some of what they’ve dished out. In my view, their relentless use of vile and inflammatory rhetoric played a role in Kirk’s death. Why is there no accountability on their side for what is obvious and, with today’s technology, very much provable?
I see nothing but flailing from the left, likely just an attempt to soothe their own guilty consciences. They can’t even muster the basic common sense to acknowledge the harm their rhetoric fuels. My God, the death of this young man should be a burden too heavy for anyone to ignore.
Did you catch the Utah prosecutor today on Fox? So very revealing, and so many details were shared. I am still digesting it all. Oh my God
Just open this link and you will see how far Trump and his people will go to blame liberals. This is one of the most underhanded things I seen from Trump. This was just done yesterday 9/15/2025
https://newrepublic.com/post/200537/jus … right-wing
What has the "left" dished out other than telling the truth about Trump and Kirk? When did it become wrong to tell the truth and rely on facts?
Shar,
I feel it's safe to say that nobody on the right celebrated the Hortman murder. I don't recall anyone taking to social media to be happy about the death of Hortman. This is NOT something the right does.
It IS something done by the left as we have seen all too often.
I really believe the commentator who said of the left, they have no God and therefore, in their minds, they are God and can decide who can and cannot live.I actually know she died in June; I don't recall any comments on her horrific murder. It would seem her murder now is just being used as Whataboutism, I mean, this is very sad and desperate. Yes, I agree, I don't think I have ever seen republicans celebrating anyone's death other than on social media. Never from our representatives or our media outlets.
I would hope Willow offers some links to her accusation. I truly don't think the murder was discussed here when the crime took place.The thread can be found..it's named The Violence of the Left....
Shar,
Nobody knew of Hortman until she was murdered. There were not legions of people on the right regularly making death threats against her in public and private. To associate this with the death of Charlie Kirk is a perfect example of a false equivalency argument. It is called desperation.
As I said before, the people on the left who aren't like the others are struggling to realize their team are not good people. People from their team will kill public figures and celebrate it. They will assassinate people and feel it is justified.
I can only imagine how a person's mind struggles to process this reality.I want to be clear that I see no real correlation between Charlie Kirk and Melissa Hortman. Kirk is a larger-than-life figure with a following of around 85 million, a leading Christian voice, and a true activist for the Republican Party. To be honest, I had never heard of Melissa Hortman until her murder. In terms of notoriety, there is simply no comparison. The only correlation is that her murder was political. I don’t think her murder stood out because she was not widely known, I saw very little discussion about it anywhere. I certainly did not see anyone celebrating it, either in the media or in the chat boards I frequent, nor defending the act, as some are now doing with the man who attacked Kirk. In contrast, I do see some on the left celebrating Kirk’s death and even expressing sympathy for the attacker. In my view, this is something I witness far too frequently from left-leaning individuals.
What does it matter who had more popularity? That's irrelevant..
These two individuals were killed because someone else didn't like what they had to say. That's itYou divert -- my context was regarding Mike's comment regarding some on the left are celebrating Kirk's death. Again I repeat -- "To be honest, I had never heard of Melissa Hortman until her murder. In terms of notoriety, there is simply no comparison. The only correlation is that her murder was political. I don’t think her murder stood out because she was not widely known, I saw very little discussion about it anywhere. I certainly did not see anyone celebrating it, either in the media or in the chat boards I frequent, nor defending the act, as some are now doing with the man who attacked Kirk. In contrast, I do see some on the left celebrating Kirk’s death and even expressing sympathy for the attacker. In my view, this is something I witness far too frequently from left-leaning individuals." Shar
I saw Zero celebrate her death. I have witnessed a real sense to celebrate Charlie Kirk's death. I mean, it is so very visible that one would need to be blind not to see it.
"These two individuals were killed because someone else didn't like what they had to say. That's it" Willow
Yeah, my context covered that too----The only correlation is that her murder was political. Shar
Again, do you ever read a full comment, or just grab a few words and disregard the rest? You rarely pick up context.
Do you think "the right" should take total responsibility for her murder? The man had a list of Democrats that he was going house to house to kill... Does that represent "the right". I really just can't understand why none of you can answer a simple question.
Again, show me how her death was celebrated by "the right." Show me all the horrible things that was said by those on "the right" about her after her death.
Waiting.
This isn't about who "celebrated" a murder.... We have a president who is BLAMING the murder on "the left".
Have you not heard his rhetoric? Rhetoric aimed at democrats, calling them scum. All when we have absolutely no motive in the case...
Show me the one's on the Left celebrating Kirk's shooting?
Waiting.
BTW, I do have sources and links for Pelosi, I bet you don't for Kirk.Just look at my earlier posts on this thread.
I posted MANY people celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk.So sad--- one could write a book...My God, some of the horrendous things that are being said.
What is Trump''s and the right's goal? It is to label the left as The Radical Left and place all the the blame on the left. Meanwhile, not acknowledging the right has more political violence than the left according to the Cato Institute study.
In this forum, the right is attacking the left. And the left is having to defend itself from all the derogatory made up BS the right is posting.. The right on this forum has drunk Trump's KoolAid. This is exactly what Trump wants to keep us divided so that he can continue to divide the country into us and them. United we stand, Divided we fall.Exactly, a few of the posters have been really particularly rude in their language
"What is Trump''s and the right's goal?
has drunk Trump's KoolAid.
Trump wants to keep us divided so"
I read this and realize that TDS is a very real thing. Sometimes it is severe.You are right, it is very real. It stands for Trump Denial Syndrome.
My comment --- Sharlee01 wrote:
So sad--- one could write a book...My God, some of the horrendous things that are being said.
You are diverting. I have sworn off that game. My comment was solely to share how horrified I am that some are celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk. I have made my view clear on who I ultimately hold responsible for his death. I have as much right as anyone here to share my truth. If anyone does not like my view, that would be their problem.
I also shared, recognizing that I was part of the problem: I gave an ear to hate and, unknowingly, offered it fertile ground to keep it thriving. I have no intention of avoiding responsibility, and I am committed to turning away from any further contribution to that harm.
I am not participating much here these days except with those I feel are sharing truth, facts I recognize, and a like-minded view. I wrote you a nice note explaining why I felt it was wise that we did not communicate; I hope you saw it. I am not here to respond to any post I don’t feel comfortable with. This is my right, and I certainly have as much right to free speech as anyone else. I won’t defend my views unless I honestly feel they need defending. I am not interested in what the left here has to share, and that is my truth.
I am a very intelligent woman, and no one has the power to subvert or diminish my intellect.
"You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am -- I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational."
Well... I agree with the first line. The rest, I dont, but he did, so. It was a prudent deal he said. Worth it!
But he was wrong about this...
"how do you stop school shootings? I don't know. How did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That's why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports."
It didnt help that day.
*Btw, notice he mentioned school shootings? His statements were made a week after a school shooting were three nine years old kids died. Those were worth it to Charlie.
Great guy!Are you willing to provide a link so the entire quote can be heard?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVc9l6pjxtI
It was a prudent deal, according to him.I applaud your openness and honesty.
I find it refreshing.
He did preface what he said by stating there is a cost to having an armed citizenry. Then he put it in perspective.
Charlie Kirk made the point that there are 50,000 people a year killed in car accidents. We, as a society, have accepted 50,000 deaths a year in order to have people driving their vehicles. Those 50,000 deaths are the price that our society willingly pays to keep vehicles on the road.
He is right.
Then, he pivoted and pointed out how to have an armed citizenry a price will be paid. That cost is gun deaths. We willingly pay the price of 50,000 deaths a year for vehicles on the road. I agree we should willingly pay the price for gun deaths to have an armed citizenry and follow the 2nd Amendment.
He's right in saying we will never get gun deaths to zero and it is the same that we will never get car accident deaths to zero.
A vehicle can not kill anyone unless a person is operating it. A gun can not kill anyone unless a person is operating it.
It was a good analogy.
What he said actually made sense.
Do you ever? Isn't it disingenuous that you are asking for one?
The murder of Kirk was a terrible crime, but we’ve seen no evidence that shooter was part of any “network” organized by “the left.” it's sickening to see Trump exploit a tragedy to divide and conquer Americans....
Is Trump going to use Charlie Kirk’s death to try and squash Democrat’s free speech? It certainly sounds like it.
This is what happens in authoritarian governments.
Have any Republicans in Congress denounced Pam's statements yet about criminally prosecuting people for speech?
It's hard to believe Pam actually went to law school, since the 1st Amendment protects hate speech. But this is what you get when you work for an administration whose definition of "free speech" is "speech we find acceptable....Pam Bondi: "There's free speech and then there's hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society...We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech."
No. Barbie...
There is no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment. There is no constitutional basis for pursuing anyone for hateful words about Charlie Kirk (or anyone else). Hateful words are immoral. They are not illegal.The “free speech absolutists” have become the snowflakes...
I think Greg Gutfeld put it in perfect perspective.
Greg Gutfeld slams Jessica Tarlov for 'both sides' argument following Charlie Kirk's death
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ylyy0dwg8He certainly was honest, and I totally agreed with his sentiment.
I believe he puts things in perspective.
I regularly watch his show.
It's really funny.I watch too... I like his late show. It has quickly become number one.
Yes it must be fun to put down a staged liberal. How hypocritical do you have to be to see Charlie Kirk as a martyr and then find humor in it as well.
Unless you've watched Gutfeld you really don't know what he does.
"to see Charlie Kirk as a martyr and then find humor in it as well."
That is a question for those on the left who celebrated and laughed at the death of Charlie Kirk.More than half of self-identified progressives say killing Elon Musk or President Trump is justified.
https://x.com/RNCResearch/status/1967985503002825206The left believes in violence and there is quite a bit of evidence to prove that fact.
They are people who have a severe lacking in having a moral code.
A commentator said it best, he stated that the left has no God and therefore, in their minds, they are God and can decide who can and cannot live.
That is a very scary but true statement."the left" believes in violence? So following your logic then "the right" is represented and believes in this?
A simple yes or no will suffice
The generalizations being made on this forum are so tiresome and so painful...It has always been men that have decided what their god tells them, who ultimately decides who can and cannot live. It is, and always has been, men making the call.
What is scary is that there are people out there who truly believe that if they decide something is right, or that someone should die, or whatever it is they want to see, that it is their god telling them that. Some of the worst behavior and actions in mankinds history have been carried out because "God told me/us to do it"."It has always been men that have decided what their god tells them, who ultimately decides who can and cannot live. It is, and always has been, men making the call."
I would strongly disagree with you on this. In my religion, we have the Bible to direct us. When evil is done and a person claims God told them, I believe it is not God who is telling them to do these things.
You gave a good poke -- and you have rallied the oneliners, and the Pic-tators... Oh my
No thank you. I am not going to watch a staged put down of one side and the oher. It would be an insult to my intelligence of which you think I have none.
Greg Gutfeld is a sharp-tongued, satirical force in American media—part comedian, part commentator, and fully embedded in the Fox News ecosystem.
Career Highlights
• Host of Gutfeld!
A late-night talk show blending political commentary with edgy humor. It’s Fox News’ answer to The Daily Show or Real Time with Bill Maher, and it’s consistently one of the most-watched late-night programs in America.
• Co-host of The Five
A roundtable-style political talk show airing weekdays on Fox News. Gutfeld is known for sparring with liberal co-host Jessica Tarlov, especially during heated segments like the recent debate over Charlie Kirk’s assassination.
• Former Host of Red Eye
A quirky, irreverent 3 a.m. show that ran from 2007 to 2015, where Gutfeld honed his blend of libertarian snark and cultural critique.
Background & Style
• Born September 12, 1964, in San Mateo, California
• Graduated from UC Berkeley with a degree in English
• Started in magazine publishing—editing Men’s Health, Stuff, and Maxim UK before pivoting to TV
Gutfeld’s politics are a mix of libertarian skepticism and conservative punchlines. He’s known for mocking political correctness, progressive policies, and what he sees as media hypocrisy. His style is confrontational, sarcastic, and unapologetically partisan.
Recent Controversies
• Charlie Kirk Debate Blowup
Gutfeld clashed with Jessica Tarlov over whether political violence is a “both sides” issue. He dismissed her argument, saying:
• Criticism from Holocaust Memorial
He was rebuked by the Auschwitz Memorial for comments about Jews surviving Nazi camps, which many saw as historically insensitive
I imagined that was the case.
But YouGov has asked this question multiple times since 2022, and found some noticeable changes in opinion. For one thing, while Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say political violence is a very big problem in September 2025, in the wake of Kirk's shooting, the reverse has been true when YouGov has asked this question after attacks on Democratic political figures. How concerned Americans are about political violence is related to some degree to whether someone from their side or from the other side is the most recent to be attacked.
That is extremely telling isn't it. Democrats fall consistently between 44% and and 58% while Republicans only care when one of their hate speech advocates gets attacked - 31% to 67%.
WOW, what hypocrites.
Can anyone answer this...
The white supremacist, who killed 10 people and injured three others in a racially motivated shooting at a Tops grocery store in a predominantly Black neighborhood of Buffalo..
Is he a representative of "the right"
Does he represent you here?
Really just a simple yes or no will suffice
Dylann Roof, a white supremacist, killed nine African American worshippers at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina.
Really just very simply, does he represent "the right"
Just a yes or no will work . Did the entirety of "the right" need to accept responsibility for this guy's actions?
They keep trying to call it a false equivalency but I just don't see it!
I call it selective outrage
Do the statements and actions of groups such as the proud boys, the three percenters and The oath keepers represent all of "the right"?
Just a simple yes or no will work.It's a shame you are so desperate.
I would suggest you need to look at the left and what they've done.
None of those incidents you mentioned were based on someone being gunned down for participation in free speech.
Again, I don't know how to help anyone understand the concept of false equivalents.
Maybe this will help.
A false equivalence or false equivalency is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed, faulty, or false reasoning.It's all about whataboutism. When they have nothing to really offer, they divert or turn to whataboutism.
Do right wing extremist groups as in the ones that I mentioned previously, represent all conservatives? Just a really simple yes or no would work
So it is only free speech that matters to you, I see. Death for any other reason is OK. Is that why you are deflecting from her points?
Show me any people on the right who celebrated those who were killed. How many people on the right cheered their deaths?
This is so desperate.
Do we suddenly have the right to take away someone's life for political reasons?
If so, it reveals that the concern for our "inalienable rights" is diminishing.
It is apparent to many that the Left advocates and celebrates killing / murdering / assassinating someone for political beliefs, thereby destroying our rights as protected by the Constitution of the United States. Meanwhile, they fight for the right to murder the unborn and obliterate one's natural gender. It is clearly a party of death and evil:
livE vs EvilSo what's the word from Kash and Barbie concerning the motivation of Tyler robinson? What's the motive? I mean since "the left" has already been declared horrific scum, there must be a solid motive that was uncovered, right?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Preamble to the Declaration of IndependenceThere is NO justification for the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitut … atures.jpgThere really is no justification for the assassination of anyone, is there?
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Preamble to the United States ConstitutionTHE MOTIVE
"*His parents then asked their son why he committed this crime, to which he said "there is too much evil and the guy [Charlie Kirk] spreads too much hate," according to the charging documents.'*
Prosecutors also revealed additional conversations between the suspect and his roommate after the shooting.
"I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out," one of the messages read.
Robinson's roommate asked how long he had been planning this attack, to which he said "a little over a week I believe," according to charging documents.
Tyler Robinson said he killed Charlie Kirk because he 'spreads too much hate': Officials - ABC News https://share.google/4urIBiEwDGnoTGI9dThis speaks volumes about the difference between the left and the right.
And they wonder why many blame their rhetoric for causing violence, not only Kirk's death but also the violent protests.
... the rhetoric of the left causes violent protests, destruction and justifiable deaths.
---> what is this rhetoric? What is it based on and how can we recognize it?
I have been hearing people say ministers in churches all around town are speaking positively about DEI, Pro Palestine and LGBTQ rights.
They are the churches that have new paint jobs on their buildings.
Very suspicious.I agree with you. The rhetoric we hear from the left often goes beyond healthy debate, it’s designed to divide people into “good” and “bad” groups, to shame and label anyone who disagrees, and to stir emotions instead of finding solutions. The left in our government, along with the left-leaning media, has only fanned these flames. They throw around vile words like “Hitler,” “Nazi,” and “fascist,” then point those accusations at Republicans and supporters of the president. That kind of dangerous language was bound to boil over, and tragically it has, spilling into pure hateful murder.
You also make a good point about the churches. It’s noticeable that the ones pushing DEI, pro-Palestine, and LGBTQ politics are often the same ones showing off new renovations or funding. It naturally raises the question, who is bankrolling these efforts, and for what purpose? When churches step away from faith and become political platforms, it starts looking less like ministry and more like organized indoctrination. That’s the kind of influence we should be cautious about.
I think the best approach is not to fuel their rhetoric by giving it more attention. They don’t need encouragement or a platform, especially when the message is rooted in negativity and hate. Sometimes the most effective response is simply to step back, not engage, and let their words lose power on their own.
Shar,
I think the 77% of Republican and only 38% of democrats who believe it's unacceptable to celebrate the death of a public figure they oppose...speaks volumes about the democrats.
Food for thought?
https://forward.com/news/768607/horst-w … kirk-nazi/Thank you for sharing that, it shows how the Far Left is painting Kirk, after his murder, or due to it.
I will add to that WOW you have provided... this ABC report that talked about how touching the relationship was between the killer and his "love"... the transgender roommate.
https://x.com/stillgray/status/1968036715391574044
I hate to say this, I really do... but I don't think the two sides will continue to co-exist... I think your harsher, no tolerance outlook and attitude that you have shown here in the forums the past few years is now being matched by the opposite end of the spectrum.
One side wants Transgenders not just accepted but given protected minority EO rights...the other wants them put away for having a Mental Illness.
And I'm telling you, right on the heels of all this is MAPs (Minority Attracted Persons) and pedophilia being pushed to be normalized... I know this to be true because it has been put forth in the UN to rescind any illegality nations have for it... along with increasingly bold and vocal voices within America, on TikTok, BlueSky, etc.
And then there is the ... One side sees criminals as victims... sees illegal migrants as victims... 72 sexes vs. 2... etc.
Some interesting reading to how this is being framed by looking back to Germany, as your link does:
https://theconversation.com/historians- … ple-205622
https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/05/05/ … irschfeld/
https://medium.com/lessons-from-history … 1a1a36687e
I wonder... is the Far Left bringing the Far Right that they have been warning about and fretting about for years into existence by their own actions?No, Ken, our two sides wont, so we had just as well let loose the dogs of war. If that happens, America as we have known it will simply cease to exist. And Nobody comes out of that outcome with anything to gloat about. I have expressed my pessimism about the future of our country for some time, nothing new there.
The extreme positions I have had to take were in response to those that your side has initialized and continue to perpetuate. There can never be any tolerance on my side for bigotry and intolerance and the reason behind that would be obvious.
I don’t know about the stuff of pedophilia being normalized, as close as we have been to that form of abuse involves the Epstein issue and who is involved in that? Yet, I disagree with the concept of pedophilia but I will have to see the material myself regarding the UN to convince myself regarding the entire story.
The Far Right is intrinsically racist, intolerant, authoritarian, dictatorial and they don’t need the left to find amongst itself the truth of those traits. It was well a valid concern from more central ideologies and the Left that they were an entity to be avoided.
Thanks for the links, I will look at them.
This article in line with my opinion
https://www.salon.com/2025/09/17/trumps … -complete/
So, should the NAZIs approach regarding gays and trans people be something we should advocate for these folks here?Thank you for the honest reply and Salon (no surprise there) link.
So I offer you this to contemplate and consider:
You have been driven to your perspective... you didn't arrive their on your own.
I have tried to make you aware of this, unlike others on here that I rarely interact with, because there was a time when we had genuine discourse... where you (as much as anyone I have interacted with) pulled me free from a bias that was not entirely my own... it was stoked by FOX and OAN and whatever else I was tuning in to or reading back then...
And... as I pulled myself free from that and contemplated my perspectives and biases... I watched you disappear into a hatred for Trump that was irrational to me... this was going on years ago... when he had lost the 2020 election and I had thought he was washed up... when the Left Wing media kept talking about him non-stop, as if he were still President, or a front-runner for the 2024 race... as if in 2021 the 2024 election was only months away.
The more I detached myself from any and all American Mainstream News... be it FOX or CNN... NY Post or NY Times... the irrational and extremist nature of the Leftwing media became abundantly apparent.
I mean... it might not be obvious to you... but the Leftwing media and the lunacy of the Democrat politicians were more responsible for Trump being re-elected than anything Trump said or did...
Trying to jail him... for things that were 30 years ago... or for things that were common business practice... twisting the law... modifying statutes of limitations... trying to ban Trump from being on ballots... all of this made him far more attractive than he would have otherwise been to millions of voters.
The Democrats did a terrible job during Biden's 4 years... the economy... the massive influx of migrants... the fact that Biden was a dementia patient and Harris was a disaster on every level as a candidate...
If the Democrats had put up a decent candidate... and the media had not spent ten years trying to say Trump was everything from Hitler to a Putin Puppet...
But you have bought in to everything the Left Wing media is peddling... you guys have created the new Hitler... you have literally created him... sold him to America... the Left Wing hysteria brought the extreme Right Wing into existence... by the very actions the Biden Administration took... combined with the murders and riots and assassination attempts and lawlessness since 2020... you have forced sane-rational leave-me-alone types of Americans to say enough-is-enough .... no more looking the other way ... no more empathy, no more understanding ... they are fed up.
You will have your Right Wing extremism now... the Left Wing in all its lunacy has brought it into existence.No, Ken, I do my own thinking from experience, information and a belief system that is vastly different from your own.
Yes, I do not admit to not being biased based on politics post Trump, the side of the equation that I find myself on is quite clear to all.
You can’t figure out why I loath Trump so much, then you really have not been listening if you can say that? Trump has represented bigotry and bias all of his life going back 50 years, don’t force me to have to list the virtual reams of examples. Plus, I do not like anyone who breaks the rules of decorum as his role as head of the Executive Branch. I do not like people who cavalierly break rules because it has to be questioned if such people ever give regard to any guard rail. He spent the years between 2020-24 promoting the lie that he actually won the election without proof turning the country inside out, he is both a liar and a fraud. Is that not enough for a loathing on my part?
He is only attractive to YOU GUYS. The Democrats have a communication problem, the stats on the economy were better in Biden’s closing year than they are currently from the guy that boasted that “he alone could fix it”.
As I said before, Ken, I do my own thinking and the right, conservative, Republicans do not and have not ever within my lifetime really aligned themselves with my interests.
Now, the latest conspiracy theory from the Right: a goofy 22 year white male is now the catalyst for a larger leftist conspiracy as he had been brainwashed by liberals as motivation for shooting Kirk. A classic “Manchurian Candidate” scenario. Can I say the same about another couple of loathsome white, right wing oriented young men who see fit to murder patrons in supermarkets?
Thus the comparison of the Horst Wessel killing in 1930 and Hitler’s crackdown excuse of elimination opposition and dissent with that of Trump and the Republicans regarding the murder of Charlie Kirk. It is quite transparent and has a dastardly purpose.
I am fed up as well, and invite the enviable confrontation as to whether we all remain united or not.My post just above yours, that was an extension of my reply to you, pretty much covers any response.
As to your side, the Leftists... not the Liberals, I think most Liberals are like Bill Maher, and they are done with the more extreme Left.
So the Leftists... what do they have to offer?
Support for Transgenderism?
Support for Open Borders and putting illegal migrants ahead of Citizens?
You have a hardcore group of Feminists, Socialists (Marxists, Communists), and LGTBQ+ (especially the T and Q and +++) that will put their ideology ahead of all else.
What does your side have to bring the rest of America back to your side... after Trump's Presidency... as we enter into a new Presidential election?
I can tell you this... if the Trump Administration does find a way of turning the economy around... Democrats will have a very hard sell... they better find someone better than an Obama 2.0 to get people excited.What the left doesn’t do is deliberately is denigrate accomplishments and contributions by people of color to this society both past and present. That is a BIG doesn’t do for me. What do you think the Rightwing attitude is about its ideology? Does it go to the back burner?
On the other hand if the economy does not improve under Trump we will see to it that he is the lamest of lame ducks after the midterms. Republicans will be proven liars and incompetents. As far as I am concerned right now, anything is better than Trump.
I don’t watch bill Maher anymore as he has sold out to Trump and the Republicans under the guise of a moderate left, which is ineffectual and no longer is viable in this environment.I tend to disagree with that first paragraph... there was a lot of emphasis during the Biden years on "White Fragility" and the "white oppressors" in general...
The whole divide people into their DEI qualifiers is a Leftist thing.
"I don’t watch bill Maher anymore as he has sold out to Trump and the Republicans under the guise of a moderate left, which is ineffectual and no longer is viable in this environment."
Yep... anyone that doesn't agree with the ideology is the enemy... a list that is growing quite long.
So, can't agree with you... it is very clear the Left promotes divide for political gain, and did so with the Trans issue, which was never an issue until it became something they had to force on others with Executive Orders and extensive media propaganda.
My post just above yours, that was an extension of my reply to you, pretty much covers any response.
As to your side, the Leftists... not the Liberals, I think most Liberals are like Bill Maher, and they are done with the more extreme Left.
Bill Maher’s Angry Reaction to Charlie Kirk’s Murder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgqt4gA6qOo
So the Leftists... what do they have to offer?
Support for Transgenderism?
Support for Open Borders and putting illegal migrants ahead of Citizens?
You have a hardcore group of Feminists, Socialists (Marxists, Communists), and LGTBQ+ (especially the T and Q and +++) that will put their ideology ahead of all else.
What does your side have to bring the rest of America back to your side... after Trump's Presidency... as we enter into a new Presidential election?
I can tell you this... if the Trump Administration does find a way of turning the economy around... Democrats will have a very hard sell... they better find someone great, an Obama 2.0 or better to get people excited.That is what we who aren't radical Right do, we use the brains that God gave us to figure things out on our own. We don't regurgitate the pablum spun out by the Right's propaganda mills.
Just a side note - Hitler was democratically elected just like Trump was. Hitler also had a willing cult who fell for his populist words just like Trump does. Hitler also had a legislature that rolled over and played dead, just like Trump has. Hitler took control of his courts just like Trump is trying to do. Look how that turned out.
How does that saying go? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck - it IS a duck.
The big difference is the right is open to debating issues.
The left has to kill or destroy those who disagree with them.
I believe the left fears those who disagree with them as they fear hearing the truth and facing the reality of their positions on issues.
The left believes it is easier to assassinate rather than debate.
The left always loses and honest and open debate on issues.
That is probably the major motivation for their violent nature.
The last thing they want is for others to see it demonstrated how they are so wrong on so many things.It seems they are addicted to the emotional high that the feeling of dark and justified hatred provides.
They thrive on it.
The internet feeds it.
We need to get them off Hate.
They need help.
They need a treatment center for 90 days.
They need Love ...
and Logic.
... but how can you give them what they themselves won't accept?THEY THEY THEY THEY THEY THEY THEY THEY THEY THEY THEY THEY THEY THEY THEY THEY THEY THEY THEY THEY THEY THEY THEY THEY THEY THEY THEY THEY THEY THEY THEY THEY
... sorry, "THEY" does indeed refer to Democrats on the Left.
The big difference is the left is open to debating issues.
The right has to kill or destroy those who disagree with them.
I believe the right fears those who disagree with them as they fear hearing the truth and facing the reality of their positions on issues.
The right believes it is easier to assassinate rather than debate.
The right always loses and honest and open debate on issues.
That is probably the major motivation for their violent nature.
The last thing they want is for others to see it demonstrated how they are so wrong on so many things.
Do you understand what I just did? Look in the mirror and see yourself."The big difference is the left is open to debating issues.
The right has to kill or destroy those who disagree with them."
I would love to see some examples to prove this statement.
What you're doing is a sad attempt at turning the tables. It wasn't a good attempt.
Open to debating issues? Is that the impression that you get from Charlie Kirk words? Well, I am not so impressed.
That stupid 22 year old is representative of the objective of left leaning people, is that not a broad brush, Mike?
Trump is wasting no time, him and his henchmen at “cracking down” on the left. So much for open and free dialogue. Kirk”s death and the distraction that the Right’s propagates will give Trump and his right wing goons an opening.
Watch Trump, he will introduce a 21st century of a reign of terror, as fitting for the tyrant and despot that he is.
Another apropo article
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/michael- … e5bdc6b7ac
I have already responded to this earlier... but I wanted to extrapolate on the point I made in that response... particularly:
"you have bought in to everything the Left Wing media is peddling... you guys have created the new Hitler... you have literally created him... sold him to America... the Left Wing hysteria brought the extreme Right Wing into existence... by the very actions the Biden Administration took... combined with the murders and riots and assassination attempts and lawlessness since 2020... you have forced sane-rational leave-me-alone types of Americans to say enough-is-enough .... no more looking the other way ... no more empathy, no more understanding ... they are fed up.
You will have your Right Wing extremism now... the Left Wing in all its lunacy has brought it into existence."
I came across a video that expresses it in just a few short moments... timestamped to the particular point in the video that does so (33:22):
https://youtu.be/P_ePdqoFBeU?t=2002
"The left has pushed its agendas to such ludicrous logical extensions that the average person lives in poverty, mass immigration is changing demographics, the normal person is discriminated against in almost every way and constantly humiliated by the culture for nothing they have done wrong."
"In an effort to keep people from becoming Nazis they ended up making them..."
Interesting points... Its as I tried to point out... the Biden Administration for instance was giving social security benefits to immigrants while we have homeless Americans overtaking city streets... pushing transgender rights by stepping on the rights of women and invading their spaces... allowing for children to be preyed upon and mutilated... no rational American, certainly not the working class, was going to support this extremism.
And by pushing this insanity... where criminals are victims and people who fight against being violated by criminals are persecuted by our court system... where illegal migrants are afforded more rights than citizens... where the insane (ie -transgenders) are given more rights than normal people whose spaces they invade... you have created the Far Right.
Another key piece to this, a component of it, is a detached elite, the billionaires and the political... that have more in common with international elites than they do the citizens of their Nations... their neighbors are the enemies they want to subjugate, as explained in this discussion:
Michael Shellenberger on the Rise of the Counter-Elite
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5_RJUdm8Xk
and
How elites destroyed the Democratic Party in the US and fueled populism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoD6ccdmlfISo, it is possible for possible for rightwing thinking to drive people into a Nazi type ideology? The Left has been naive in believing in the civility of any rightwinger as there always is found a beast within..
Ken, a most informative video regarding Germany’s Weimar Period. I had taken a history course on that very topic over 50 years ago. There was book published at the time called “Before the Deluge” that touched on what was in the video presentation.
Could we refer to Von Hindenburg as Joe Biden and Trump as Hitler separated by a century? Hitler attacked what he considered degeneracy in German society, arts, sciences. He was racist in his attacks upon the Jews maligning any of their past or present accomplishments. Weimar was an example of degeneracy from the standpoint of conservatives at the time, but was Hitler the answer? Are we willing to accept a Hitler approach to a “Left” out of control? What about Trump, he wishes to change the narrative, denigrating minorities, using a Hitler style of controlling dissent in a war to eliminate degeneracy at least as defined by the Right. Yes, the conservatives do not like the gender bender stuff wanting to restore America to a fictional wholesomeness that never really existed. Behind that is putting minorities in a subordinate place and relegating women to the kitchen or bedroom. That is the message that I am getting from Trump and his people. Social trends come and go and I am suspicious of those that want to impose a value system rather than allow people to choose their own way. Hitler wanted to rearm Germany in direct violation of the Versailles Treaty, is not Trump extolling militarism in the same way? I fear that Trump will use extralegal methods to stay in power if he can not retain the confidence of the voters, not so much different that what Hitler did. Do you really want a Hitler at any price?
Who are the elites? they are the capitalist class and wealthy that have a vested interest in retaining cheap labor at any price and could care less about patriotism or nationalism. These are the people that would have government sold to the highest bidder. They want to maintain the lopsided control over everyone else, so they supported Trump. These same guys that filled Trump’s campaign coffers last fall.To be fair, there were more of those elites filling Harris' coffers than there were for Trump.
But I also believe many saw the writing on the wall... or their AIs calculated it, so they played the winning hand as they saw it.
Yes that is sort of a separate issue... but yet... it really isn't... because who owns America's media? The very rich elites, the establishment, the CIA, Big Pharma... all have a hand in what we are fed by the media.
They all have their own interests in mind and often their interests align against 'We the People'.
As to the Joe Biden and Trump comparisons... well... the point I was trying to make:
"The left has pushed its agendas to such ludicrous logical extensions that the average person lives in poverty, mass immigration is changing demographics, the normal person is discriminated against in almost every way and constantly humiliated by the culture for nothing they have done wrong."
"In an effort to keep people from becoming Nazis they ended up making them..."
Now... who pushed the Left to those extremes?
USAID helped fund a lot of it... China helped fund a lot of it especially through Universities... which are also heavily funded by the government...
I know why you believe what you believe... because you lived it...
I can only respect your perspective... if I put myself in your shoes to the best of my ability, I believe I would have almost the exact perspectives you have shared... before you went TDS... which is why I am happy to debate the issues with you, while trying to distance them from Trump.
I see Trump as a reaction to something that was going very wrong... for many Americans... who do not share or believe in this One World... Open Border... let the rich get richer putting their factories overseas as the Middle Class loses jobs... make Americans pay more for energy and goods because we let China, India and other nations use all the oil and coal we refuse to use...
You see the divisiveness Trump causes... the divisiveness the media feeds you to be more correct, though I am not defending Trump, in a way I think he accepts what the media has tried to portray him and use it to his benefit... stoking the anger of the Leftists so that they do some of the heinous things they do... like attacking Tesla owners for driving Teslas.
One thing I am confident in today... is IF the Leftwing media had ignored Trump rather than talk about him every single day, and IF the Democrats hadn't done everything they could think of to jail Trump, remove him from the ballot, etc. ... Trump would have been a lot less popular in 2024.
That is simply disgusting.
You should be ashamed.
"It’s noticeable that the ones pushing DEI, pro-Palestine, and LGBTQ politics are often the same ones showing off new renovations or funding. It naturally raises the question, who is bankrolling these efforts, and for what purpose? When churches step away from faith and become political platforms, it starts looking less like ministry and more like organized indoctrination. That’s the kind of influence we should be cautious about."
Sharlee
CAUTIOUS????
We MUST figure out who and why is behind the rhetoric and become very aware that this rhetoric is not our country.
We are being influenced ... corrupted ... in evil and destructive ways. We need to reject it.
Let the sleeping Boomers wake up. Let their children wake up. Let the youth wake up and let all unite against our common enemy.
... which is possibly China and Russia combined.
This is why Carlie Kirk was killed.
... to destroy the chances of JD Vance being elected President.
To destroy any possibility that the virtues of the Right will influence the citizenry with knowledge, decency, goodness and truth.The latest theory I have seen, was George Soros and his Open Society... many NGO efforts... along with USAID and other government funding... has worked decades now to recreate the social and economic unrest and volatility that led to the creation of the National Socialist movement in Germany.
I don't know if you are aware of his history but here are some links:
George Soros, a Nazi collaborator during WWII, uses his fake “holocaust background” to deflect criticism as anti-semitic.
https://stophindudvesha.org/george-soro … from-hell/
Jewish Republican congressional candidate calls George Soros a ‘Nazi sympathizer’
https://www.jta.org/quick-reads/jewish- … ympathizer
You know... we live in a world today where the most improbable and far flung conspiracy theories keep being proven true... so we'll see how this one goes.Thanks for the links, Ken.
Meanwhile:
https://www.google.com/search?client=sa … jSg0k,st:0Oh yeah, that's been known since almost day 1 of this war.
BRICS... it Stands for Brazil... Russia... India... China... (and South Africa tho what they bring to the table I have no clue)...
BRICS has been planning this for many years... long before the war started.
Since the War with Ukraine began, America has lost allies and the Dollar has dropped from 78% of the world's reserve to 54%... and still dropping.
Nations are lining up to join BRICS... while ignoring America's demand for more sanctions on Russia.
To those of us getting their news from somewhere other than American ignorance and propaganda Media like CNN... MSNBC... even FOX avoids most real news these days... we have seen this train wreck occurring in slow motion since Day 1 of the Biden Administration... and despite Trump's efforts to minimize or reverse the damage... it doesn't appear his Administration is having much success."and despite Trump's efforts to minimize or reverse the damage... it doesn't appear his Administration is having much success."
He is swimming against the constant resistance to his efforts from so many streams, such as a high percent of American citizenry and politicians ... despite the fact, that all he is doing is what he was elected to do.China has become Russia's primary supplier of dual-use goods, often accounting for 90% of imports in high-priority categories under Western export controls (G7 lists).
These exports have spiked dramatically, enabling Russia to rebuild its military-industrial base despite sanctions from the US, EU, and allies.
Examples include:
Electronics and Microelectronics: Exports of semiconductors and electronic components rose from $200 million in 2021 to over $500 million in 2022. These are used in communication systems, radars, missile guidance, and electronic warfare equipment.
Drones and Drone Components: Russia imported over $100 million in drones from China in 2023 alone—30 times more than Ukraine. Components like engines and AI-enabled parts have supported Russia's production of attack drones, with Chinese firms supplying at least 80% of electronic parts for Russian drones.
Ceramics and Body Armor Materials: Exports increased 69% to over $225 million, sufficient to equip many of Russia's mobilized forces. These are used in protective gear for frontline operations.
Machine Tools and Optics: Items like CNC machine tools, navigation equipment, and thermal imaging devices surged, aiding Russia's production of tanks, munitions, and artillery. In the first half of 2025, China exported $1.9 billion in such "high-priority" dual-use items to Russia.
Overall Trends: Chinese exports to Russia grew 121% from 2021 to 2023, with dual-use shipments recovering quickly after an initial post-invasion dip due to sanctions fears. Once it became apparent the Biden Administration was indifferent to their activities China's efforts increased.
By 2023, bilateral trade hit $245 billion, with China acting as both a direct producer and intermediary for re-exporting Western goods (e.g., German Siemens equipment routed through Chinese firms).
European officials noted in 2024 that China is "escalating its role" in the conflict through these exports.
It appears Tyler Robinson was a victim of leftist radicalization.
“Mom of Charlie Kirk's alleged assassin describes radical shift in last year: 'More pro-gay and trans rights'
Tyler Robinson went from scholarship recipient to alleged killer after becoming 'more political' and lurching left, mom says
OREM, Utah — Tyler Robinson’s mother told investigators she had watched her son change dramatically in the year leading up to the Utah college shooting of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk.
Once a college scholarship recipient with a promising future, Robinson had "become more political," leaning left and supporting "pro-gay and trans rights," his mother said, according to court documents.
She also recounted heated arguments between Robinson and his father, who held sharply different views and regularly sparred over their competing ideologies.”
Prosecutors now argue that political hatred was at the core of Robinson’s alleged actions.
In court filings, they allege he intentionally targeted Kirk "because of his political expression" — and his parents recognized him from surveillance video after the shooting.
"Robinson’s father reported that when his wife showed him the surveillance image of the suspected shooter in the news, he agreed that it looked like their son," prosecutors alleged in court filings.
His father confronted him and talked him into surrendering to authorities.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/mom-charlie- … ans-rightsRobinson....
"I had enough of his hatred, some hate can’t be negotiated out’
He was motivated by Kirk and his own words.Yeah the interpretation of one individual.
Kathryn — I really feel that, by what I have now long witnessed, for some years, there is little negotiation. When you see hatred with no hope of good, the wisest path is to turn away and keep your distance.
Ah, no....see it is okay to hate what someone says.
I hate many things I read about those on the left saying. Our side does not promote violence.
Robinson was motivated to murder by leftist ideology that justifies murder as necessary.
I've already posted the graph on this.
It is true that liberal Americans are more likely than conservatives to defend feeling joy about the deaths of political opponents. 16% of liberals say this is usually or always acceptable, including 24% of those who say their ideology is very liberal and 10% who say they are liberal but not very liberal. That compares to 4% of conservatives and 7% of moderates.These generalizations are absolutely meaningless.
"Robinson was motivated to murder by leftist ideology that justifies murder as necessary."
And where is your evidence of that?
Robinson clearly stated his motive, he was motivated by Kirk's words. He made a decision for himself based on his feelings toward Kirk. The man had apparently no connection to membership to any "far left" group..."he was motivated by Kirk's words"
I don't agree with that at all. Not liking someone is one thing. Advancing to the point where you intentionally plan and murder someone is another.
At that point words don't matter, it comes down to the belief on how to handle those you disagree with.
It is the left that promotes violence against those who say things they don't like. I've posted way too many articles about the violence of the left that more than prove it.Your disagreeing with Robinson's own words? Okay....
"At that point words don't matter, it comes down to the belief on how to handle those you disagree with
Yeah and Robinson obviously did not have the appropriate mental mechanisms to handle Kirk's words....
The disingenuous manner in which certain posters on this thread have tried to pin this on "the left" is sad.
Folks need to look back at the comments that have been made here since this thread was started... There's a lot to answer for.
Certain posters have blamed "the left" for Kirk's murder..."Words don't matter" - that seems rather naive and Pollyanna to me.
Yes, OCCASIONALLY, the extreme Left might do as you say. But it is the Right that makes a practice of it - Trump and Kirk are prime examples.
What articles? You rarely, very rarely, post anything to back up what you claim.It's interesting that some here are hell bent on hanging this murder on "the left". But then tell us...
'it comes down to the belief on how to handle those you disagree with.
A bit of reasoning sneaks through."Words don't matter"...here is your problem. You don't use the entire quote. This is not being honest. What is the entire quote?
"At that point words don't matter, it comes down to the belief on how to handle those you disagree with."
I think the left should focus on presenting the entire story rather than just distorting little bits of it.Robinson clearly had a faulty ability to handle those he disagreed with.... Not sure why posters on this forum chose to blame this murder "on the left" before they knew one thing about the motive.
Some of the posts here were quite ugly in the generalizations about an entire group of people...And what does "At that point" add to the meaning? To me, it means that at that point "words don't matter". Words always matter - in this case, that is what got him killed.
Mike, polls show Democrats feel it would be justified to kill our president.Thismis sick, and is not new.
"Some 38% of the total respondents said it would be "somewhat justified" to murder President Trump, while 31% said the same about Elon Musk. However, for those self-identifying in that group who were more left-leaning, those numbers grew to 48% and 55%, respectively."
https://cnycentral.com/news/nation-worl … sk-liberal
While most partisans said it is always or usually unacceptable, a clear split appeared over which is the case. A strong majority of GOP respondents, 77%, said being satisfied with a public figure’s death is always unacceptable, while 53% of independents and 38% of Democrats agreed.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation … 77147.htmlDidn't you just state that you don't put "much stock in polls"?
I don't have an appreciation for polls. But I do have an appreciation for a conversation, and giving respect to the person who offers me a comment. Mike frequently posts polls. As he did in the comment I replied to. I was sharing information I felt he might appreciate, due to his respect for polls.
Why do you never read a conversation before jumping in? Why do you continuously attempt to bait me? I have openly shared that I did not care to converse with you... This is a great example of why---- Here is the comment I replied to.
"Readmikenow wrote:
Ah, no....see it is okay to hate what someone says.
I hate many things I read about those on the left saying. Our side does not promote violence.
Robinson was motivated to murder by leftist ideology that justifies murder as necessary.
I've already posted the graph on this.
It is true that liberal Americans are more likely than conservatives to defend feeling joy about the deaths of political opponents. 16% of liberals say this is usually or always acceptable, including 24% of those who say their ideology is very liberal and 10% who say they are liberal but not very liberal. That compares to 4% of conservatives and 7% of moderates."
I would hope you would refrain from commenting on my posts. As a rule, your responses give the impression that you haven’t followed the flow of the conversation. You often miss the context, latch onto a single word or phrase, and run with it. Please spare yourself the embarrassment and simply skip over my comments.
Some more members of the left revealing who they are for the world to see.
It is time to realize the left consists of some very awful people.
Student expelled after being caught on video acting out Charlie Kirk's assassination at Texas State vigil
Texas State president says man seen in disturbing video 'no longer a student'
https://www.foxnews.com/us/video-captur … -expulsion
Cleveland fire chief removed from duty over 'incendiary' Charlie Kirk social media post
Anthony Luke placed on paid administrative leave as mayor says post 'crossed the line'
https://www.foxnews.com/us/cleveland-fi … media-post
Joe Burrow’s foundation severs ties with Ohio judge over comments celebrating Charlie Kirk's killing
Hamilton County Municipal Judge Ted Berry has been asked to resign by a state lawmaker
https://www.foxnews.com/sports/joe-burr … rks-report
Florida woman charged with felony after allegedly assaulting 73-year-old during Charlie Kirk vigil
Anderson allegedly disrupted Sunday gathering at The Villages before shoving MAGA group co-founder to ground
https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-woma … kirk-vigilFox News has no credibility as far as I'm concerned. It is a Trump megaphone. Why doesn't Trump appear on the MSM? Because he falsely labeled it and its reporters as fake news.
Donald Trump began labeling mainstream media (MSM) as “fake news” early in his presidency as a rhetorical strategy to discredit coverage he viewed as hostile, inaccurate, or politically motivated. Here's a breakdown of why and how he used the term:
Strategic Framing
• Delegitimizing Critics: Trump often used “fake news” to undermine outlets like CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post when they published stories critical of him or his administration.
• Creating an Insider/Outsider Dynamic: By branding MSM as dishonest, he positioned himself as a truth-teller against a corrupt establishment, reinforcing his populist appeal.
Pattern of Deflection
• Deflecting Negative Coverage: When confronted with damaging reports—like the New York Times exposé on his tax returns—Trump dismissed them as “totally fake news” without addressing the substance.
• Reversing Accusations: He often flipped the narrative, accusing journalists of the very misinformation they were reporting on, which muddied public perception and sowed doubt.
Political Weaponization
• Mobilizing Supporters: “Fake news” became a rallying cry at Trump events, energizing his base and reinforcing distrust in traditional media.
• Controlling the Narrative: By labeling unfavorable stories as hoaxes or lies, Trump maintained control over his public image and shifted focus away from controversies.
Broader Implications
• Erosion of Trust: This tactic contributed to a wider skepticism of journalism, making it harder for the public to distinguish between legitimate reporting and misinformation.
• Echo Chamber Effect: Supporters increasingly turned to alternative media sources that echoed Trump’s framing, deepening political polarization.
In essence, “fake news” wasn’t just a complaint—it was a calculated tool to reshape the media landscape and consolidate influenceAre you doubting that these stories actually happened?
Guess what?
They are on all the news channels not just fox.
These people doing this are the left.
Celebrating the death of a man who left behind a wife and two young children. Celebrating the death of a man who engaged in honest and open debate. A bible believing Christian.
So, why do you think a dedicated leftist murdered Charlie Kirk?"So, why do you think a dedicated leftist murdered Charlie Kirk?
There is absolutely not one bit of evidence at this time that Robinson was a "dedicated leftist"
I think the better question is, why are some continuing to make these kinds of claims? What support do you have for this claim?You're kidding.
"Robinson's mother said her son had started to lean more to the left, Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray told a news conference on Tuesday, "becoming more pro-gay and trans-rights orientated". He had been dating his roommate, who was transgender and transitioning from male to female, according to authorities. Gray said Robinson left a note under his keyboard for his roommate, which allegedly said: "I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I'm going to take it."
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8wl2y66p9oWhat is the connection between having a relationship with a transgendered person and becoming a murderer?
Not sure his mother's statement matters as much as Robinson's own statement of motive...I will have to label your response as denial.
It can't be helped.AGAIN
What is the connection between having a relationship with a transgendered person and becoming a murderer?If you could actually correctly phrase the question to meet the point that would The point was that the assassin of Charlie Kirk was a leftist.
Non sequitur fallacy – where the conclusion does not logically follow from the premise.
"Robinson's mother said her son had started to lean more to the left, Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray told a news conference on Tuesday, "becoming more pro-gay and trans-rights orientated". He had been dating his roommate, who was transgender and transitioning from male to female, according to authorities. Gray said Robinson left a note under his keyboard for his roommate, which allegedly said: "I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I'm going to take it."Maybe if you could state for us the reason Robinson gave for shooting Kirk?
In his words...why did he do it?
Anyone?I'll go for it.
Tyler Robinson, the suspect charged with killing conservative activist Charlie Kirk, allegedly cited Kirk’s “hatred” as his motive. According to court documents and text messages revealed by prosecutors, Robinson told his roommate and romantic partner:
He also left a note under his keyboard that read: “I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I’m going to take it.”
Robinson had reportedly become more politically active in recent years, leaning toward progressive views, especially around LGBTQ+ rights. His family, by contrast, was described as staunchly Republican, and tensions had grown between Robinson and his father, who was described as “pretty diehard MAGA”.
The FBI noted that Robinson expressed strong disdain for Kirk’s rhetoric, believing Kirk “spread hate”. The shooting was allegedly premeditated, with Robinson planning the attack for over a week and using a rifle that had personal significance—a family heirloom.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/ty … ocialshare
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ty … rcna231732
https://www.financialexpress.com/world- … g/3976005/Tell me who has more hate in their heart, Trump or the reporter? Please enable audio.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/tru … 36401.htmlOkay, nothing to disagree with here.
They are just starting to analyze all of his online conversations.
We'll soon know if he could have been radicalized by the left online."We'll soon know if he could have been radicalized by the left online.
Oh this is Rich... People need to look back at what they have already posted on this forum and the blame that they have assigned before knowing one piece of information.
Don't you and some of the other posters here that have been railing about the horrific "left" think you should have held off on some of your statements LOL???
I think we probably have to revisit some of those posts... really ugly"Don't you and some of the other posters here that have been railing about the horrific "left" think you should have held off on some of your statements"
I do not. I think everything I've posted is pretty accurate concerning the left.
I've had some pretty rough stuff said about me in forums. I don't care. I welcome it. Like I've said before, I can take it.
We had someone on the forum before that other were angry at because he said rough things to others and especially me.
I told him call me anything you want, say anything you want about me, about my politics because I can take it.
I'm strong minded enough that words are just words.
So, I invite everyone on the left to say whatever they would like to say to me and I will welcome it.
Like I said before, I can take it.Mike, I mean, how many times does one need to share their view, specifically, who they feel is responsible for Charlie Kirk’s death? I have followed this, if one wants to call it a conversation. At this point, I think almost everyone has clearly stated their opinion on the matter, or at the very least, given a pretty strong hint about who they hold accountable. I am coming close to being able to lip-sync what will be aimed at you.
RMN wrote this: "I'm strong minded enough that words are just words."
That's where you are wrong, words are not just words. That shows your ignorance (but you can take it right ,because ignorance is just a word} Words are very powerful. Trump uses them all the time to label everybody he doesn't like. He constantly repeats them so they can be identified by their labels instead of their names.Lables Really? These are the words the left uses. These are the words even some Democratic representatives have used. These are the words echoed by left-leaning media and the most extreme voices on social media. In my view, these are the words that foment enough hate to drive a young 22-year-old man to kill another simply because he said, “I hated him.” I openly point to the left as responsible for a large share of the hate I see today, I’ve heard it, read it, and witnessed it firsthand.
MY daughter-in-law went to her local Kroger and experienced a verbal attack on my beautiful nine-year-old grandson for wearing his “Make America Great Again” hat, a hat he was so happy to receive from me. This woman got in his face, hurling vile slurs at a child. In my view, she embodied pure hatred: vacant of values, vacant of common sense, and vacant of any form of decency. How could anyone expect me to condone behavior from a human being like that? This is the kind of hate that is being nurtured, repeated, and normalized in our culture, the very kind that can escalate into violence. And it is from the left.
When Charlie Kirk was killed, I immediately thought of my grandson and the kind of world he will have to navigate, a world shaped by those who believe we should abandon long-held values in favor of what I see as harmful, sick ideologies. Because of this, I have no respect for the Democratic Party as it stands today, nor for those who support its ideologies or condone their choice of words.This is from his first term (2017–2021), Donald Trump deployed a barrage of nicknames aimed at political rivals, media figures, and foreign leaders. These weren’t just insults—they were strategic branding tools meant to stick in the public’s mind and shape perception. Here's a curated list of some of the most memorable ones from that era:
-Domestic Political Opponents
| **Nickname** | **Target** | **Purpose or Implication** |
|------------------------|-------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
| **Crooked Hillary** | Hillary Clinton | Alleging corruption and dishonesty |
| **Low Energy Jeb** | Jeb Bush | Undermining campaign stamina |
| **Little Marco** | Marco Rubio | Mocking stature and debate performance |
| **Lyin’ Ted** | Ted Cruz | Accusing dishonesty during primaries |
| **Crazy Bernie** | Bernie Sanders | Painting him as extreme or irrational |
| **Sleepy Joe** | Joe Biden | Suggesting cognitive decline |
| **Mini Mike** | Michael Bloomberg | Mocking height and campaign impact |
| **Pocahontas** | Elizabeth Warren | Referencing disputed ancestry claims |
| **Sloppy Steve** | Steve Bannon | After their falling out |
| **Alfred E. Neuman** | Pete Buttigieg | Comparing him to the Mad Magazine mascot |
---
Media Figures & Journalists
| **Nickname** | **Target** | **Purpose or Implication** |
|------------------------|-------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
| **Fake News CNN** | CNN | Discrediting unfavorable coverage |
| **Little George** | George Stephanopoulos | Undermining credibility |
| **Crazy Mika** | Mika Brzezinski | Personal attack on MSNBC host |
| **Psycho Joe** | Joe Scarborough | Targeting Morning Joe host |
| **Failing New York Times** | NYT | Claiming declining influence |
---
Foreign Leaders
| **Nickname** | **Target** | **Purpose or Implication** |
|------------------------|-------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
| **Rocket Man** | Kim Jong-un | Mocking nuclear threats |
| **Little Rocket Man** | Kim Jong-un (variation) | Emphasizing ridicule |
| **President Xi** | Xi Jinping | Often used neutrally, but occasionally with edge|
---
These nicknames weren’t just off-the-cuff—they were repeated across rallies, tweets, and interviews to reinforce a narrative. Trump’s use of branding language, honed in business and media, became a signature part of his political strategy.
These are from his 2nd Term
Donald Trump has a long history of assigning colorful, often mocking nicknames to his political opponents and critics. These labels tend to be memorable, sometimes brutal, and often tailored to highlight perceived weaknesses or flaws. Here's a curated list of some of the most notable ones:
Nicknames for Political Figures
| **Nickname** | **Target** | **Context or Implication** |
|--------------------------|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
| **Crooked Joe** | Joe Biden | Implying corruption; repurposed from "Crooked Hillary" |
| **Sleepy Joe** | Joe Biden | Suggesting low energy or cognitive decline |
| **Mini Mike** | Michael Bloomberg | Mocking his height and campaign performance |
| **Low Energy Jeb** | Jeb Bush | Undermining his campaign vigor |
| **Sloppy Steve** | Steve Bannon | Criticizing appearance and fallout post-White House |
| **Wacky Omarosa** | Omarosa Manigault-Newman | Discrediting her after her White House departure |
| **Pocahontas** | Elizabeth Warren | Referencing her claims of Native American ancestry |
| **Da Nang Dick** | Richard Blumenthal | Mocking his Vietnam War service claims |
| **Fat Alvin** | Alvin Bragg | Targeting the Manhattan DA involved in legal cases |
| **Low IQ War Hawk** | Liz Cheney | Dismissing her intellect and foreign policy stance |
| **Horse Face** | Stormy Daniels | Personal insult related to appearance |
| **Cheatin’ Obama** | Barack Obama | Accusation tied to polling comparisons |
| **Rocket Man** | Kim Jong-un | Used during nuclear tensions |
| **My Little Communist** | Zohran Mamdani | Labeling a socialist candidate in NYC |
These nicknames often serve dual purposes: rallying Trump's base and branding opponents in ways that stick in public discourse. Some are humorous, others are harsh, and many are repeated across rallies and social media to reinforce the narrative.First Term -These labels were often repeated across rallies, interviews, and social media to reinforce specific narratives.
• Crooked Hillary
• Low Energy Jeb
• Little Marco
• Lyin’ Ted
• Crazy Bernie
• Sleepy Joe
• Mini Mike
• Pocahontas
• Sloppy Steve
• Alfred E. Neuman
• Rocket Man
• Little Rocket Man
• Psycho Joe
• Crazy Mika
• Cryin’ Chuck
• Nervous Nancy
• Shifty Schiff
• Wacky Omarosa
• Da Nang Dick
• Cheatin’ Obama
• Fat Jerry
• 1% Joe
• Dopey Prince
• Mr. Magoo
• The Do Nothing Democrats
• Fake News CNN
• Failing New York Times
• Amazon Washington Post
2nd Term
Crooked Joe
Sleepy Joe
Slow Joe
Joe Hiden’
Mini Mike
Da Nang Dick
Fat Alvin
Coco Chow
Low IQ War Hawk
Alfred E. Neuman
Cryin’ Chuck
Shifty Schiff
Nervous Nancy
Wacky Omarosa
Sloppy Steve
Little Rocket Man
Fake News CNN
Failing New York Times
Amazon Washington Post
The Do Nothing DemocratsI think they're pretty good.
I applaud the creativity.
The problem is the democrats are not creative enough to come up with such names.I once shared an incident my daughter-in-law had with a leftist in a public grocery store. If I could wave a magic wand, I would gladly take any one of Trump’s nicknames over a little boy standing next to his mother being called a “mother—f***er.” That’s the reality we’re dealing with. So if you want to bring up concerns about what Trump said, find someone who might actually find them plausible, because from where I stand, it’s the left who’ve perfected vile language, the labeling of total strangers, and the casual cruelty that corrodes society. I point this out often and I’ll keep doing it: the aptitude for demeaning and dehumanizing others is rampant with many on the left. I hold many on the left responsible for Charlie Kirk’s death, not casual commenters, but Democrats in Congress, Democrat governors, and the left-wing media that constantly fuel this atmosphere. The social-media trolls? They were schooled by the best. It’s a shame some on the left are now lumped in with those who deliberately stoke division, but that’s the reality they’ve created. Maybe I should divide them into a basket of “deplorables.”
And in my view, it’s not so much the label itself, but the context in which it’s used that exposes the real hatred and intent behind it. When it comes to rhetoric, I believe this is what truly sets the right apart from the left. I see some very distinct differences in character between the two.Again, generalizations of behavior from one to an entire group...a group, "the left", that is by no means homogeneous.
Again, generalizations of behavior from one to an entire group...a group, "the left", that is by no means homogeneous." Willow
LOL It amazes me you never read a full comment or you lack the ability to undersatnd context--- I mean i feel sort of bad to keep pointing this out. But I also don't and won't be accused of hat you accused me of. Did you note my carefulky placed word SOME
" It’s a shame some on the left are now lumped in with those who deliberately stoke division, but that’s the reality they’ve created. Maybe I should divide them into a basket of “deplorables.” Shar
Why do you bother replying to my comments? It always ends the same--- you do not pick up context.
I can see you like to reply to comments, but take the time to actually read them and look for context. Otherwise, it becomes a constant hassle having to correct you.
I must point out that you often group people together in your comments. I am very careful to try not to. Because CONTEXT really matters."because from where I stand it’s the left who’ve perfected vile language, the labeling of total strangers, and the casual cruelty that corrodes society."
What??Yes what --- here is my comment, note the words before and after the sentences you are pointing out... Note the full context of what I shared. As I have pointed out, and now must again, you grab a word or two and run with it. In the end, a full conversation or, at best, a paragraph offers fuller context. Throughout my long comment, I was careful to use terminology such as "many" and "some".
Why do you put yourself through this? I feel bad to have the need to even point out your problem with contexts so frequently. You'd best pass my comments by.
” That’s the reality we’re dealing with. So if you want to bring up concerns about what Trump said, find someone who might actually find them plausible, BECAUSE FROM WHERE I STAND, (NOTE THIS IS CLEARLY stated as my view) it’s the left who’ve perfected vile language, the labeling of total strangers, and the casual cruelty that corrodes society. I point this out often, and I’ll keep doing it: the aptitude for demeaning and dehumanizing others is rampant with MANY on the left." SharLooks like I'll have to go back and repost all the lack of "some" and "many"
"but you can take it right ,because ignorance is just a word"
Yeah, I've been called worse. I've experienced enough in my life that words on a computer screen just don't bother me.
Do you mean powerful words like constantly calling President Donald Trump a Nazi, Hitler, Fascist, and more?
I think his creative labels on people is great. You go into the arena with President Donald Trump you better bring your "A" game because you are in for the battle of your life.
I like the new one I saw the other day calling Gavin Newsome, "Crazy Hands Gavin.
Pretty accurate."Do you mean powerful words like constantly calling President Donald Trump a Nazi, Hitler, Fascist, and more?"
Powerful words?
https://x.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1966636813809799385
Condemning others but excusing Trump???
Shar,
I am just stunned that after I posted the horrible things said about Charlie Kirk, the celebrations of his death, nobody on the left condemned it.
What did we get? That's not me. I didn't do that. Not one person on the left agreed it was horrible.
That is something I am still stunned by.
If they wanted unity they could have united with us to say the horrible things those people did were horrible.
As I said before, to remain silent is to agree."If they wanted unity they could have united with us to say the horrible things those people did were horrible." Mike
Mike — yes, they would. From what I see, even after this tragedy in the media, social media, and even from some of our government representatives, hate has become pervasive and is no longer hidden; it’s spilling out into the open, even in high-profile interviews like Obama’s latest. He is doubling down, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see protesters at Kirk’s funeral. Sick minds have been created, and I see no end to the forces that have fed them and continue to feed them.That is what makes a view special, we all have them --- LOL
Some views actually match reality though... Some call a stance that doesn't match reality a delusion.
My view is that the sky is really purple... Am I delusional?
You can't handle the truth, can you? So you are banking on the investigation to show that he was radicalized by the lett. Good luck Kash Patel is going to delay his FBI investigation for ever because I think there is incriminating evidence about Trump that he doesn't want released.
"incriminating evidence about Trump"
You really are high on the Trump Derangement Syndrome Spectrum.
Can you discuss any aspect of any topic without bringing President Donald Trump into it?Nope, Trump is the root cause of our division that we are experiencing right now. You have drunk he KoolAid..
Exactly. We have Robinson, one individual, triggered to the point of murder by the rhetoric of Kirk. A man who had no affiliation to party and never voted.
Best I can tell is Robinson is a middle of the roader who was scared of Kirk's hate speech. Being gay or trans doesn't make you left, or at least I think you would know that. Trump has many gay and trans supporters for some very strange reason.
Also, understand that turning way from the far Right (Trump) "looks" left to that person whether it is or not.I think logic would prove that someone who supported President Donald Trump would not be motivated to kill Charlie Kirk. Their views on issues were pretty identical.
There is no proof Robinson supported President Donald Trump.
How is becoming more "gay or trans" oriented leftist? It sounds like he was becoming more human, you know, accepting of other's differences? This is something Kirk was not.
It is sad that Kirk frightened somebody who was apparently not mentally stable.... because transitioning is not healthy for body, mind or soul. Its a matter of Science. God, I believe, is behind Science. God is behind nature.
We cannot change what we were born with. Charlie Kirk was just telling us the truth and providing reality feedback.
Its a lie to say we are compassionate to accept and embrace what is unnatural and artificial.
It is truth to say we need to revere and accept the way we were born.I don't think anyone's questioning Kirk's ability to have said whatever he wanted to say... Free speech.
The point involves calling someone un-compassionate for not accepting the agenda to normalize gender fluidity. Its not fluid. It is more compassionate to declare what is true.
That's your view. My view? People can believe whatever the hell they want. It's none of my business.
True...but doesn't change reality.
The left has to some day embrace reality over their delusional thinking. It makes the left angry to hear men can't become women and women can't become men, but that is reality.You can disagree all you want.
You can't change reality.
You can deny it, ignore it, lie about it, but you CAN'T change it.If reality can't be changed, I have to wonder why he keeps trying so hard to change it.
What makes you think you are better than the left?
I like how you have to make things personal because you are completely unable to discuss topics or ideas.
This is just sad.Insulting people for who they are is personal. There are so many times I wanted to report you for your insults but I didn't do it...Probably because I'm a liberal.
I can discuss topics and ideas as best as any conservative including you. I think it is sad that you have to insult other while self aggrandizing. I see why you like Trump. You are very much like him...and that is not a compliment..."Insulting people for who they are is personal."
Time to look in the mirror.
If you have ever taken a biology class, you know that nature never does anything in a straight line. Sexual feelings are not a choice. They are in a person's DNA. Trying to legislate them is screwing with the laws of nature, but that is what Trump wants to do, even though it is none of our business. I have a gay son. He is a wonderful person and I couldn't be prouder
"that is what Trump wants to do"
Again, it never stops with you.
"men can't become women and women can't become men, but that is reality."
I stick by this statement.
"I don't think anyone's questioning Kirk's ability to have said whatever he wanted to say."
Except when someone like Robinson labels things that Charlie Kirk has said as hate speech and kills him. Do you have any idea what conservative speakers go through when they're invited onto a college campus to speak? The violent protest they must endure? The left hates free speech. To them the only speech that should be free is speech they agree with."The left hates free speech. To them the only speech that should be free is speech they agree with."
Sure that is why they are called liberals because they hate free speech. Why do you think conservatives are called conservative? Because they hate change and have certain standards for everything. If you don't meet them, you are called radical. Look in the mirror
Got Truth? This boy was confused and suffering. He shot someone who could have helped him understand and isolate his confusion and psychological difficulties. Now, he never will. Charlie was open, compassionate, willing to listen and provide reality feedback.
A Dedicated Leftist who was a TRUMPER, according to the evidence, until the YEAR BEFORE. I didn't know the Right considers Trump a leftist.
I wonder if that is when Kirk's gay-bashing talk finally broke through to Robinson.I don't know what some on this forum don't understand? In Robinson's own words..."I had enough of his hatred,.. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.”
Yes, it looks like Kirk's own rhetoric was the motive for the murder.
Wow, that is amazing, FOUR, count them, FOUR people define what the Left is. If you say so.
Unlike MSM cites like CNN, one must always check out anything posted by the Right since they have a big problem with telling the truth. Let's look at what those FOUR people that represent 100 million others actually did.
* The fire chief REPOSTED on his PERSONAL webpage which does not link him to Cleveland something that is basically true. Since the Right loves violence so much, why would they be upset with a cartoon about violence?
* The Texas kid was simply express free speech and Republicans got him for it. I guess only Kirk is allowed to speak freely. That is par for the course.
* Again, Conservatives go after free speech with the judge. Again, it shows only Kirk is protected by the 1st Amendment. I didn't see any "celebration" just a reflection of the truth.
* Fl woman - Again, no celebration, instead, she was disrupting a Kirk vigil and got violent when told to leave. This is the only one of the four that is legitimate and even this doesn't count as "celebration", just criminal political behavior - something it has been proven the Right does more than the Left.
More proof you can't trust Fox to tell the complete story.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor...“Every time I listen to a lawyer-trained representative saying we should criminalize free speech in some way, I think to myself, that law school failed.”
BARBIE is an abomination.Trumps personal law firm (DOJ) deletes reports proving they lie about left wing violence... hiding data that don’t fit their narrative of left wing violence. This is authoritarian shit.
Sadly, a lot of maga just can't see that they really do think this group is stupid...
https://web.archive.org/web/20250911012 … -terrorismI didn't see anything about DOJ deleting reports.
Thank you for providing this.
The study was based on articles and some of them used methods that were based more on opinion than fact. The one article defined right-wing violence on nothing more than their opinion. Much of the violence they mentioned had nothing to do with politics. Some of these alleged right wing people were just criminals who may have had on a Confederate flag T-shirt, or were registered Republicans. When politics is not the motivation, right wing, left wing, doesn't matter. It is simply criminals engaging in criminal activity.
That is why studies like this, when I take the time to analyze them, are often seriously flawed.
It's an opinion. You can believe it or ignore it. I don't buy it based on the reading I've done on it.
Someone else sent me this same study in the past.Are you a professional analyst that qualifies you to draw such a conclusion? Well, I am and what the link looks well researched to me.
This was the study that was a project of the National Institute of Justice, an agency under DOJ.....
Notice that was DOJ and not DOIJ where he would probably be right.
I don't care.
I really don't care.
I stand by what I said.I'm so tired of you and others celebrating the downfall of the left based on on the what you and Trump call the radical left.
Why Some Trump Supporters Emphasize Left-Wing Violence
1. Narrative Control & Moral Framing
• By highlighting alleged violence from the left, Trump-aligned voices aim to flip the script on accusations of right-wing extremism.
• It reframes the left not as victims or reformers, but as aggressors—undermining their moral high ground in debates over race, policing, and protest.
2. Justifying Crackdowns
• Trump has repeatedly called for action against “radical left” groups, especially after incidents like the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
• This framing helps justify policy responses, surveillance, or even legal action against left-leaning organizations, activists, or protest movements.
3. Deflection from Right-Wing Violence
• Despite data showing that right-wing extremists have committed more deadly attacks in recent decades, Trump often omits these incidents from his speeches.
• By focusing on left-wing violence, the goal is to deflect scrutiny from the far-right and redirect public concern.
4. Mobilizing the Base
• Claims of leftist violence energize supporters by reinforcing a sense of victimhood and urgency.
• It taps into fears about crime, immigration, and cultural change—issues that resonate deeply with parts of the conservative electorate.
5. Media Amplification & Echo Chambers
• Conservative media outlets often spotlight left-wing protests that turn violent, while downplaying or recontextualizing right-wing incidents.
• This selective coverage creates a feedback loop, reinforcing the belief that the left is inherently more dangerous.
What the Data Actually Shows
• According to research by the Cato Institute, right-wing terrorists account for over half of politically motivated killings in the U.S. since 2020.
• Left-wing violence exists, but it’s less frequent and less lethal than right-wing attacks over the past several decades.
This isn’t just about facts—it’s about which facts get elevated, and why. The framing of political violence is a powerful tool in shaping public perception, policy, and allegiance.
I'm so tired of your BS. Here are the facts
https://time.com/7317383/political-viol … own-right/This is just deflection.
Nothing you can post can change the fact that is was a dedicated leftist who assassinated Charlie Kirk.
Nothing can change that fact.
Nothing you post can change all the horrible things people have said and done concerning Charlie Kirk's death from the left.
You can't change the fact that there were actually people on the left celebrating his death.
You need to stop deflecting and deal with the reality that the leftist ideology is what caused the death of Charlie Kirk and nothing else.
It's time the left own its ugly behavior instead of ignoring it."Nothing you can post can change the fact that is was a dedicated leftist who assassinated Charlie Kirk."
The man stated his opposition to Kirk's rhetoric as his motive. Absolutely no one has connected this man to any "leftist" group. Those are the facts"You need to stop deflecting and deal with the reality that the leftist ideology is what caused the deeath Charlie Kirk and nothing else."
And exactly what is the leftist ideology that Robinson demonstrably adhered to or subscribed to???
By all accounts, he was responding directly to Kirk's rhetoric...not "leftist" ideology.Nothing, huh? How about the Truth that Robinson supported Trump most of his life, hell, maybe he still does.
"How about the Truth that Robinson supported Trump most of his life, hell, maybe he still does."
There is no proof of that you are making things up AGAIN.
Can't believe I forgot another instance of political violence that was committed recently... an anti-vaxxer who fired 180 rounds in the CDC headquarters in Atlanta... Killing an officer.
I hope everyone is watching the hearing that is currently going on with the former CDC director Susan Monarz testifying...Freedom of speech is a bedrock principle of our democracy. FULL STOP.
Threatening to prosecute people just because you disagree with them is dangerous and un-American.
Yet here we are .."you have a lot of hate in your heart".
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1967957633370828892
What is wrong with this manWe all know the answer to that - he is dangerously mentally ill according to scores of mental health professionals.
'Assassination Culture': Half of Left-leaning Americans say assassinating Trump, Musk is justified
A new survey reveals that about half of Americans who lean Left politically believe murdering President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk is at least somewhat justified as concerns mount about “assassination culture.”
The Network Contagion Research Institute and Rutgers University’s Social Perception Lab released a report Monday titled “Assassination Culture: How Burning Teslas and Killing Billionaires Became a Meme Aesthetic for Political Violence.” The data included in the report is based on responses collected from 1,264 U.S. adults. The main takeaway from the report is that, “A broader ‘assassination culture’ appears to be emerging within segments of the U.S. public on the extreme left.”
https://www.christianpost.com/news/half … ified.htmlObama while at a speaking event...
"When I hear not just our current president, but his aides, who have a history of calling political opponents ‘vermin,’ enemies who need to be ‘targeted,’ that speaks to a broader problem that we have right now, and something that we’re going to have to grapple with—all of us,”
"Whether we’re Democrats, Republicans, independents, we have to recognize that on both sides, undoubtedly, there are people who are extremists and who say things that are contrary to what I believe are America’s core values,” Obama stated.
He went on to say that he as well as previous Republican presidents believed in working to unite the country.
“I think George W. Bush believed that. I believe that people who I ran against—I know John McCain believed it," said Obama. "I know Mitt Romney believed it. What I’m describing is not a Democratic value or Republican value. It is an American value. And I think at moments like this, when tensions are high, then part of the job of the president is to pull people together.”
Drawing on his own time in office, Obama discussed how he avoided inflaming the country along partisan lines after white supremacist Dylan Roof carried out a mass shooting inside a Black church in 2015.
“As president of the United States, my response was not: Who may have influenced this troubled young man to engage in that kind of violence? And now let me go after my political opponents and use that,” said Obama.
This type of leadership is sorely missed.Here's what's wrong right here...
Pam Bondi: " Who killed Charlie? Left-wing radicals. And they will be held accountable."
Robinson had been taken into custody at that point.... But instead of using his name she chooses to inflame. She is disgraceful on every level.
https://x.com/BulwarkOnline/status/1967763976063959073Well, ABC kneels to Trump and the Conservatives again. Jimmy Kimmel told the TRUTH that the Right is using Kirk's death to score political points (he was stating the obvious) and the Trumper head of the FCC threatens investigation and a large right-leaning affiliate preempts Kimmel's shows on its affiliates.
Don't talk to me about the Left being politically correct! The Right is showing how it is done AND that they have no belief in first amendment rights.
My wife liked Gray's Anatomy and we both liked Will Trent, The Rookie, and High Potential. They will be replaced by other networks who have some backbone.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/17/media/ji … endan-carrWelcome to Fascist America where free speech has gone to die. It is now whatever floats dear leaders boat. Everything else will be identified as hate speech.. Political satire will not be allowed unless it complements Trump's ego. .
Isn't ironic that I could say welcome to Communist America and be just as right. This is exactly how they do it in Putin's Russia, Un's North Korea, Xi's China, Maduro's Venezuela, the Ayatollah's Iran, or Hitler's 1936 Germany.
Oh, I forgot, just so you know it CAN HAPPEN here, Joe McCarthy/J. Edgar Hoover's America.
I can hear MAUGA now sighing that the 1950s were the good ol' days when the Blacks knew their place and there was a commie under every rock.Here’s what Jimmy Kimmel said that led to Jimmy Kimmel Live! being pulled off the air:
“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang 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.”
Is this true, does he know something that hasn’t been reported? I’ve followed everything released so far: statements from the shooter’s mother, the Governor of Utah, the FBI, and the prosecutor, and what they’ve said is very different from Kimmel’s on-air claim. Was his statement factual, or even close to what those sources have shared? Did it spread hatred? Was his statement hate speech cloaked as free speech? Could it have reached the ear of a leftist who would take it upon himself to kill? And how many people watched and heard that lie?
Yes, context surely matters...And facts should matter above all.Can you apply all of this reasoning equally to commentary on "the right". There's absolutely no sound argument here if that can't be done.... And I don't see certain posters on this forum doing that...
"Could it have reached the ear of a leftist who would take it upon himself to kill? "
Lol so NOW that is a concern? Do we really need to recount the vile language that could hit the ear of someone who may be triggered into political violence toward those more liberal??? Surely that would be condemned, right? Most of it coming straight out of dear leader's ugly mouth.
Brian Kilmeade literally said “Just kill ’em” while discussing mentally ill people experiencing homelessness.... Yet he is left in place to continue his senseless blather..Here is the context and the facts
The Suspect: Tyler Robinson
• Identity: Tyler Robinson, 22, was arrested for the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, during a Turning Point USA event at Utah Valley University.
• Living Situation: Robinson lived with a romantic partner who is transgender and transitioning from male to female. Utah Governor Spencer Cox confirmed this during a press conference, noting that the roommate is cooperating with law enforcement.
• Sexual Orientation: While Robinson’s sexual orientation hasn’t been officially labeled, multiple sources—including statements from friends and family—have described him as being in a same-sex relationship, and some media outlets have referred to him as gay.
Motive & Messaging
• Premeditation: Prosecutors revealed that Robinson had planned the attack for over a week. He left a note under his keyboard stating:
“I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I’m going to take it.”
• Digital Trail: Texts to his roommate included instructions to retrieve the note and hide the rifle. He also referenced bullet casings engraved with phrases like “Bella Ciao” and “Hey fascist!”—suggesting ideological motives.
• Confession: Robinson reportedly confessed to his father after being identified in surveillance footage. His father, alarmed, contacted a youth pastor who helped coordinate Robinson’s surrender to federal authorities.
The Bullet Casing Messages
1. Spent casing (used in the shooting):
“Notices bulges OwO what’s this?”
• This is a meme phrase from the furry and anime-adjacent internet subculture.
• “OwO” is a wide-eyed emoticon expressing surprise or curiosity.
• The phrase is often used in satirical or erotic contexts, mocking exaggerated cuteness or awkward flirtation.
2. Unfired casing #1:
“Hey fascist! Catch!”
• Followed by arrow symbols: ↑ → ↓ ↓ ↓
• This appears to reference Helldivers 2, a video game where players input arrow sequences to call down bombs.
• Ironically, in the game, players fight for a fascist regime—so the symbolism is muddled.
3. Unfired casing #2:
“O Bella ciao, Bella ciao, Bella ciao ciao ciao”
• Lyrics from Bella Ciao, an Italian anti-fascist resistance song from WWII.
• Popularized recently by Money Heist, it’s become a global symbol of rebellion.
4. Unfired casing #3:
“If you read this, you are gay LMAO”
• Classic internet trolling language.
• Likely meant to provoke or confuse, not necessarily tied to ideology.
Analysis: What Does It Mean?
These inscriptions suggest a blend of:
• Anti-fascist signaling: “Hey fascist!” and Bella Ciao point to ideological opposition.
• Internet meme culture: “OwO” and “you are gay LMAO” reflect Gen Z humor and trolling.
• Gamified violence: The arrow sequence evokes video game mechanics, possibly romanticizing the act.
The shooter, Tyler Robinson, appears to have crafted these messages to be provocative, layered, and performative—not just ideological but also steeped in digital subculture. It’s a mix of political messaging and nihilistic irony, designed to confuse, inflame, and go viral.
The Shooting
• Event: Kirk was shot in the neck while responding to a student’s question about gun violence. The shooter fired a single round from a bolt-action Mauser rifle and fled the scene.
• Victim: Charlie Kirk, 31, was a prominent conservative figure and founder of Turning Point USA. Over 3,000 people were in attendance at the event.
Trump’s Response
• Initial Statement: President Donald Trump broke the news of Robinson’s arrest during a live appearance on Fox & Friends, calling the act a “radical left assassination”.
• Political Framing: Trump and several allies have since framed the shooting as politically motivated, blaming “far-left extremism” and calling for federal investigations into ideological violence.
Right-Wing Framing: “This Is War”
Immediately after the shooting, prominent conservative voices escalated the rhetoric:
• Donald Trump called it a “radical left assassination” and ordered flags to be lowered to half-staff.
• Elon Musk posted: “The Left is the party of murder” and “fight or die”.
• Chaya Raichik (Libs of TikTok) declared: “THIS IS WAR”.
• Steve Bannon demanded mass arrests and a “blowtorch” to universities.
• Jesse Watters (Fox News) said, “They are at war with us… What are we gonna do about it?”.
• Ian Miles Cheong, C.J. Pearson, and Andrew Tate echoed similar “civil war” language.
This framing wasn’t based on confirmed motive—it preceded the arrest and confession of Tyler Robinson. The goal was clear: to portray the left as violent, unhinged, and existentially dangerous.
Narrative Engineering: From Shooter to Symbol
• Tyler Robinson, the shooter, lived with a transgender partner and left behind bullet casings engraved with phrases like “Hey fascist!” and “Bella Ciao”.
• These details were quickly seized upon to imply ideological motive—despite law enforcement urging caution.
• Right-wing media amplified unverified claims, linking Robinson to “trans ideology” and “antifa,” even before charges were filed.
• Wikipedia became a target when its editors refused to frame Kirk as a martyr, prompting attacks from Fox News and Sen. Mike Lee.
Fallout and Polarization
• Democrats, including Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, and Chuck Schumer, condemned the violence as “vile” and “horrifying”.
• Sen. Mark Kelly reminded viewers that political violence affects both sides, referencing the shooting of his wife Gabby Giffords.
• Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) criticized right-wing pundits for exploiting Kirk’s death to “lather up” followers.
• Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) rejected Stephen Miller’s claim that Democrats are a “domestic extremist organization”.
What’s Really Happening?
This isn’t just about mourning a public figure—it’s about narrative control:
• The right is using Kirk’s death to reinforce a siege mentality: “They want us dead.”
• The left is pushing back, warning that this rhetoric fuels more violence.
• Media outlets are caught in the crossfire, with some amplifying unverified claims and others accused of downplaying ideological motives.
As Jeff Sharlet put it, the narratives may be more powerful than the facts. The danger isn’t just in what happened—it’s in how it’s being used to justify escalation.
Brendan Carr is the current Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), appointed by President Donald Trump in late 2024 and officially taking office in January 2025. He’s a Republican lawyer known for his aggressive stance on media regulation, free speech, and telecom infrastructure.
Career Highlights
• FCC Commissioner since 2017, nominated by Trump and later re-confirmed under Biden.
• Became FCC Chair in Trump’s second term, succeeding Jessica Rosenworcel.
• Authored the FCC chapter in the Heritage Foundation’s Mandate for Leadership as part of Project 2025, signaling his alignment with conservative governance goals.
Policy Focus
• Media Oversight: Carr has pushed for stricter enforcement of the FCC’s “public interest” standard, especially targeting broadcasters he views as politically biased.
• Free Speech Advocacy: Previously vocal against censorship, though critics say he’s contradicted that stance by pressuring networks like ABC to suspend Jimmy Kimmel over comments about Charlie Kirk’s death.
• Telecom Deregulation: Known as the FCC’s “5G crusader,” Carr has championed cutting red tape to accelerate broadband deployment.
• Telehealth & Workforce Development: Led initiatives to expand remote care and promote skilled labor in telecom infrastructure.
Controversies
• Jimmy Kimmel Suspension: Carr publicly criticized Kimmel’s monologue about Charlie Kirk’s assassination, calling it “garbage” and pressuring ABC affiliates to drop the show.
• Free Speech Hypocrisy: Past tweets supporting political satire and opposing censorship resurfaced, prompting backlash from figures like Keith Olbermann and Chuck Todd.
• Regulatory Threats: Carr warned broadcasters they could face license reviews if they aired content deemed politically hostile to conservatives.I am a well-informed woman and fully up to date on each point on your list. I do not need a lengthy AI-generated summary to stay current with what is being reported. I trust that the courts will ensure due justice is served, presenting both the state’s case and allowing the defendant proper representation.
Regarding free speech, I just replied to another user regarding my thoughts on free speech. So I will offer the same comment to you via copy/paste.
I respectfully cannot agree with your view, so I will have to agree to disagree. But consider this: if I called you a murderer, would that be considered free speech? If I openly spread such a claim to slander you without any justification, could that still fall under free speech? And if many people believed me, would that suddenly make it acceptable or a positive exercise of free speech?
In my view, free speech should be measured by truth. A society that allows anyone to say anything without regard for accuracy bears responsibility, in part, for the environment that contributed to tragedies like Charlie Kirk’s death. For this reason, I firmly believe that hate speech should not be considered or protected under free speech.
I mean, we have seen cases of bullying with mistruths online, which end with some young person killing themselves. I believe that, as intelligent individuals guided by our values, we should not stand up for or defend hate speech or even label it free speech."In my view, free speech should be measured by truth. A society that allows anyone to say anything without regard for accuracy..."
Laws considering slander already do that..."we should not stand up for or defend hate speech or even label it free speech."
So you disagree with the First amendment? And Charlie Kirk?
Old posts on this forum also show the moga members here strongly supporting Elon musks free speech absolutist stance... Folks were ALL IN on Free speech previously.. but now??You’re always bringing up old posts, yet when asked to produce them, you don’t. Show some links—because I think it’s fair to hold you to the carpet on this. Accusations of this kind require proof, and any statements need to be examined carefully. Context matters. So, present some links.
I've gone back to old posts and shown them repeatedly LOL.. I comment directly to the Old Post... Most recently it was the thread concerning Biden's polls and the very contradictory statements folks made back then in comparison to now. The same can be done for this free speech argument... I don't know, maybe you're missing them when they're posted... I have countered every single contradiction with old post here.
I have asked you several times for links to back up the claims. I asked today. Your comments are very easy to follow. I hope you will offer me the links I requested. Actually, you rarely add a link, so I will have no problem spotting the links if you post them.
I've done this repeatedly... I've commented directly to the old posts that I found hypocritical...
Well, I am waiting for the request I made today that you prove your allegation.
Here is your post
"we should not stand up for or defend hate speech or even label it free speech." Shar
So you disagree with the First amendment? And Charlie Kirk?
Old posts on this forum also show the moga members here strongly supporting Elon musks free speech absolutist stance... Folks were ALL IN on Free speech previously.. but now??" Willow
So, where are the links to prove your accusation?I'm thinking you are the only one here who hasn't seen these posts, sometimes made repeatedly... You're certainly welcome to go back and find them. ..... But I will start posting under them AGAIN
Right now free speech or hate speech is defined by Trump and his administration. They determine what is the truth and what is not.
The first amendment right now protects what Jimmy Kimmel said as free speech. This is what it says:
The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". It protects key individual freedoms from government interference, including the right to practice one's religion, express oneself, and gather peacefully.
Therefore, Jimmy Kimmel has the right to sue Trump and the head of the FCC and any others who have violated his right to free speech. Who is next, probably John Stewart and his group on the daily show because the whole show is based on political satire. How about South Park with its animations.
The problem with suing Trump is he will appeal deny,distract, and delay any justice being served..
But it's OK for Fox News to bash anybody they want without any recourse from Trump's government. I don't care if you like it or not, but this is how fascism starts and it is very scary to me and my wife and family..I have come to the conclusion that conservatives unconditionally fall in line with whatever Trump does or says. If anything negative is pointed out to them, they will somehow rationalize it into a positive and defend his position.
Liberals on the other hand are constantly doing research and analysis and finding information about Trump and his administration that conservatives were never aware of. However, it makes no difference to them because they unconditionally support him.
These traits are partly heritable, but they’re also shaped by environment, culture, and media exposure.
.I need to add something I feel is important. When a user continually posts the same issue after it has already been well debated, the repetition can become taxing. I do my best to remain polite, but having to address the same point over and over makes me feel as though it’s not really the intelligent thing to do.
What I see here feels a bit of an enigma compared to other social media. I notice a lot of repetition, and it quickly becomes stale. I also don’t agree that much of what some who lean left post here is researched at all, it often seems pulled straight from headlines and presented as fact, when in reality it’s just an opinion. More often than not, that much is obvious. Frankly, I would rather see honest opinion than skewed media reports passed off as truth.Stale is when many of the Maga faithful on this forum repeat the same debunked claims over and over and over and over and over endlessly...
OH, so true. It really gets taxing for them to ignore the TRUTH time and time again as they repeat the same lies.
I have come to the conclusion that conservatives unconditionally fall in line with whatever Trump does or says. If anything negative is pointed out to them, they will somehow rationalize it into a positive and defend his position.
Liberals on the other hand are constantly doing research and analysis and finding information about Trump and his administration that conservatives were never aware of. However, it makes no difference to them because they unconditionally support him.
.
Cancel culture. In Trump's America only conservatives have the right to free speech.
Kimmel's network did not want to be sued. It was their free choice.
Their own.And yet Brian kilmeade still has a job... bizarre
Trump appointed Brendan Carr to be head of the FCC. He has moved to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion programs at the agency and relax regulations on broadband companies. He also wrote the FCC chapter for Project 2025.
Oh yes, the same Carr who has gone after Kimmel..
You consider what Kimmel said about Charlie Kirk as political satire?
Whoa...that is really messed up.What he said wasnt about Charlie Kirk. But you know that.
These MAGAs. SMHHe said it about Charlie Kirk's murderer. It still isn't political satire and that is the issue.
Yup. One said people should be killed, the other one showed who is Trump.
Can you actually defend Kimmel’s statement? Because it’s his words we’re talking about here. Once again, you’re diverting into whataboutism instead of addressing the issue directly. Doesn’t that say something about your inability to stay on subject, especially when you just claimed he was “canceled” because of cancel culture?
I think I've clearly already very plainly and clearly stated that Kimmel's words do not in any any stretch of the imagination reach the level of advocating for killing a group of people.... Suggesting to an audience of millions that we should just kill the homeless.
“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang 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
A pure lie.So then I can assume you stand vehemently opposed to all of the lies that roll out of Trump's mouth daily???
There's a lot of finger pointing going on... If Kimmel prematurely labeled Robinson as "*one of their own".
Does it excuse pam? Sadly the AG of this country??
https://x.com/BulwarkOnline/status/1967763976063959073
Barbie blamed the "left"
Come on, apply the same reasoning. Apply the same logic.Keep to the subject, and stop calling others derogatory labels.
You can't stay on subject when it pokes at your narrative, can you? Always "look here, though!" Divert, whataboutism, insult, and concur. I don't grab bait as many do here...
Here's the subject--- have at it. Come on, address it...
“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang 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
It is freedom of speech. (lie or no lie is another discussion)
And if Kimmel is fired because of his freedom of speech in the US, it is clear that the political climate under the direction of president Donald Trump does not allow freedom of speech that goes against his politics.
This is an incredibly dangerous slippery slope.
The stop to freedom of speech and information in the US can also be seen in other directions. As politics is pressurizing museums of what to show and what not to show. It even forbids photos from slaves.
In a healthy country politics should not interfere with art and museums. It should not interfere with freedom of speech.I respectfully cannot agree with your view, so I will have to agree to disagree. But consider this: if I called you a murderer, would that be considered free speech? If I openly spread such a claim to slander you without any justification, could that still fall under free speech? And if many people believed me, would that suddenly make it acceptable or a positive exercise of free speech?
In my view, free speech should be measured by truth. A society that allows anyone to say anything without regard for accuracy bears responsibility, in part, for the environment that contributed to tragedies like Charlie Kirk’s death. For this reason, I firmly believe that hate speech should not be considered or protected under free speech.
I mean, we have seen cases of bullying with mistruths online, which end with some young person killing themselves. I believe that, as intelligent individuals guided by our values, we should not stand up for or defend hate speech or even label it free speech.Nice pivot, but false equivalence. Jimmy Kimmel didn't say anything about murder.. He didn't slander Trump without any cause. Right now the definition of hate speech is in the hands of Trump and his administration.
As far as museums, history, and art goes, Trump is changing the culture of what America is about. It's another way that he is playing to his base for a third term.Kimmel said that Robinson "was one of them" without a real basis for that statement...
Pam? When asked who Kirk's killer was? He was in custody and she knew his name but said "who killed Charlie kirk, left wing radicals" .... With similarly no foundation in fact for the comment...
The selective outrage needs to stop it's really quite ridiculous.Yup.
And that's not what Kimmel said, anyway.
Fake indignation and selective outrage.“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang 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
Not sure anyone could miss his very clear context. Well maybe some
I agree with you. Hate speech is a huge problem in the US (and in other countries) And should be forbidden. hate speech is not the same as freedom of speech.
Some quotes made by Kirk:
On race
" If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified."
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024
"If you’re a WNBA, pot-smoking, Black lesbian, do you get treated better than a United States marine?"
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 8 December 2022
"Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 19 May 2023
If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 3 January 2024
"If we would have said that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative action picks, we would have been called racists. Now they’re coming out and they’re saying it for us … You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 13 July 2023
We need to have a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor. We need it immediately.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 1 April 2024
The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 1 March 2024
Still mr. Kirk was allowed to say this because of the freedom of speech liberty in the US. So why not Kimmel.
You are measuring the left and the right with different measurement sticks.That’s a fair request, and I understand why you want the context clarified. The way Charlie Kirk’s words are being presented here strips away the framing of his arguments and leaves only soundbites that make him look like he’s simply spouting racism or hatred. To debate this honestly, context matters greatly.
When Kirk talks about things like “affirmative action” or questioning qualifications, he is addressing what he sees as the unintended consequence of policies that elevate diversity metrics over merit. Is his language sharp, even abrasive? Absolutely. But the underlying point isn’t “Black people are unqualified”, it’s a criticism of institutions and hiring practices that, in his view, may prioritize identity over ability. When clipped and repeated without context, it sounds like a direct racial attack, but the fuller context shows he’s hammering at the policy, not simply the individual.
The same is true with his comment on crime in urban America. Taken by itself, the phrase “prowling Blacks” is offensive, but if you listen to his broader discussion, he is usually citing crime statistics or highlighting media silence on attacks against white victims. Again, one can disagree with his framing or tone, but his point is about crime trends and double standards in coverage, not gleeful demonization of Black people.
On issues like gender-affirming care, his reference to “Nuremberg-style trials” is extreme, yes, but the point he is driving at is his belief that irreversible medical interventions on minors are unethical. His language is deliberately provocative, but it’s designed to underscore the seriousness with which he views the issue, not to call for literal mass executions.
And with the “great replacement” comment, again, if you only quote that one line, it sounds like white nationalist rhetoric. But if you follow his broader argument, he’s speaking about demographic change and its political implications, a concern he shares with many who worry about border security and how unchecked immigration affects cultural and voting patterns. You don’t have to agree with his conclusion, but it’s disingenuous to suggest he’s celebrating racist ideology rather than raising a political critique.
So, yes, Kirk’s words are often blunt, harsh, and easy to isolate. But context shows he is usually criticizing policies, media narratives, or cultural shifts, in deliberately provocative ways, rather than simply hurling hate at groups of people. If we want an honest debate about hate speech, we can’t just grab the most inflammatory soundbites and strip them of their context. Otherwise, we are not debating ideas; we’re just feeding outrage.
There are YouTube videos where he makes the statements you’re concerned about, and they provide far better context than I can capture here in a chat. If we want an honest debate about hate speech, we can’t just grab the most inflammatory soundbites and strip them of their context; otherwise, we aren’t debating ideas, we’re just feeding outrage.
What bothers me most about Kimmel’s statement is the sheer lack of common sense. He had no knowledge of the facts, yet he was quick to blame an entire group of supporters for the murder of Charlie Kirk. My God, does he not realize what he’s doing when he points the finger at millions of people without a shred of evidence? In fact, reports at the time were pointing in the opposite direction, that the killer had radical leftist ties. Again, what would you think if I said you killed someone just because I wanted to? To make such sweeping accusations in the absence of proof isn’t comedy, it’s reckless. Words like his only inflame division and fuel more hate, rather than helping us come together after a tragedy.
“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.” KimmelOK, that is fair. Tell me how any context excuses this statement from Kirk -
"“Transgender people are a throbbing middle finger to God … [an] abomination.”"
What else did he say that minimizes the pure hate contained in that belief? Did he start out with "I don't really believe this but ..." I seriously doubt that he did.
If you can't find a rational then obviously, that statement stands on its own doesn't it.Kirk shared his view, just like your Pal Kimmel. Charlie Kirk’s statement reflects his conservative Christian beliefs. He interprets the Bible literally, viewing gender as divinely fixed, and sees transgender identities as violating God’s design. Framing this as an 'abomination' aligns with moral absolutes in his faith and also resonates politically with conservative audiences who share these religious values. He had every right to follow his faith and share his views via free speech.
How dare you ask me to be rational in judging another’s faith? I hold the same view, grounded in my Christian beliefs.
"What bothers me most about Kimmel’s statement is the sheer lack of common sense. He had no knowledge of the facts, yet he was quick to blame an entire group of supporters for the murder of Charlie Kirk
Like Pam did?? WHY IS THERE ALWAYS AN EXCEPTION FOR MAGA
Literally NEVER using the same criteria or measuring stick as Peter has pointed out for both sides...
https://x.com/BulwarkOnline/status/1967763976063959073
You have not posted his entire comments on anything of the things you mentioned. Misrepresenting another person's statements is obviously very dangerous.
It's sad it is done intentionally all the time.If someone uses the word nigger you don't need to post the entire book to show the obvious.
If in this case it was just one quote, you were right. But I gave many quotes pointing to the same thing.. And so, no I don't have to write down his complete show.Unless you look at the entire statement you are not being honest. You are only trying to promote an agenda.
Being honest is the first step to a successful debate.Do you know what is the First Amendment?
If you do, please explain.
You keep repeating the question of "Do you oppose the First Amendment"
Playing games is just evidence you can't discuss anything on an intelligent level. If you have something to say, say it and stop the games.The First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances..
Jimmy Kimmel is protected by this amendment and it gives him the right to sue Trump and Brendan Carr and others who have caused him harm as a result of their actions..Guess who else as rights?
Jimmy Kimmel's employers. They don't have to keep someone who is not representing their company as they desire.
Jimmy Kimmel does not work for himself. He has to do what his employers tell him.
He has a right to sue and I say good luck with it.Can you at least get your facts correct? A corrupt dictator threatened to bankrupt ABC/Disney if they didn't do exactly what they were told to do. Rather than challenge Trump, the cowardly lion's capitulated.
Your Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) blinds you to reality.
How sad.
We are talking about freedom of speech. And if a comedian can't make jokes about Trump or MAGA anymore like Stephen Colbert or Jimmy Kimmel than the US has a huge freedom of speech problem.
Perhaps you may not like both comedians, they still should have the freedom to make those jokes.
If Trump is going to pressure television companies to sack people because they have different opinions, freedom starts to drain away in the gutter.You really need to look into these stories a bit more to discover the truth.
Stephen Colbert had his show cancelled because nobody watched him and the network was losing millions of dollars. It had nothing to do with his jokes.
Jimmy Kimmel had his show cancelled because he was given an opportunity to apologize for what he said and all would be forgiven. He refused. He defied the network. It had nothing to do with his attempt at humor.Prove both of those statements, otherwise they are nothing more than your opinion or hearsay.
Ho hum, you can search the internet. The stories are there. I actually recently posted the new story about Kimmel on this thread.
Stephen Colbert – The Late Show
Cancellation Date: CBS announced the cancellation of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on July 17, 2025, with the final episode scheduled for May 2026.
TV Insider
Viewership Decline: In August 2025, The Late Show experienced a significant decline in viewership. The show averaged only 798,000 total viewers, marking a 26% drop from the previous week. In the key 18–49 demographic, viewership decreased by 0.83%
https://www.tvinsider.com/1208211/steph … hatgpt.com
https://ew.com/the-late-show-with-steph … hatgpt.com
Jimmy Kimmel – Jimmy Kimmel Live!
Suspension Date: ABC announced the indefinite suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! on September 17, 2025, following controversial remarks made by Kimmel about conservative reactions to the death of Charlie Kirk.
People.com
Viewership Decline: In August 2025, the show averaged 1.1 million viewers, a 43% drop from January's 1.95 million. Among adults aged 18–49, viewership decreased from 284,000 in June to 129,000 in August.
https://nypost.com/2025/09/18/media/jim … hatgpt.com
Both late-night hosts were losing their audience and their network's money.
This also goes for many other outlets that are labeled left-leaning outlets CNN is barely holding on.
CNN Nightly Viewership (Week of September 1, 2025)
Primetime (8–11 p.m. ET):
Total Viewers: 451,000
MSNBC Nightly Viewership (Week of September 1, 2025)
Primetime (8–11 p.m. ET):
Total Viewers: 666,000
Adults 25–54 (A25–54) Demo: 58,000
What does this tell you? You can’t blame Trump for it—after all, we all have freedom of choice.Now that we have that opinion, here is what AI found.
* Stephen Colbert / The Late Show (CBS)
Cancellation: True. CBS announced on July 17–18, 2025 that The Late Show with Stephen Colbert will end after the 2025–26 season, with a final episode in May 2026.
TV Insider
+2
CBS News
+2
“Viewership decline” item you pasted: Mixed / misattributed. The 798,000 viewers and –26% figure were not for Colbert—they were for ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live! (a week of repeats) in early August ratings roundups. In the same piece, Colbert was around 3.0M that week and actually enjoying a post-cancellation surge.
TV Insider
* Jimmy Kimmel / Jimmy Kimmel Live! (ABC)
Suspension: True (but “suspended/pre-empted indefinitely,” not formally canceled). ABC pulled the show on Sept 17, 2025 after Kimmel’s remarks about reactions to Charlie Kirk’s killing; major affiliates (e.g., Nexstar/Sinclair) pre-empted it first.
People.com
+2
People.com
+2
Ratings slide claim: Directionally true, numbers vary by source. Recent rundowns put Kimmel at roughly ~1.10–1.11M average viewers late summer with an ~11% month-over-month dip; some coverage compares that unfavorably with earlier-2025 highs. (But note: he performed well in the 18–49 demo in Q2 2025.)
USTVDB
+2
SoapCentral
+2
Spin check: Colbert wasn’t “axed for failing ratings.” CBS announced in July 2025 that The Late Show will end after the 2025–26 season (finale slated for May 2026), and he’s remained the #1 show at 11:35—hardly a money-loser. As for Kimmel, the line that he’s been “losing all year” skips over Q2 2025, when he was #2 in total viewers and #1 in the 18–49 demo—the audience advertisers pay for. He did hit a late-summer dip (~1.1M total, ~129k A18–49), but ABC’s indefinite pre-emption followed affiliate/regulatory pressure after the Kirk controversy, not a year-long collapse. In a three-show field (Colbert, Fallon, Kimmel), week-to-week rank swings are normal; turning one rough stretch into “both losing audience and their network’s money” is spin, not trend.
Another Spin Check: As to the attempt to minimize CNN, here is the analysis with FULL CONTEXT. (AI generated)
First, quick critique
Those posted numbers are a single quiet week (post-Labor Day), not a trend. Cable news bounces with the news cycle.
Adweek
A fairer picture compares the whole “mainstream news” bundle (broadcast evening newscasts + mainstream cable) versus the explicitly right-leaning cable bundle.
Two buckets (latest reliable snapshots)
“MSM” bucket (ABC + NBC + CBS evening news; plus PBS NewsHour, CNN, MSNBC)
ABC World News Tonight ~ 7.03M (week of Aug 25, 2025).
Adweek
NBC Nightly News ~ 5.7M (late Aug 2025 example).
NBCUniversal News Group
CBS Evening News ~ 3.87M (week of Sept 8, 2025).
TV Insider
PBS NewsHour ~ 0.9–1.0M (most recent public series trend; PBS isn’t rated weekly like the Big 3).
Pew Research Center
MSNBC primetime avg (late Aug/early Sept) ~ 0.66–0.78M.
Adweek
+1
CNN primetime avg (week of Sept 1) ~ 0.45M.
Adweek
Very rough “MSM” total reach (one nightly broadcast/avg hour): ~18.6–19.3 million.
Right-leaning cable bucket (Fox News + Newsmax + OANN)
Fox News primetime (Aug 2025) ~ 2.30M (weeklies around 2.08M).
Adweek
+1
Newsmax primetime (Sept 10, 2025 snapshot) ~ 0.42M.
USTVDB
OAN/OANN – no audited Nielsen primetime widely published; distribution is limited and estimates are far below Newsmax. (No credible current number to add.)
Very rough “right-leaning” total: ~2.7–2.8 million (+ a small, unverified OANN slice).
What this actually tells you
Without Spin - On any given night, the combined mainstream news footprint (broadcast evening newscasts + mainstream cable) dwarfs the combined explicitly right-wing cable footprint—by something like 6–7× using recent snapshots.
This isn’t about “blaming Trump” or “freedom of choice”; it’s simply that broadcast evening news still draws huge nightly audiences, and when you add CNN/MSNBC they swamp Fox + Newsmax (and OAN’s audience is not even reliably measured).Do you understand how business works?
Networks are in the business of making money. To do this they must have shows that get ratings. If the rating are low they will lose their investment in the show. When ratings are good, they can make money and recoup their investment in the show and possibly make a profit.
Maybe this isn't about censorship at all. That is a red herring from the left to ignore the fact that these shows were losing more money than the networks were willing to accept.
Colbert and Kimmel didn't work for themselves. They worked for their employers and their first job is to make their employers money.
Both of them became a money drain for their employers.TRUMP
“When you have a network and you have evening shows and all they do is hit Trump, that’s all they do. If you go back, I guess they haven’t had a conservative one in years or something. When you go back and take a look, all they do is hit Trump. They’re licensed. They’re not allowed to do that.”
I don’t know whether he is so ignorant he actually believes this, or whether he knows what the First Amendment does and he is showing that he is above it, that he is beyond restriction by the Constitution.
No, the president of the United States is not allowed to take a comedian off the air because he’s ridiculing him. That’s common sense.
This has nothing to do with ratings. This is a fascist dictator attempting to flout the First amendment.If you have an extra $50 million to donate each year I am sure they will reconsider cancelling Colbert. It has everything to do with money.
This is about nothing but one feeble old man's thin orange skin
You are right, it was the money and not what Kimmel said. It was Trump's threat to bankrupt an entire network and throw thousands of people out of their jobs because Trump hates free speech that was behind Kimmel being suspended.
This is what ABC and Disney get for caving in to Trump's very weak defamation suit; they had it won and threw it away.I did not realize you had the power to read those Disney executives minds and realize what they were thinking. It is nice that you know their motives more than they do.
I guess you knew who was going to win the election back in 2024 too.
Guess what?
The networks cancelled Colbert and Kimmel.
The networks couldn't make money from their shows.
The networks have no obligation to anyone to lose money.
If you have a sub-performing employee you can terminate them.
That is how it works in the business the world.
It had EVERYTHING to do with ratings.
To think otherwise is to be in denial.
I am going to say anyone who has owned a business will understand this better than anyone who spent their life as an employee.
Apparently, you don't. Here is the way it really does work. Businesses, except the most brave, will cave when an authoritarian dictator threatens to use the federal gov't to bankrupt them.
The rest of what you said has been debunked many times now by people who know the Truth.
BTW, Colbert is still on the air and will be until May. Hopefully, he is exposing this corrupt administration for what it is - a Putin-style dictatorship.
Besides, Trump and other's lies about ratings have already been debunked. It was totally about illegal authoritarian gov't coercion.
And can you imagine trying to convince the part of the public with a working brain that the 56 million or so who watch MSM news is bigger than the 3 million (or whatever numbers I posted earlier) who watch right-wing lies and propaganda?Tucker Carlson has got something right for a change?
https://www.salon.com/2025/09/18/theres … ee-speech/So, where was the outrage when Tucker Carlson lost his job at Fox?
Where was the outrage when Megan Kelley lost her job at Fox?
Where??????I wouldn’t be terrible concerned about the Fox lineup, one way or the other. It is just that Trump has threatened to pull broadcast licenses from those networks that speak ill of him and that has nothing to do with ratings, financial viability of programs, etc.
THAT is censorship.
TIt is a matter of justice to right a wrong. The abuse of freedom of speech is wrong. Those who slander and libel must be stopped.
One has the right to protect oneself in this country from injustice.
Those who care about JUSTICE can handle this precept.And what constitutes abuse? Every president prior to this one has expected and anticipated challenges from the press except this one. Why?
Cred, no other president has had to deal with a blatantly biased media. I have never in my long life witnessed anything like this form of media. This is the issue that should concern us all.
That is an excuse, Sharlee. Both Nixon and Johnson faced hostile press, yet did not attempt to muzzle it.
I demand a free press as one of the checks the public has regarding the actions of those that are in power."That is an excuse, Sharlee. Both Nixon and Johnson faced hostile press, yet did not attempt to muzzle it." Cred
In my view, I have never witnessed a president having to deal with a blatantly biased media.
And again, my view is this: we do not have a free press, we have a massive propaganda machine. I agree that the press’s role is supposed to be keeping those in power in check. But I ask, what did they do to hold Biden accountable? Time and again, there were blatant moments where he appeared confused, even going back to his debate, when it was painfully clear he was struggling. My God, man, I could write a book on Biden and his clear evidence of cognitive problems. Where was the press then? Where was their duty to question whether a man in that state should ever have been in the job of president?
Cred, is it not time to start looking back, rethinking some of what has gone down regarding reporting?Shar,
Nixon didn't to muzzle the press?
Somebody needs to read some history on the subject.On the way to Alice’s Restaurant, I wanted to make a routine stop at Mike’s equivocation station.
I am aware that Nixon was involved with this in his time. First of all, why would you want to be compared with Nixon in this truly negative evaluation?
Second, conservatives need to realize that there is such a thing as frequency and magnitude as a factor when making comparisons between two disparate circumstances.
Thirdly, I agree with most of the analysts who say that Trump’s assault on the press and media is far more encompassing than that of Nixon, and consequently more dangerous.
————————————
Comparisons of Richard Nixon's and Donald Trump's threats to a free press depend on which administration's actions are judged more damaging, with many analysts concluding that Trump's broader efforts to undermine the media profession pose a greater, more insidious threat.
Nixon's covert and illegal actions
Nixon's animosity toward the press was fueled by a long-standing sense of media enmity. His administration's strategy, however, was often covert and involved direct government action against specific, perceived enemies.
Trump's public rhetoric and erosion of trust
In contrast to Nixon's covert tactics, Trump's attacks on the press have been public, relentless, and have focused on undermining the credibility of the entire media institution.From the much beloved Cato Institute
"Barack Obama’s War on a Free Press
Obama’s efforts to plug leaks and persecute leakers even exceeded those of George W. Bush’s administration.
Obama’s administration waged a robust campaign to harass and intimidate journalists, even mainstream journalists, who utilized leaked material. In May 2013, the Justice Department seized the records of phone lines that Associated Press employees used. AP confirmed that the records were from personal home and cell phones of reporters and editors, as well as phones that AP used in the press quarters of the House of Representatives. The administration’s contempt for the basic requirements of due process was alarming. As CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson noted, such a seizure was “unheard of.” Beyond the abusive display of power that those raids embodied, she was outraged that no advance notice was given to the AP about the subpoena. “Advance notice would have given AP the chance to challenge the move in court.” Of course, that predictable response likely was the reason the Justice Department did not follow such a procedure.
Officials also conducted electronic surveillance of both New York Times reporter James Risen and Fox News correspondent James Rosen in an effort to identify their sources. The government even named Rosen as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in an espionage case brought against his source. Similarly, the administration asserted that it had the right to prosecute Risen, although it chose not to take that step. Those were all ominous warning signals of a government campaign to erase even the limited protections that the Pentagon Papers ruling had provided.
https://www.cato.org/commentary/barack- … free-pressWho gives a big rat's a** about any of that stuff? You guys got off course with Nixon and Obama. You say Kimmel should apologize to who and for what?
Sinclair Broadcasting, which owns 30 ABC affiliates, made it clear that Jimmy Kimmel’s indefinite suspension is not enough on its own. They’ve demanded:
A direct apology to Charlie Kirk’s family
A donation to Turning Point USA, now run by Kirk’s widow
Formal discussions with ABC about its commitment to “professionalism and accountability”
Even if Kimmel fulfills the donation and apology, Sinclair stated they won’t resume airing his show until those broader conditions are met. So the donation might be a step toward reinstatement, but it’s not a guaranteed off-ramp from suspension.
Meanwhile, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has warned, “We’re not done yet,” implying that regulatory pressure could escalate regardless of Kimmel’s actions. This suggests the suspension is part of a larger political and media power struggle—not just a matter of personal restitution.
The phrase “meaningful personal donation” is intentionally vague, likely to leave room for negotiation or symbolic restitution. In media controversies like this, such donations often range from tens of thousands to several hundred thousand dollars, depending on the perceived harm, public pressure, and the donor’s net worth. But without a formal demand or settlement, it’s speculative."You say Kimmel should apologize to who and for what?
Pearl clutching over Kimmel attributing Robinson to their group but completely ignoring Pam's statement of attributing Robinson to "the left".
I'd like an apology out of BarbieGood luck. She is protected by Il Capo di Capo and his Lieutenants.
But why can’t you address Mike’s comment? Why is it considered irrelevant to what we see today? Are you only willing to acknowledge corruption when it fits your narrative? You are quick to question and post long lists of grievances against one side, what about Mike’s concerns? Do you ever examine the corruption that has been proven to occur under Democratic administrations?
What does Nixon and Obama have to do with Kirk and Kimmell? Why are you not addressing my comments. The topic is about Charlie Kirk is Dead.
Oh my gosh. I am not sure what you are referring to. The conversation regarding Nixon and Obama is very separate from the subject of your latest comments. It was a conversation between Cred, me, and Mike. It went on for pages. I can only offer the Permalink, where it started. If you hope to understand it, you will need to start from the first comment.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/369 … ost4383784
I am not sure what you have asked me to explain my thoughts on. I have shared my view over and over on the death of Charlie Kirk.
Who gives a big rat's a** about any of that stuff? You guys got off course with Nixon and Obama. You say Kimmel should apologize to who and for what
—————-
No people power, it believe that our line of discussion is quite relevant showing the big picture of Trump and the administration assault on the media and a free press. What happened to Kimmel is just a subset of all of it.It's interesting how those on the left are all of a sudden interested in freedom of speech.
Obama was much worse and Clinton was even worse.
Are you aware of biden giving direct instruction to Facebook on what they could and could not let be seen on their platform? Went all the way to the Supreme Court.
So, I guess it took President Donald Trump to get the left involved. The rest is selective amnesia.
The left is very new at this freedom of speech outrage and it shows."Are you aware of biden giving direct instruction to Facebook on what they could and could not let be seen on their platform? Went all the way to the Supreme Court."
Biden was concerned about Facebook putting out bad or misleading information about Covid 19... Nice try, but it didn't work. Try commenting on what I said instead of insulting the other side.
Do you dispute anything on my reply above?Biden was concerned about Facebook putting out bad or misleading information about Covid 19... Nice try, but it didn't work. Try commenting on what I said instead of insulting the other side." PP"
PeoplePower, You’re making a weak excuse here, and it doesn’t hold up. Let’s be clear: what the Biden administration did with Facebook and X was censorship, plain and simple. Government officials leaned on private companies to suppress speech they didn’t agree with. That goes far beyond “concern about bad information.” When the government pressures platforms to silence voices, that’s a direct violation of the First Amendment. Kimmel's right to free speech was not impeded; he spoke.
And to compare that to Jimmy Kimmel’s situation is completely off base. Kimmel wasn’t “censored”; he openly broke an FCC rule, which exists for a reason. That isn’t suppression of speech; that’s a violation of broadcasting standards he agreed to. He wasn’t silenced because of his opinion, but because he violated regulations.
Relevant FCC Rules & Policies
Broadcast Hoaxes (47 CFR § 73.1217)
This rule prohibits licensed or permitted broadcast stations from airing false information concerning a crime or catastrophe if all of the following are true:
The station knows the information is false.
Legal Information Institute
It’s foreseeable that broadcasting it will cause substantial public harm.
Legal Information Institute
It does, in fact, directly cause substantial public harm.
Legal Information Institute https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47 … hatgpt.com
News Distortion / False Information
The FCC has a policy (sometimes called the “news distortion” policy) that allows investigations if a broadcaster deliberately distorts the news. This is less specific in many cases, and enforcement depends on evidence of intent, seriousness, and harm.
Congress.gov https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF … hatgpt.com
Federal Communications Commission
Public & Broadcasting — Hoaxes and False Information
On its site, the FCC notes that station licensees must not broadcast hoaxes or false information about crimes or catastrophes in ways that can cause public harm.
Federal Communications Commission
https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public- … hatgpt.com
What I have learned through research. ABC's broadcast license. However, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has publicly pressured ABC and its affiliates, particularly Nexstar Media Group, to preempt or cancel "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" following controversial remarks made by Kimmel about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
Carr's comments included a WARNING that the FCC could take action against broadcasters airing the show unless they addressed the issue, stating, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way." Brendan Carr
In response to this pressure, Nexstar announced that it would not air "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" across its 32 ABC affiliates, a decision that coincided with the FCC's review of Nexstar's $6.2 billion acquisition of Tegna. While Nexstar denied that Carr's comments influenced its decision, the timing raised concerns about potential political pressure on media companies.
source Reuters
Following these developments, ABC, under the leadership of Disney CEO Bob Iger, decided to suspend "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" indefinitely. The decision was reportedly made by Iger and Dana Walden, co-chairman of Disney Entertainment.
So no, this isn’t about “insulting the other side.” It’s about recognizing hypocrisy. The Biden administration’s actions against Facebook and X were about controlling free speech, while Kimmel’s situation was about breaking rules. Trying to blur those two things together is misleading, and it doesn’t change the facts. I mean, check some of the very comments on this thread about free speech... Those who lean left here scream Kimmel has the right to free speech. It should have applied to all Americans during COVID.
But as usual, if it doesn’t fit the left-leaning narrative, it gets flipped upside down to serve their agenda.Was he cited by the FCC for breaking any rules??
"No specific violation cited: The FCC is not legally allowed to target content like late-night comedy and satire under its "news distortion" rule, which would only apply to deliberate, proven falsehoods in news reporting. In this case, Kimmel's monologue was part of a comedy program, not a news report."
Grok."Was he cited by the FCC for breaking any rules??" Willow
As I mentioned earlier, do you actually read comments in full? I would appreciate it if you refrained from jumping into remarks that I’ve already addressed to someone else.Your comment was incorrect, he did not break the rules and he was not cited
My comment shares that he was not cited. I gave a full explanation of what Brendan Carr stated. I quoted him.. It is really disappointing that I need to ask you to reread my comments and try to understand the context. I would think you would be embarrassed to be corrected time after time. I just did not and have not stated that Carr cited anyone.
Here is the Permalink to the original post. https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/369 … ost4383930
Sharlee01 wrote:
Biden was concerned about Facebook putting out bad or misleading information about Covid 19... Nice try, but it didn't work. Try commenting on what I said instead of insulting the other side." PP"
PeoplePower, You’re making a weak excuse here, and it doesn’t hold up. Let’s be clear: what the Biden administration did with Facebook and X was censorship, plain and simple. Government officials leaned on private companies to suppress speech they didn’t agree with. That goes far beyond “concern about bad information.” When the government pressures platforms to silence voices, that’s a direct violation of the First Amendment. Kimmel's right to free speech was not impeded; he spoke.
And to compare that to Jimmy Kimmel’s situation is completely off base. Kimmel wasn’t “censored”; he openly broke an FCC rule, which exists for a reason. That isn’t suppression of speech; that’s a violation of broadcasting standards he agreed to. He wasn’t silenced because of his opinion, but because he violated regulations.
Relevant FCC Rules & Policies
Broadcast Hoaxes (47 CFR § 73.1217)
This rule prohibits licensed or permitted broadcast stations from airing false information concerning a crime or catastrophe if all of the following are true:
The station knows the information is false.
Legal Information Institute
It’s foreseeable that broadcasting it will cause substantial public harm.
Legal Information Institute
It does, in fact, directly cause substantial public harm.
Legal Information Institute https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47 … hatgpt.com
News Distortion / False Information
The FCC has a policy (sometimes called the “news distortion” policy) that allows investigations if a broadcaster deliberately distorts the news. This is less specific in many cases, and enforcement depends on evidence of intent, seriousness, and harm.
Congress.gov https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF … hatgpt.com
Federal Communications Commission
Public & Broadcasting — Hoaxes and False Information
On its site, the FCC notes that station licensees must not broadcast hoaxes or false information about crimes or catastrophes in ways that can cause public harm.
Federal Communications Commission
https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public- … hatgpt.com
What I have learned through research. ABC's broadcast license. However, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has publicly pressured ABC and its affiliates, particularly Nexstar Media Group, to preempt or cancel "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" following controversial remarks made by Kimmel about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
NOTE THIS CONTEXT Carr's comments included a WARNING that the FCC could take action against broadcasters airing the show unless they addressed the issue, stating, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way." Brendan Carr
In response to this pressure, Nexstar announced that it would not air "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" across its 32 ABC affiliates, a decision that coincided with the FCC's review of Nexstar's $6.2 billion acquisition of Tegna. While Nexstar denied that Carr's comments influenced its decision, the timing raised concerns about potential political pressure on media companies.
source Reuters
Following these developments, ABC, under the leadership of Disney CEO Bob Iger, decided to suspend "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" indefinitely. The decision was reportedly made by Iger and Dana Walden, co-chairman of Disney Entertainment.
So no, this isn’t about “insulting the other side.” It’s about recognizing hypocrisy. The Biden administration’s actions against Facebook and X were about controlling free speech, while Kimmel’s situation was about breaking rules. Trying to blur those two things together is misleading, and it doesn’t change the facts. I mean, check some of the very comments on this thread about free speech... Those who lean left here scream Kimmel has the right to free speech. It should have applied to all Americans during COVID.
But as usual, if it doesn’t fit the left-leaning narrative, it gets flipped upside down to serve their agenda."Your comment was incorrect, he did not break the rules and he was not cited? Willow
I need a quote regarding where you feel I said Kimmel, ABC, or anyone was CITED. Your friend ECO is now accusing me of the same... I need a quote.
Willowarbor wrote:
Your comment was incorrect, he did not break the rules and he was not cited
My comment shares that he was not cited. I gave a full explanation of what Brendan Carr stated. I quoted him.. It is really disappointing that I need to ask you to reread my comments and try to understand the context. I would think you would be embarrassed to be corrected time after time. I just did not and have not stated that Carr cited anyone. Shar
Here is the Permalink to the original post. https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/369 … ost4383930
Sharlee01 wrote:
Biden was concerned about Facebook putting out bad or misleading information about Covid 19... Nice try, but it didn't work. Try commenting on what I said instead of insulting the other side." PP"
PeoplePower, You’re making a weak excuse here, and it doesn’t hold up. Let’s be clear: what the Biden administration did with Facebook and X was censorship, plain and simple. Government officials leaned on private companies to suppress speech they didn’t agree with. That goes far beyond “concern about bad information.” When the government pressures platforms to silence voices, that’s a direct violation of the First Amendment. Kimmel's right to free speech was not impeded; he spoke.
And to compare that to Jimmy Kimmel’s situation is completely off base. Kimmel wasn’t “censored”; he openly broke an FCC rule, which exists for a reason. That isn’t suppression of speech; that’s a violation of broadcasting standards he agreed to. He wasn’t silenced because of his opinion, but because he violated regulations.
Relevant FCC Rules & Policies
Broadcast Hoaxes (47 CFR § 73.1217)
This rule prohibits licensed or permitted broadcast stations from airing false information concerning a crime or catastrophe if all of the following are true:
The station knows the information is false.
Legal Information Institute
It’s foreseeable that broadcasting it will cause substantial public harm.
Legal Information Institute
It does, in fact, directly cause substantial public harm.
Legal Information Institute https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47 … hatgpt.com
News Distortion / False Information
The FCC has a policy (sometimes called the “news distortion” policy) that allows investigations if a broadcaster deliberately distorts the news. This is less specific in many cases, and enforcement depends on evidence of intent, seriousness, and harm.
Congress.gov https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF … hatgpt.com
Federal Communications Commission
Public & Broadcasting — Hoaxes and False Information
On its site, the FCC notes that station licensees must not broadcast hoaxes or false information about crimes or catastrophes in ways that can cause public harm.
Federal Communications Commission
https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public- … hatgpt.com
What I have learned through research. ABC's broadcast license. However, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has publicly pressured ABC and its affiliates, particularly Nexstar Media Group, to preempt or cancel "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" following controversial remarks made by Kimmel about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
(NOTE THIS CONTEXT ) Carr's comments included a WARNING that the FCC COULD TAKE ACTION against broadcasters airing the show unless they addressed the issue, stating, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way." Brendan Carr
In response to this pressure, Nexstar announced that it would not air "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" across its 32 ABC affiliates, a decision that coincided with the FCC's review of Nexstar's $6.2 billion acquisition of Tegna. While Nexstar denied that Carr's comments influenced its decision, the timing raised concerns about potential political pressure on media companies.
source Reuters
Following these developments, ABC, under the leadership of Disney CEO Bob Iger, decided to suspend "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" indefinitely. The decision was reportedly made by Iger and Dana Walden, co-chairman of Disney Entertainment.
So no, this isn’t about “insulting the other side.” It’s about recognizing hypocrisy. The Biden administration’s actions against Facebook and X were about controlling free speech, while Kimmel’s situation was about breaking rules. Trying to blur those two things together is misleading, and it doesn’t change the facts. I mean, check some of the very comments on this thread about free speech... Those who lean left here scream Kimmel has the right to free speech. It should have applied to all Americans during COVID.
But as usual, if it doesn’t fit the left-leaning narrative, it gets flipped upside down to serve their agenda.'Shar"I need a quote regarding where you feel I said Kimmel, ABC, or anyone was CITED. "
I said he was never cited... I never said that you made that claim...
Why do you keep insulting her? All she is doing is telling the TRUTH.
I have proven beyond any doubt that Willow either didn’t read or didn’t understand the context of my post. I don’t know why you felt the need to add your two cents — you did her no favor by bringing attention to it. My comment clearly states that no charges were filed, only that they could be; I even included a full quote from Brendan Carr. Now tell me where you think I accused anyone, Kimmel or ABC, of being charged. If you’re going to insult me, back it up with a quote. I have asked you repeatedly to show where I made the accusations you claim, and you never can. You are baiting me and clearly trolling. I’ve asked you not to approach me, and your trolling makes me very uncomfortable.
Willowarbor wrote:
Your comment was incorrect, he did not break the rules and he was not cited
My comment shares that he was not cited. I gave a full explanation of what Brendan Carr stated. I quoted him.. It is really disappointing that I need to ask you to reread my comments and try to understand the context. I would think you would be embarrassed to be corrected time after time. I just did not and have not stated that Carr cited anyone. Shar
Here is the Permalink to the original post. https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/369 … ost4383930
Sharlee01 wrote:
Biden was concerned about Facebook putting out bad or misleading information about Covid 19... Nice try, but it didn't work. Try commenting on what I said instead of insulting the other side." PP"
PeoplePower, You’re making a weak excuse here, and it doesn’t hold up. Let’s be clear: what the Biden administration did with Facebook and X was censorship, plain and simple. Government officials leaned on private companies to suppress speech they didn’t agree with. That goes far beyond “concern about bad information.” When the government pressures platforms to silence voices, that’s a direct violation of the First Amendment. Kimmel's right to free speech was not impeded; he spoke.
And to compare that to Jimmy Kimmel’s situation is completely off base. Kimmel wasn’t “censored”; he openly broke an FCC rule, which exists for a reason. That isn’t suppression of speech; that’s a violation of broadcasting standards he agreed to. He wasn’t silenced because of his opinion, but because he violated regulations.
Relevant FCC Rules & Policies
Broadcast Hoaxes (47 CFR § 73.1217)
This rule prohibits licensed or permitted broadcast stations from airing false information concerning a crime or catastrophe if all of the following are true:
The station knows the information is false.
Legal Information Institute
It’s foreseeable that broadcasting it will cause substantial public harm.
Legal Information Institute
It does, in fact, directly cause substantial public harm.
Legal Information Institute https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47 … hatgpt.com
News Distortion / False Information
The FCC has a policy (sometimes called the “news distortion” policy) that allows investigations if a broadcaster deliberately distorts the news. This is less specific in many cases, and enforcement depends on evidence of intent, seriousness, and harm.
Congress.gov https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF … hatgpt.com
Federal Communications Commission
Public & Broadcasting — Hoaxes and False Information
On its site, the FCC notes that station licensees must not broadcast hoaxes or false information about crimes or catastrophes in ways that can cause public harm.
Federal Communications Commission
https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public- … hatgpt.com
What I have learned through research. ABC's broadcast license. However, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has publicly pressured ABC and its affiliates, particularly Nexstar Media Group, to preempt or cancel "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" following controversial remarks made by Kimmel about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
(NOTE THIS CONTEXT ) Carr's comments included a WARNING that the FCC COULD TAKE ACTION against broadcasters airing the show unless they addressed the issue, stating, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way." Brendan Carr
In response to this pressure, Nexstar announced that it would not air "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" across its 32 ABC affiliates, a decision that coincided with the FCC's review of Nexstar's $6.2 billion acquisition of Tegna. While Nexstar denied that Carr's comments influenced its decision, the timing raised concerns about potential political pressure on media companies.
source Reuters
Following these developments, ABC, under the leadership of Disney CEO Bob Iger, decided to suspend "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" indefinitely. The decision was reportedly made by Iger and Dana Walden, co-chairman of Disney Entertainment.
So no, this isn’t about “insulting the other side.” It’s about recognizing hypocrisy. The Biden administration’s actions against Facebook and X were about controlling free speech, while Kimmel’s situation was about breaking rules. Trying to blur those two things together is misleading, and it doesn’t change the facts. I mean, check some of the very comments on this thread about free speech... Those who lean left here scream Kimmel has the right to free speech. It should have applied to all Americans during COVID.
But as usual, if it doesn’t fit the left-leaning narrative, it gets flipped upside down to serve their agenda.'SharMy statement was correct and you've left out the most important part...
Kimmel's remarks were made as part of a comedic, satirical monologue on a late-night show, not as a factual news report. The FCC distinguishes between deliberate news distortion and expressions of opinion or satire....
Hoax" rules: While the FCC has a rule against broadcasting hoaxes, it only applies to false information intended to cause substantial public harm, which does not fit the description of Kimmel's comments.What? YOU openly threw out that accusation in a one-liner. Honestly, I couldn’t care less about what you think overall. What I’ve asked for — and what you’ve never provided — is a direct quote where I said or even implied what you accused me of. That’s it. I want a quote, nothing more. I haven’t left anything out, and I’ve even shared the permalink to the conversation multiple times.
This was the oneliner I responded to.
"Willowarbor wrote:
Your comment was incorrect, he did not break the rules, and he was not cited"
I have suggested you not respond to my posts because you do not appear to understand context, and it leads to you making unwarranted accusations."Willowarbor wrote:
Your comment was incorrect, he did not break the rules, and he was not cited" WILLOW
That statement stands. He did not break the rules and he was not cited...
That is MY statement. I refuted the claim that Kimmel "broke the rules". And added MY observation that he was not cited for such....The permalink shows your very first comment where you approached me. The actual one I replied to. I did not reply to the comment that came after that, which you are now falling back on.. Permalinks are great, they can offer when the comment was made and when it was responded to. I am really not sure why you are trying to promote something differently; you just dig yourself in deeper. I mean, all can follow conversations as they progress, and the context.
Here is the permalink note that you were accusing me of saying something I did not say. Note the comment was made long before the comment you are trying to fall back on... I would think you would realize how foolish it is to keep pushing another post that has nothing to do with your first post.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/369 … ost4383951
Here is what you posted "Willowarbor wrote:
Your comment was incorrect, he did not break the rules, and he was not cited"
"Earlier in the day, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr called Kimmel’s comments “truly sick” and said his agency has a strong case for holding Kimmel, ABC and network parent Walt Disney Co. accountable for spreading misinformation. He said the comic appeared to be making an intentional effort to mislead the public that Kirk’s assassin was a right-wing Trump supporter."
“This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney,” Carr said on the Benny Johnson podcast. “We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”
https://apnews.com/article/jimmy-kimmel … 3493c6883dYeah and what's wrong with my comment?...
You're the one reading into a simple statement and applying it to yourself for some reason. You commented that he broke the rules and I stated that he did not and that he was not cited for such... I never claimed you stated he was cited... That was MY addition and support of my comment that he did not break the rules.... If you'd like to take that personally then go ahead.I have well proved my point in my comment --- You, you have tried to twist the context of my words. The word "Could" never reads as did... LOL
You’ve only proved my point. Anyone following this can see the full context of what I said. I was clear that ABC or Kimmel was not formally cited, but I also pointed out Brendan Carr’s statement that he could be. Kimmel visibly broke several FCC rules, and your claim that he did not doesn’t hold water. The rules are very clear, and Kimmel violated more than one of them — Carr simply chose to threaten action rather than issue a citation. I truly wish you would stop bothering me. It’s frustrating to have to keep pointing out your tendency to miss context.
At any rate, done with the back and forth. So, have at it, I've made my point.Why do you keep leaving out specific parts of the rules?
What is the bottom line here? 1) Kimmel did nothing wrong, 2) Trump and Carr told ABC and Disney to dump Kimmel, and 3) ABC and Disney did what they were told by the gov't. Easy peasy.
I am proud of you - you can certainly take the insults she throws at you.
We in the middle and left have ALWAYS been interested in freedom of speech - just like you Republicans USED to be but not any more.
"We in the middle"... hmmm...
You are so awesome
There has not been any President that has not had some issue with the Press, the point again is frequency and magnitude. Only Trump threatens to pull broadcast licenses and file ridiculous libel suits against media outlets that refuse to kiss his hiney That puts him in an entirely different category.
Only obama seized records from reporters and engaged in electronic surveillance of the press. This is far more serious than any threat. That is a very scary action.
I wonder why he felt the need to seize records and engage in electronic surveillance of the press.
I'm sure they'd prefer a lawsuit.Again, for brevity and speed's sake and to remove your spin from it, I copied your statement into ChatGPT and reviewed and edited the answer to make sure I agree with it.
1) The Obama DOJ seizure of reporters’ records (what actually happened)
* In 2013 the U.S. Justice Department obtained two months of telephone records for Associated Press reporters and editors as part of a criminal leak investigation; the action was widely criticized as an unprecedented intrusion on newsgathering. The Attorney General defended the decision as part of a leak probe.
The Associated Press
+1
Important legal/contextual points: this was a targeted criminal investigation (not a general program of press suppression). It produced political backlash, internal review, and debate over DOJ policy for dealing with journalists and sources. It occurred inside the U.S. legal system, with subsequent press and congressional oversight.
Columbia Journalism Review
+1
Bottom line: serious and worrying to press-freedom advocates, but it was [b\(a) part of a criminal-investigation framework and (b) subject to U.S. oversight, litigation, and political accountability.[/b]
2) Trump’s threats and regulatory pressure (what’s happening now)
Trump and some allied officials (and regulators) have publicly threatened punitive actions against media organizations — including public calls to revoke broadcast licenses, to sue media outlets, and to pressure corporations and platforms. Recent episodes (e.g., the Jimmy Kimmel / ABC controversy and FCC rhetoric) show regulators publicly menacing broadcasters, and some networks/companies have reacted by pulling material.
Reuters
+2
Reuters
+2
Why that’s alarming: in a democracy, the government’s threat to use licensing or regulatory power to coerce or punish critical outlets can chill speech. Unlike the 2013 AP seizure (a criminal investigation), these are political pressures that risk turning a supposedly neutral regulator into a content cop. Civil-liberties groups and former officials have flagged this as a first-order danger to independent media.
FIRE
+1
Bottom line: Trump is much more dangerous than mere rhetorical attacks because it appeals to the regulatory levers of the state; if carried out it could bypass ordinary litigation and create long-term chilling effects. Still, in the U.S. there remain legal checks (courts, Congress, public opinion), so it is not the same as authoritarian enforcement — but it’s a worrisome escalation toward state coercion of the press.
FOR COMPARISON OF HOW TRUMP WANTS TO DO THINGS
3) Putin’s approach (how Russia actually works)
Russia’s model is systemic: laws that criminalize “false information” about the military, “foreign agent”/“undesirable organization” labels that make independent outlets illegal, seizure/blocking of websites, criminal prosecutions of journalists, forced shutdowns, and exile or imprisonment for critics. Since 2022 this has accelerated: outlets have been outlawed, reporters arrested or forced out, and online platforms pressured or blocked. Human Rights Watch, RSF and other monitors document a broad, ongoing program of media suppression.
Human Rights Watch
+2
Reporters Without Borders
+2
The key difference is systemic, permanent state control (laws + enforcement + censorship apparatus) rather than episodic actions inside a rule-of-law framework.
Bottom line: Putin’s model is comprehensive repression — criminalizing independent journalism, banning organizations, jailing reporters and using state media to control narratives. That is qualitatively different from a single U.S. criminal leak investigation or even executive pressure on regulators.
Quick comparison table (very short)
Scale:
Obama AP seizure (2013): limited to a leak probe; legally framed; afterward reviewed/criticized.
The Associated Press
Trump threats / FCC pressure (2025): broad rhetorical and regulatory pressure; potential to chill speech and coerce private companies.
Reuters
+1
Putin model: systemic legal and enforcement regime that crushes independent media.
Human Rights Watch
+1
Legal/Institutional checks: strong in the U.S. (courts, Congress, press, civil society) — although those checks can be weakened or strained; in Russia checks are weak or subverted.
Columbia Journalism Review
+1
Thank you for posting the pure facts. But don't hold your breath, this conversation will be diverted in record time. In my view, you hit the root, and this will be ignored.
Shar,
I do consider myself a student of history.
Bill Clinton also did some bad stuff concerning the press.
biden actually would tell Facebook what they could and could not post during the pandemic. That case went all the was to the SCOTUS.
I'm sure we can agree that the left is new at this freedom of speech outrage and it shows.What facts? That was an opinion piece by a right-winger. Generally, although I do check it out to make sure, I respect CATO's "analyses", the ones that use numbers - but this was not that.
This was an opinion full of errors resulting from lack of context or outright misdirection. For example:
* Blatantly False: "Obama’s administration waged a robust campaign to harass and intimidate journalists, even mainstream journalists, who utilized leaked material."
* Blatantly False: "The administration’s contempt for the basic requirements of due process was alarming"
* REAL FACTS: DOJ secretly obtained two months of AP phone records during a leak probe. AP called it “massive and unprecedented.” At the time, DOJ rules allowed ex parte subpoenas with no prior notice if notice might jeopardize the investigation—hence AP wasn’t told first. Contrary to this right-wingers unsourced opinion, these were leak investigations used subpoenas and warrants, not prior restraints
* A LIE: As CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson noted, such a seizure was “unheard of.” - There is no verifiable report that Attkisson said "unheard of". In FACT, since the 1970s, DOJ has had “news media” guidelines that permit subpoenas/warrants for reporters’ records in rare cases and with internal approvals and, at that time, limited/no-notice options when the department said notice would jeopardize the probe. So the tool existed; it wasn’t invented in 2013.
* Hyperbole: To say Attkisson was "outraged" is fiction and an unfair representation by the right-wing opinion writher.
* Falle Conclusion: It is very misleading to say that "Of course, that predictable response likely was the reason the Justice Department did not follow such a procedure." - This is effectively a Lie
* Another Lie: The right-winger claims "Similarly, the administration asserted that it had the right to prosecute Risen, although it chose not to take that step.[/b] [i]That is a LIE. The gov't never said that. In fact, the gov't (Holder) said that "no reporter is going to go to jail for doing his or her job.”
FACTS MATTER - opinions do not, especially opinions not based on fact.Okay,
I provided a report from the CATO institute and provided a link.
Can you do the same to prove your point?
Are you going to once again simply make up stuff and claim it to be true?Stop trolling me. I find it very, for lack of a better word, creepy.
Yes, Sharlee, many on the right complain that the media and press are propaganda machines. Trump has no regard for guard rails and will use that excuse as justification to censor all media that does not shower him with praise. That is dangerous to our democracy. With those choices, i prefer the former over the alternative.
Here are a couple of little secrets he doesn't know -
Carlson was a legal/PR risk post-Dominion and internal suits; Kelly was dropped after an on-air blackface defense; Kimmel was pulled amid affiliate revolt and FCC heat. Outrage happened in each case—it just came from different tribes.
Kelly's termination was a travesty. That said, she was paid $30 million.I know enough to know a president can't pull a broadcast license of any network. It is a long and drawn out process. There are different hearings, filings, petitions, etc.
This knowledge makes me realize Kimmel was fired because he refused to apology for what he said. Colbert was fired because his show was over $40 million in the red.
These were business decisions.Both were business decisions. Kimmel broke FCC rules live --- The FCC has rules; he broke a very big one. He openly lied. Is he above following the rules?
Hoaxes Rule: Under 47 U.S.C. § 312(a)(6), it is illegal for broadcast licensees to transmit false information about a crime or catastrophe that could lead to public harm. This includes knowingly broadcasting false information that could incite panic or cause harm to individuals or property
Kimmel openly lied. There’s no question that his statement about MAGA supporters shifting blame was false. Regardless of legal technicalities, he knowingly misrepresented reality on a national broadcast. That alone is a clear violation of basic journalistic and ethical standards.At one time, I did not think that a president could exile a legal resident without due process of law.
It it is unprincipled and underhanded, rest assured that if Trump hasn’t attained to it, he is working on it.
I condemn the media for bowing down before a tyrant like Trump and reneging on its responsibility to the public.- I mean... really... all this outrage over a moron Night Show Host... wow.
Yet when Tucker Carlson got canned... the Leftists from AOC to posters on here mocked him and celebrated it.
And he was providing news... might not have been with the bias you like, but it was "news"...
"reneging on its responsibility to the public".... hah!Ken, Yet when Tucker Carlson got canned..
Never watched the guy, cannot stand right wing oriented media.The point is the hypocrisy...
The glee was loud and vocal from prominent Leftists when he was fired.
There was no talk of "free speech" or FOX caving to the evil machinations of the Biden regime or "reneging on its responsibility to the public"...
Yet this buffoon Kimmell gets sidelined and it is a threat to "free speech" to the very foundations of Democracy?
Nah... I think a guy who went on campuses to debate ideas being murdered may be a threat to the foundations and to free speech...
That ABC doesn't want a moron blathering his political nonsense on a Late Night show and garnering them hate and negative attention in these tense political times is a sign of good business sense... a wise decision...
Cred,
The way the laws are written, if you are not a legal US citizen, you could be deported at any time for any reason.
I have family members who went through the entire immigration process. Even if you have a green card and have completed the citizenship exam, if you mess up on your way to the citizenship induction ceremony, you could be deported. That has happened.
That is how its' been for years and years.
I guess it's is now a tool the left can use to bash President Donald Trump so it's worth getting emotional over.
Where were you guys years ago?So, that is the way it has been for years and years, huh? So, it is said by the Great Equivocator?
=====
No, it's not true that a non-U.S. citizen can be deported at any time for any reason. The U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act specifies grounds for deportation, such as criminal convictions, violating visa conditions, or being in the U.S. unlawfully, but these reasons must be proven in immigration court, and noncitizens have due process rights, including the right to seek legal counsel, argue their case, and appeal a decision.
That is the rest of the story that you have “conveniently” omitted? That explanation makes more sense to me.Cred,
I saw a guy from Hungary be deported because he failed to let the USCIS know of his change of address. He did it because of work.
There is also something called expedited removal. This doesn't require a court process to be removed.
I've seen it used more than once. A person who really wants to become a citizen needs to simply go to work and avoid trouble at all costs.I don’t know about your exceptions but does that negate every point that I made in my comment, Mike?
Surely there has to be a compelling reason for expedited removal, it cannot be based just on the caprice of authorities. What were the circumstances surrounding the deportation of the man from Hungary, what is the whole story?I have real world experience with this.
You can be deported if you don't notify USCIS of an address change. If you don't believe me, look it up.
The guy from Hungary showed me his deportation papers and it stated very clearly he failed to notify USCIS of his change of address.
There is no record of your Hungarian.
Expedited removal is for TRUE national security threats. Not this crap that Trump makes up.
Once again, I need to explain my post. Due to your jumping into a conversation without following the complete conversation, the subject of that conversation is clear. Here is the permalink to explain my post on the failing left networks, for which People Power is asking for proof.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/369 … ost4383517
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/369 … ost4383519
Again, I ask you to stop replying to my posts. It is clear you don't read the stream of conversations; you just jump in and ask for explanations. I have no interest in your views whatsoever. But I don't appreciate anyone misrepresenting my posts or suggesting I posted a diversion. In my view, you do both frequently.
Jimmy Kirk was fired by ABC, owned by Disney.
The FCC is led by Brendan Carr. And he threatened ABC. If they didn't fire Kirk, Carr would make life difficult for Disney and ABC. That's what he said on a podcast.
Carr is not a neutral figure but a hard core political supporter for Trump.
Colbert was fired because he was critical towards Trump. And his broadcast company CBS wanted to merge with Skydance Media. And this merger needed to be approved by Brendan Car. CBS stopped Stephan Colbert to get approval of Brendan Car for the merger.
Car is eliminating comedians who are making fun of Trump. This is not the way freedom of speech works.
After Colbert was fired. Trump tweeted. "Next up will be an even less talented Jimmy Kimmel."
And after the firing of Kimmel Trump tweeted "That leaves Jimmy and Seth, two total losers, on fake NBC."
This is pure censorship. Every show that criticizes Trump has to go!!! That is not freedom of speech. plain and Simple.Ho hum,
Do you have NEWs where you live?
Read this story which proves you wrong. Took me less than an minute to find them.
Unrepentant Jimmy Kimmel refused to apologize after Charlie Kirk outrage — and planned to double-down on MAGA attacks: report
https://nypost.com/2025/09/18/media/uji … k-outrage/
Here is another one for you.
Breaking down claim CBS was losing $40M a year on Colbert's 'Late Show'
Rumors about the $40 million annual losses appeared to stem from reports published by a media outlet called Puck and the New York Post.
Matthew Belloni, Puck's founding partner and author of the report on Colbert's show, told Snopes he obtained the information in his article "from multiple anonymous sources with knowledge of the show's finances." He added that the $40 million number was "subsequently confirmed by multiple outlets," including The Wall Street Journal (archived). Belloni did not provide additional documentation or evidence to corroborate his reporting.
Sources reportedly told Belloni that CBS executives were "discussing the future of the Late Show franchise for months" before the network announced its cancellation, according to the article. The program "has been losing more than $40 million a year for CBS," Belloni reported, adding that this "doesn't include some ancillary revenue," or the extra money a company makes apart from its main products or services.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/07/22/ … bert-show/
You can have all the free speech rights you want but a company can't be forced to lose significant amounts of money because of it.HO HUM - another apology for the Right censoring everybody else.
Colbert was fired becuase he was losing tens of millions of dollars a year. I am not sure if you have ever had a business but if you own one for several years and it loses millions of dollars most people reconsider their decision.
Kimmel was also a loser and this was probably Disney looking for an opportunity to fire the guy. If the reason they fired him was because of threats from Carr that is incorrect but you have no idea what led to their decision, and it could have been his continued offensive comments about his audience that was not good for ABC and Disney stock. He did not even bother to excuse his vile language with "alleged", just told everyone of his gullible followers that the assassin was a MAGA member.
It is not censorship. If someone gets on here and uses racial slurs that is acceptablle free speech. If they get kicked off of the forums permanently that is the consequene of free speech. Plain and simple, but either you do not want to understand that free speech has consequences or you do not want to.You would like to believe that, I know, but it has already been debunked.
What has been debunked? That the assassin was a MAGA member or was some guy that had a crush on his trans roomate?
Funny how Kimmel and his buddies were not willing to point that out when they were accusing the shooter of being a MAGA member.And Pam accused Robinson of being part of the left?????? BUT THAT'S OKAY?.... PLEASE.
https://x.com/BulwarkOnline/status/1967763976063959073
What is here that is “misrepresented”, unless you can establish that Kirk did not, in fact, say these things?
If you don't post the entire comment you are not being honest you are simply serving an agenda because you don't want the truth. There is also taking things out of context that is a mainstay of the left.
Post the entire quote or statement and not just a piece the seems to fit an agenda.
Why is being honest such a struggle for the left?It is obviously harder for you to be honest, Mike. What context, the statements made by Kirk were bigoted on its face. What is the entire quote that changes the purely racist statements, or are you just equivocating because you can? Do you have an example?
Cred,
Let me put this in perspective.
I don't care what Charlie Kirk said.
I don't care if what he said upset anyone.
He had a right to say them.
Nobody had a right to take his life because of them.
That is called free speech.Yes, you are right, no one has the right to take Kirk’s life because of what he says.
But, I hold people accountable for what they say and if it is full of intolerance, racism or misogynist bile, then I have my right to free speech to identify it as such.
A woman summed it up well, no one celebrates Charlie Kirks death, but neither do we celebrate his life.
I DO care about what he says and spews to his audiences, he is anything but a martyr.I have seen many, many, many videos of leftists in your country celebrating his death.
If you did not agree with him that is no big deal. That is free speech to disagree.
To do a happy dance make a video to tell us all how happy you are is the whole issue. It is you leftists that are making the guy a martyr. Do you not remember how so many racists celebrated when Malcolm X was murdered for speaking? The leftists in 2025 sound the same way as those ignorant people did back then.I have also seen rightwingers make fun of calamities regarding left wing politicians as well, so no one gets to wear a halo here.
No, I did not like the guy and things he stood for, but saying that the entire left is gloating over his death is a bridge too far as far as I am concerned.
Regarding all sides, gloating over a death is inappropriate. Just dont ask me to give the eulogy for this fellow.No, do not put words in my mouth. I did not say the entire left, but if you see a few hundred leftists making videos that get millions of page views it looks like a lot of leftists, probably more than celebrated Malcolms assassination.
No one is asking you to give the guy a eulogy.Malcolm was assassinated in 1965, it is unrealistic to gauge the amount of response to his demise as we are talking about apples and oranges regarding communication technologies between now and then.
Yes, I do realize that. It is hard to compare the responses to then and now. The final point was that no one on this side is asking anyone on your side to give the guy a eulogy. It is easy to disagree with someone politically and still not celebrate when they are assassinated.
No, Sharlee, I have not followed Kirk. But, I continue to ask you and other conservatives to put themselves in the shoes of others and ask how I as a black male is going to react to people that make statements like this:
——
* “Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people — that’s a fact.” That is NOT a fact, just hateful speech
* “If I see a Black pilot, I’m gonna be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified.’”
——-
Conservatives have been, as I say, equivocating about these comments, either denying that they were said or saying something about them being taken out of context, I don’t buy either of those explanations. Perhaps, conservatives upon close examination actually believe these things, how else has Charlie managed to come off as a hero? However, if Kirk made these statements, why would I as a person of color warm to those insults? Kirk engaged in many racist comments, and cannot be considered as any ally of mine. His style has been totally divisive and as a result, I don’t miss him.Cred, I did follow Charlie Kirk. Many pages back, I suggested that some here might take the time to watch a few of his full YouTube videos from his university visits, or listen to some of his podcasts or interviews. Honestly, I wonder how many here truly followed him. My opinion of the man comes after years of keeping an eye on him. Yes, he could certainly be a corker at times. But when I made the very first post on this thread, my intent was simple—I thought it was a place to acknowledge, with kindness, that this act of violence was both sad and wrong. From there, the thread took its own path. I followed the guy. What I have seen here is a true Google U grads digging up crap that could well be understood if one watched the full context. I think the time is coming when some must start really asking more questions about one-liners, and start at least looking into allegations. I mean, it is well apparent that some have come to hate a young man whom they just knew very little about. This was my first post. This is my view. of Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk was a man whose life and work were inseparable from his deepest convictions: faith, family, and country. From the moment he founded Turning Point USA at just 18, he dedicated himself to inspiring a generation to embrace the values that make America strong, personal responsibility, liberty, and the courage to stand for what is right. Through his organization, he created a community where young people were not only encouraged to think critically and speak boldly but to live with integrity, honor their families, and serve their nation. Charlie thrived on sharing his vision, connecting with people, and leading by example. His Christian faith guided his actions, his love for his family grounded him, and his devotion to his country shaped his every effort. Bold, focused, and compassionate, he lived as a testament to the power of conviction and the enduring human spirit. He was a threat to hate, and it was hate that ultimately took him from us. He touched the young, and they have now lost him, yet his message will continue to resonate with them. I believe it will inspire many more young people, who will take up his spirit and carry on the peaceful fight with the same bright smile Charlie always wore.Shar,
I like the question that Charlie Kirk would always ask.
"Is there any person from the left willing to go to college campuses and take questions from those that disagree with them in front of thousands of people?"
The answer is no. Nobody on the left has a molecule of the courage and conviction of Charlie Kirk. As I said before, they can't debate. The left can yell at you, talk over you, say crazy stuff only they believe, but they can't have an open and honest debate.
I think this is a foreign concept for those on the left.Mike, I completely agree with your comment. I truly feel that most here haven’t really followed Charlie Kirk closely and don’t fully understand him, both as a human being and as a conservative activist. He has the ear of millions, not just young people, but older listeners like me who enjoy hearing the perspectives of the younger generation. That’s why I’ve encouraged people to watch some of his interviews and YouTube appearances for themselves.
You’re right, Charlie Kirk consistently asks the kind of question that exposes the difference in approach: “Is there any person from the left willing to go to college campuses and take questions from those that disagree with them in front of thousands of people?” The answer, unfortunately, is no. The left often refuses real debate; they yell, talk over people, or push ideas only they believe, but they can’t engage in open, honest discourse.
Charlie would debate through all the noise, and he did it so well, so very well. At times, he was demeaned openly, yet he kept his calm demeanor and a smile. Sometimes, yes, he even won over his opponents and shook hands at the end. For many on the left, the idea of actually debating ideas openly seems to be a foreign concept.
Hey, he had passion and was truly unique, qualities that, for some of us, were wonderful, but for others, seen as a great threat.
It is truly flowery oratory from you, Sharlee. But, I still have not had the question answered, did he or did he not make those denigrating comments?
He is linked to Trump at the hip and as far as I am concerned he is guilty by just that association. Attacking contributions of people of color to America both past and present has been part of the Trump policy.
My attitude regarding Charlie Kirk reflects that of yours regarding Kimmel:
“As Kimmel himself said: “MAGA was trying to put the blame on others when it was one of them.” You can’t change his words, and you can’t change the context; it was clear. At some point, it might be wiser to simply stop defending what was wrong and chalk it up as such.”
No one on your side of the divide has provided any evidence that Charlie’s comments should not be accepted at face value. So, I have to presume that there isn’t any.
As for “Christian values”, there are no absolutes here as far as people of color are concerned. As I mentioned in another thread all of that patriotism, love of country and all that too often rings hollow for me. Bigotry is not going to solve any of our problems but I guarantee that it can exacerbate them.
Funny. quoting from Dr. King he said “that the most segregated time of the week was Sunday Morning” That divide and schism still reigns supreme.
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opi … rcna231382
Otherwise, we agree to disagree as always, Charlie Kirk whose assassination was tragic, I will acknowledge but he can never be a man that I could revere and honor."No one on your side of the divide has provided any evidence that Charlie’s comments should not be accepted at face value. So, I have to presume that there isn’t any." Cred
Cred, you have admitted you did not follow him. If you had, you would realize Charlie was all about sharing his view; he offered much else but his views in his politics, his feelings, his God... That's it, no more. So, face value is all he offered; what was special about the guy was that he did it openly and let others do the same.
I sometimes wonder if you came face-to-face with him and had the chance to lay out your concerns directly, whether you might walk away feeling a bit differently. And better yet, would he come away with more understanding...
I hear the pain in what you’ve shared, most likely because I am flowery and dramatic. And I want you to know I don’t take your words lightly. I can only imagine how differently patriotism and “Christian values” can feel when your lived experience carries struggles and injustices that I’ve never had to face.
I know you’re right, bigotry only deepens our divides and makes healing harder. What matters to me is listening, respecting truth, and recognizing that love of country should never feel hollow or conditional. It should include and honor every American equally, and I’m sorry that hasn’t always been your experience.
I truly believe that things can get better if we begin with something simple but powerful: listening, not to debate or dismiss, but to understand. Real change comes when we see one another not as categories, but as people with stories, dignity, and worth. Healing racism isn’t about erasing our differences but learning to value them as part of the fabric that makes us whole.
But can this truly happen when, all too often, we’re told by others how we should feel, or what we ought to be feeling? Real progress has to come from within, from authentic connection, not imposed narratives. Maybe before we decide something is bad, we should pause and make sure it truly is.Yes, i generally have very little in common with most of advocates of conservatism in the Age of Trump. If i asked him about prowling blacks lying in wait to attack whites as he quoted, how would he answer me with a direct answer. He impresses all of you with his polished public persona, of course he isn’t going to say anything untoward in his “Good time Charlie’ podcasts. But, Mumbo-jumbo wont suffice. i have too many complaints from a myriad of sources that were entirely negative.
“ I hear the pain in what you’ve shared, most likely because I am flowery and dramatic. And I want you to know I don’t take your words lightly. I can only imagine how differently patriotism and “Christian values” can feel when your lived experience carries struggles and injustices that I’ve never had to face.”
Now, you are cooking with gas!!
Until we have a system that honors every American equally, I remain a naysayer for anything right of center. With the Trump regime in full power we no reason to discuss an optimism for the future.
When society stops identifying people as they are in categories perhaps then we could aspire to your high minded ideals.
Authentic connections? I don’t see that coming anytime soon, not in the current political environment.I will provide a reputable fact-checking site that I know people that lean left trust. I think you should have a look at the fact-checking that has been done on the accusations that are being posted on chats. It's only fair to really look at the context of the statements that concern some, and unfair to make comments on one sentence, or selective sentences.
https://www.factcheck.org/2025/09/viral … hatgpt.com
I mean, get to know the facts, what was said, and his logic. His podcast was not mumbo jumbo. He was highly intelligent and debated with good, solid information, mixed with logic.
I know I’ve been called flowery, but I want to share my thoughts. I feel that I know you as well as I felt I knew Charlie Kirk. I can see the wisdom in what you say, even if I don’t always agree with it, I understand it, much as I did with him. Over the years, we’ve conversed a lot; in the beginning, I was banned multiple times for our back-and-forths. But over time, I came to know, understand, and appreciate you. Yes, we often stand apart on many things, but I can honestly say that I understand where you’re coming from.
You see, we may not agree on everything, but we can find common ground on some things, and surely we can look at a person beyond their political views, can’t we?Yes, thanks for providing a reputable source for me to examine.
He says that he was opposed to the CRA 1964, which basically made Jim Crow illegal allowing all citizens equal right regarding access to public accommodations. His speaking about some sort of impetus to DEI sounds rather lightweight in the face of what had to change in American society, That is a stark political difference if not racist that I could never support.
=======
“Cultural Marxism” is considered by some, including the Southern Poverty Law Center, as an antisemitic conspiracy theory. At its most extreme, it refers to the idea that a small group of Jewish immigrants in the U.S. worked to subvert Christian culture in America and spread progressive values.”
Clear bias that has no factual basis for support.
——————————-
“Yes, he did. In the Oct. 31, 2022, episode of his show (at around 53:00 in the video), Kirk said the attack on Paul Pelosi was “awful” and “not right,” but he said that someone should bail out the assailer, David DePape, because cashless bail policies in certain cities allowed other people to commit crimes and be released from custody pending trial.
“And why is he still in jail? Why has he not been bailed out?” Kirk asked. “By the way, if some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out. I bet his bail’s like 30[,000] or 40,000 bucks. Bail him out, and then go ask him some questions.”
How and why should Mr. Pelosi’s assailant be released on bail after so horrific a crime? What happens in other cities is irrelevant.
———-
I will pull back on the racist designation, but his political positions are far outside my acceptable range as merely being “different”. I could never see Charlie and I as ever having common ground even in a face to face conversation.
Certain “views”, particularly the ones Charlie had can easily be construed as racial bias. In regards to his attitude regarding CRA 1964 and Dr. Kings legacy, we remain at odds.
I have no aversion to attempting to find common ground with conservatives, it is just that it amounts to not even a patch. Understanding my point of origin and background, i cannot accommodate someone with Charlie’s ideological bent with a straight face. When you read the entire fact-check, i am not left with a serious need to reconsider Charlie’s positions.
Banning has not been new to either one of us. ESO, Willow and I basically have the same points of view on where the big picture is taking us. Like, i say, my approaches are not to be taken personally, but I am duty bound to resist the Right as a threat to the idea of multicultural democracy, which translates as a threat to me.
"Charlie Kirk was a man whose life and work were inseparable from his deepest convictions: faith, family, and country. " may be very true, but you left out the part that the way he expressed those convictions was by spreading hate and derision.
For example:
On wives who keep their vote private from their husbands: “You have to ask, what else is she lying to him about? Is she stealing money?”
* “Transgender people are a throbbing middle finger to God … [an] abomination.”
* The great replacement strategy … is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.”
* “America does not need more visas for people from India … [the U.S. is] full.”
* Referring to Leviticus 20:13 he described it as “God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.” What does Leviticus 20:13 say? If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
* “Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people — that’s a fact.” That is NOT a fact, just hateful speech
* “If I see a Black pilot, I’m gonna be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified.’”
* "Large dedicated Islamic areas are a threat to America… Europe is now a conquered continent.”
Is it you don't care because you agree with it?
"It doesn't matter" is what Readmenow meant in explaining the big picture/perspective to you.
It didn't matter WHAT Charlie Kirk said.
It didn't matter if he (unintentionally) offended anyone.
He had the right to follow his passion for sharing his way of thinking.
No one had the right to take his life because he was exercising his right of freedom of speech.
Q. Do you, Esoteric, agree that no one has the right to take someone's life for exercising their right of freedom of speech? ... especially when it is being used for GOOD?
So, it appears that the Right speaks of “free speech” only in respect to advocates of their views.
You have carefully documented the what and the when of racist, sexist and divisive statements made by Charlie Kirk, and yet somehow the Right wants to ignore this. What type of speech was Charlie engaged in and why is his expression of bias ok, but opinions from the other side is “hate speech”?
How would it be that I could possibly see this man as a martyr? And I still say that the Trump regime is using Kirks death as an excuse to muzzle dissent from the Left.
Tyranny is following a similar mode followed with Hitler and his assumption of power using the “Horst Wessels” to justify reprisals.
On the upcoming 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, I would have never thought that Benjamin Franklin’s admonishment regarding our ability to maintain a democratic republic would actually be in question and in danger as it is today under the Trump regime.
Yet, after all of this, people have the nerve to ask why I hold so much contempt toward Trump, his policies and henchmen.
So, under these circumstances, there will be no kumbaya or any thought of concession to the Republican right and I condemn any Democrat that goes “pussy” on me, not taking a firm stance against Trump and where his regime is taking us all.
Trump is a lying liar who lies almost daily.... Many seem to have absolutely no problem with that and remember his lies have been called "alternative facts? "
Trump Trump Trump ! : Trump's a liar."
This was the subject of my comment --- Address it
“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang 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
A pure lie.Trump is a pathological liar as are MOST of his cabinet.
SOME lies are ok?
You always forget the public apology.
Taking responsibility for a statement and publicly apologizing.
Why do you always forget THAT part of the story?Funny, yes—that often gets pushed to the side. But it’s also worth recognizing that what we’ve witnessed resembles a kind of war. A war where one horrific, hateful remark feeds into another, and then another, building layer upon layer. The power behind hate is real, and it is destructive.
An apology is meaningless. The deed was done... He said what he said and there is no way for millions to unhear it.... The man thinks that murdering the homeless is a solution to the problem. And he is allowed to continue his blather on Fox.. this man has a problem and his mouth seems to be a loose cannon. At the very least, he should try to keep his dark thoughts contained within his head
Kathryn, Hate speech is not, and never will be, considered free speech by conservatives. Kimmel stood on that stage and told a vile lie, saying:
“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang 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
He directed that lie to cover a large part of our society, clearly aiming his anger and falsehood at anyone who supports the President. I understand the left may believe anything goes, but many of us will never see those who promote such lies as deserving of a platform to spread them.'Kathryn, Hate speech is not, and never will be, considered free speech by conservatives...
Yet, Kirk and most prominent conservatives support it as being protected by the First amendment..
There's a big difference between conservatives and MAGA on this issue
Hate speech is not and never will be considered free speech by conservatives.
Really?
Hate speech is not a legal term in the United States, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled it is legally protected speech under the First Amendment.... And there have been no bigger champions of this than conservatives LOL...maga may agree with your post but conservatives surely do not.
There is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment.They do not care. Kimmel is right, "they're doing everything they can to score political points from it."
And Kimmel wasn't? I quote:
“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who m***dered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”
It was reported on ABC news that there were text messages from the killer to his roommate "they were touching" the reporter said, and one quote referenced the transgender roommate as "my love".
I continue quoting:
“In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving. On Friday, the White House flew the flags at half staff, which got some criticism, but on a human level, you can see how hard the president is taking this.”
A clip of the President was then shown where, when asked by a reporter how he was holding up following the passing of Kirk, Trump replied, “I think very good, and by the way, right there where you see all the trucks, they just started construction of the new ballroom for the White House.”
Kimmel then said:
“Yes, he’s at the fourth stage of grief, construction. This is not how an adult grieves the m**der of someone he called a friend.”
“There’s something wrong with him, there really is. Who thinks like that?”
I'd say there is very little comedic about that... more like partisan commentary. Johnny Carson wouldn't have considered such a divisive and political incident comedic.
And so they shit-canned the great Jimmy Kimmel:
https://x.com/i/status/1968480487048892786
Shar,
I disagree.
Hate speech is the price to must pay for free speech. Charlie Kirk said this.
It is a price we must be willing to pay.
Who is to determine what is and is not hate speech? The government? Do you know the UK arrested a comedian coming back to the UK because he posted a joke about transgender people? The government labeled it has hate speech. Another man in the UK was arrested because Muslims were taunting him and he said, "I Like Bacon." Arrested, put in jail. Think about it. In Germany, people pay tens of millions of dollars a year in fines because of what their government determines as hate speech. Canada and the rest of Europe is the same way.
If you think the government is who should determine what is and is not hate speech you and I strongly disagree.
Sorry,Mike, I have to challenge this notion and point out the glaring lack of logic in it. Saying “hate speech is the price we must pay for free speech” is a dangerously simplistic statement that conveniently ignores the distinction between expressing an opinion and intentionally inciting harm. Please note that this idea, that all speech is automatically free speech, has been hosted on our society for far too long. It is one of the biggest problems I see being promoted by the left. My God, Mike, do you not see how over time this reasoning has allowed what was once considered wrong or unacceptable to be normalized and treated as if it is now acceptable?
We’ve been fed this line as if the price of liberty is chaos, when in reality, a responsible society balances the right to speak with the obligation not to inflict harm. To claim we must simply tolerate hate speech in the name of free speech is not principled; it’s a distraction from accountability and a convenient excuse to normalize destructive behavior. True freedom is not measured by how much toxicity we endure; it’s measured by our ability to protect individuals from harm while still allowing open dialogue.
If we are led to believe that we can lash out, lie, and slander without cause, what kind of society are we creating? I think we got a stark glimpse of this after the death of Charlie Kirk. Instead of showing simple respect for a man who believes in free speech for all, we saw torrents of hate speech directed against him. We have witnessed day after day how Donald Trump is targeted with similar vitriol, and we have seen the tragic deaths of even young children. In my view, much of this can be traced back to the hate fostered and amplified by unchecked speech. Hate is like a fire, if you feed it, it grows; if you cut it off, it loses its power and influence, leaving only a few who derive satisfaction from it. A society that tolerates this uncritically risks normalizing cruelty and chaos instead of fostering accountability and respect.
It was what enabled and condoned, lining up people and shooting them to fall upon one another. And those who pulled the triggers feel proud of what they did. No hate, in any form, should be overlooked; it must be recognized as antisocial because that is what hate is. I suggest you head to YouTube and watch Kimmel’s statement. Look at his face, his eyes, the glee with which he says the words he did; this is what hate looks like.
The face of hate is not always twisted or grimacing; sometimes it appears with a calm demeanor or even a gleeful smile.I still say hate speech is the price to pay for free speech.
Answer this...WHO is to determine what is hate speech? The government? Me? You? Many people on the left believed what Charlie Kirk was saying was hate speech. Again, I believe free speech is absolute.
I believe the same as Senator Ted Cruz
“The First Amendment absolutely protects speech,” Cruz said Tuesday at POLITICO’s AI & Tech Summit in Washington. “It absolutely protects hate speech. It protects vile speech. It protects horrible speech. What does that mean? It means you cannot be prosecuted for speech, even if it is evil and bigoted and wrong.”
At the same time, Cruz endorsed “naming and shaming” as “part of a functioning and vibrant democracy,” citing English philosopher John Stuart Mill’s famous axiom that free and plentiful expression is the best antidote to undesirable speech.
“We have seen, as you noted, across the country, people on the left — not everybody, but far too many people — celebrating Charlie Kirk’s murder,” Cruz said. “We’ve seen teachers in high schools and elementary schools posting online, celebrating. We’ve seen university professors posting. In my view, they should absolutely face the consequences for celebrating murder.”
The senator lauded Kirk, who he described as a friend, for being willing to engage in civil debate.
Numerous individuals have been targeted online for making disparaging posts about Kirk, leading to firings in higher education, media and other industries. The Pentagon has also vowed to discipline service members who “celebrate or mock” Kirk’s killing.
Cruz also defended Attorney General Pamela Bondi, who said law enforcement would “absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.” Cruz said those comments had been “misconstrued.”
In a Tuesday morning statement posted to social media, Bondi clarified that “hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/1 … g-00566448Then why aren't you bashing the conservatives for getting so many people fired for exercising their 1st Amendment Rights if you think their criticisms of Kirk are protected speech?
Because you represent your employer, they have a right to protect themselves from the fallout from an employee's speech.
An employer should not have to suffer consequences from an employee's speech.
You have free speech, but you are not free from the consequences of your speech.
As long as they weren't fired because of the government, I think their free speech is being protected.Actually, they don't except in certain very limited circumstances. Getting hired doesn't mean giving up your 1st Amendment Rights to us in the middle and on the left. It only means that to those on the right.
"You have free speech, but you are not free from the consequences of your speech." - ROFL! Are you applying that to Kirk? He certainly suffered the consequences of his hate speech.I don't think anything Charlie Kirk said was hate speech.
Charlie Kirk worked for himself and represented nobody but himself.
Remember that employers have rights as well. They don't give up their rights simply because they have employees.That is right.
I don't know who gets to determine what is and what is not hate speech.
That is why I don't agree with punishment for hate speech.
I posted two articles about speech. One in the UK and one about speech in Germany and how they handle things there. In these places the government thinks it can determine what is and is not hate speech. I find that horrifying.
"ROFL! Are you applying that to Kirk? He certainly suffered the consequences of his hate speech."
I don't think you or anyone on the left can fully comprehend the ignorance of this statement. This is truly a horrific thing to say. Just when I think the left can sink no lower I am always proven wrong.
I don't think you fully comprehend the First Amendment.
Are you insulting his intelligence?
Because it seems like you're insulting his intelligence...
Maybe just answer his question or if you can't just ignore it...
You raise the classic question, who decides what qualifies as hate speech? But that’s exactly where your logic begins to break down. No one is suggesting that the government should sit with a checklist to outlaw every offensive word. The real issue is this: pretending all speech is equally “free” ignores the consequences when that speech deliberately fuels division or glorifies harm. You mention Charlie Kirk, well, isn’t it clear that the celebrations of his death, dripping with hatred, are not just “opinions” but indicators of a culture being poisoned by rhetoric with no boundaries? We’ve now arrived at a point where people not only spew hatred but also feel righteous about it, as if destroying human dignity is just part of free expression.
Senator Cruz is right in the narrow, legal sense: the First Amendment does protect vile, even disgusting speech from government prosecution. But here’s where I draw the line, we have conflated “protected” with “acceptable.” The two are not the same. Society has every right, indeed, a duty to call out destructive speech, to withhold platforms, and to treat it as antisocial behavior. If “naming and shaming” is the antidote, then let’s be consistent: those who glorify death, mock tragedy, or incite division should face the full weight of social condemnation, not a free pass under the banner of “absolute free speech.”
So no, hate speech is not simply “the price we must pay.” That phrase suggests passivity, resignation, as if we are powerless against it. In truth, what we tolerate, we normalize. And what we normalize, we eventually accept. That’s how society shifts from seeing something as evil to seeing it as “just another opinion.” My argument is not about government censorship—it’s about accountability, responsibility, and the recognition that words can build a culture or corrode it.
I can understand your view on the issue, and I must admit it is most likely a majority view. To be honest, that's what worries me.No, I do not. I do not see the same context in interpreting the First Amendment as I am seeing from some participants on this thread. I believe my comment is quite clear. For reference, here is a comment I shared with Mike regarding free speech, which is detailed and reflects my true beliefs
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/369 … ost4383433Some of us on this forum, including myself, used the Supreme Court as support or the basis for our stance on free speech. They've been exceedingly clear through history. Anyone can choose to hold a view to the contrary but the court, thankfully, has set the law of the land concerning speech...
"If we are led to believe that we can lash out, lie, and slander without cause, what kind of society are we creating? I think we got a stark glimpse of this after the death of Charlie Kirk. Instead of showing simple respect for a man who believes in free speech for all, we saw torrents of hate speech directed against him."
Who directed torrents of hate speech against him? And you think Jimmy Kimmel lashed out at him because of this.
I want you to listen to what Brendan Carr said about Kimmel on the Benny Johnson show; The key phrase is It Appears as if he...Kimmel. He is taking action on Kimmel based on what he appears he said.
https://youtu.be/2siPf99ED4M?si=mvRGkY97ErogNyx1Did you ever follow Kirk’s podcast? He often talked about the death threats he received. Being young and outspoken, he would sometimes laugh them off. On college campuses, he faced opponents who shouted him down, called him names, and tried to silence him, yet every so often, he broke through to someone. His days were filled with constant hostility, but that was the nature of his work. I doubt many here truly followed him, because if they had, they would recognize his demeanor, his boldness, his passion, and the way he thrived on debate. He spoke in a style that connected with young adults, which is exactly why so many young leftists despised him and everything he represented. He knew the job was difficult, but he embraced it, taking the risks because he wanted to defend and spread his conservative and Christian beliefs.
What I see now are people skimming the internet, pulling out selective quotes with no context, and holding them up as if they define him. But I followed this young man closely. I saw his passion, his uniqueness, his drive to make a difference. He stood out, he thrived, and that made him the kind of person people either loved deeply or hated fiercely.
No one lives a perfect life, but does anyone truly deserve to have their murder celebrated or their words vilified after death? Sadly, I see that some not only accept this but even embrace it.That's what he was about. My comment was not about him, but how Trump and Carr are trying to shut down anyone who criticize him. Trump himself said he his feelings get hurt when he is criticized.
So little Donny goes home to mommy and then he removes anybody or and thing that criticize his hurt ego. It's amazing how a head of a country can has his feeling hurt and then seek revenge on those hurt his feelings. He needs to grow up as the president of the United States and do real work, not revenge work.
Mike is simply expressing Kirk's point of view.
I see that one right-wing commentor here has given up trying to sound intelligent and has retreated to a series of one-line insults. That speaks volumes.
Q: My condolences on the loss of your friend Charlie Kirk. How are you holding up?
TRUMP: I think very good. And by the way, right there you see all the trucks. They just started construction of the new ballroom for the White House, which is something they've been trying to get for about 150 years. And it's gonna be a beauty. It'll be an absolutely magnificent structure. And I just see all the trucks. We just started it. So, it'll get done very nicely and it's going to be one of the best anywhere is the world, actually. Thank you very much."
RIP Cha... Trucks!Are you grouping? LOL Is that all MAGA, some MAGA? It gets better and better. I mean, you just accused me of grouping, which I did not --- and now this... I mean, I could label this, but I would be very repetitive to do so.
let me clarify...It's certainly has been called heartfelt by maga on this very forum.
Sharlee01 wrote:
Are you grouping? LOL Is that all MAGA, some MAGA? It gets better and better. I mean, you just accused me of grouping, which I did not --- and now this... I mean, I could label this, but I would be very repetitive to do so.
"let me clarify...It's certainly has been called heartfelt by maga on this very forum." Willow
Some MAGA on this forum? All. I mean, do you read a comment before you reply? Ya, just grouped
Related Discussions
- 435
The Frightening Violence of the Left
by Readmikenow 2 weeks ago
During the last few months the violence of the left has been put on full display. A health care executive is executed outside his hotel, Tela's are firebombed, IVF clinics are torched, Governor Shapiro's house in Pennsylvania is set on fire.The common thread in all of these incidents is they...
- 52
What will the 2019 Trump Court do to American Civil Liberties?
by Scott Belford 6 years ago
With the addition of Justice Kavanaugh, the make-up of the Court is similar in temperament as the one that existed between 1840 and 1929. That Court destroyed American Civil Liberties then, and this Court will do the same. So let's see how the previous conservative Court ruled:* Prigg...
- 43
The Great American Divide: Gratitude vs. Bitterness
by Sharlee 2 months ago
There was once a time, not so long ago, when Americans disagreed over policy but shared a common love for country. That time has passed. Today, it feels as though we are not simply two parties or political factions, we are two different nations coexisting uneasily within the same borders. The...
- 79
Trump/Clinton....Are U happy to be an american with these odds?
by Dwight Phoenix 9 years ago
Trump/Clinton....Are U happy to be an american with these odds?If Hilary wins america would have traveled back in time to the 1990s (bill clinton) and you'll probably be lied to everyday.If Trump wins he could start a War.Choose wisely..........................
- 38
Should Ds Filibuster Gorsuch or Wait For the Next Nominee?
by Scott Belford 8 years ago
My thought is No, they should go ahead and filibuster Judge Gorsuch now and not wait. The fear of filibustering now is that the Rs might use the "Nuclear Option" - using a simple majority to change Senate rules to eliminate filibustering for Supreme Court nominees; just as Democrats...
- 125
Are right-wing extremists destroying America?
by promisem 6 years ago
Well, yes. The answer is obvious.1) They oppose background checks and other gun laws so mentally unstable people can buy assault rifles and commit mass murders like in Orlando and Connecticut.2) They favor multi trillion dollar wars chasing weapons of mass destruction that don't exist instead of...