Charlie Kirk dead
Now the Right culture warriors are going after our national security in a big way. They are now checking what our service members think and say and if isn't full on support for Kirk's hate speech, they will be punished. Who would want to join an organization who does that?
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/15/politics … kirk-postsI will also sign an executive order to immediately stop all government censorship and bring back free speech to America.” - Donald Trump, January 2025
LMAO
As we are on the brink of trump sanctioned TV...."Late Night with Laura Loomer"To me, free speech is absolute.
Should you have read the federalist papers you'd realize there was a fear among the founding fathers of the government controlling how people spoke freely in public.
Should people in the military be punished for saying negative things about Charlie Kirk? Like a Captain once told me, you put on the uniform, you take everything that goes with it. When you wear the uniform, you don't represent yourself, you represent the branch of the service you are in and ultimately, the United States. I've seen soldiers disciplined for this and it is the way it is when you serve in the military.
Should Kimmel have lost his show? Should Colbert have lost his show? I'm okay with this as long as it is done by their employers and not the government. Should employers have the right to fire employees who write say things the company doesn't like in public? Absolutely.
My only concern is that the government not be involved.This horrified me and I don't want that to happen in my country.
British comedian’s arrest for social media posts about transgender people sparks debate
The arrest of comedy writer Graham Linehan in Britain over social media posts about transgender people has sparked a debate about freedom of speech and its limits.
Supporters of Linehan say U.K. laws are stifling legitimate comment and creating what “Harry Potter” author J.K. Rowling –- like Linehan, a critic of trans activism –- called “totalitarianism.”
Others argue that online abuse and hate speech have real-world impact and police have a duty to take it seriously. London’s police chief said ambiguities in the law had left officers “in an impossible position.”
Arrested at the airport
Linehan, the co-creator of beloved 1990s sitcom “Father Ted” and other shows including “The IT Crowd,” says he was detained by five armed police officers on Monday at Heathrow Airport as he returned from Arizona.
Linehan, who has been outspoken in his assertions that trans women are men, said on X in April that trans women were violent criminals if they used women-only facilities. He advocated people “punch” them if calling police and other measures failed to stop them.
The post came days after the head of the U.K’s Equality and Human Rights Commission said transgender women would be excluded from women-only spaces such as toilets, single-sex hospital wards and sports teams. The decision followed a ruling by Britain’s highest court that the terms “woman” and “man” refer to biological sex for antidiscrimination purposes.
Another post by Linehan referred to trans-rights protesters and said “I hate them.”
The Metropolitan Police force didn’t name Linehan but said it had arrested a man in his 50s at the airport on suspicion of inciting violence in posts on X.
https://www.al.com/news/2025/09/british … ebate.htmlSounds like conservatives in the US, doesn't it? Just ask Kimmel.
No, sounds like the left. In this country, the left will kill people who say something they don't like about transgender people.
Germany seems like a very scary place for free speech.
If you've ever dared to read the comments on a social media post, you might start to wonder if civilized discourse is just a myth. Aggressive threats, lies, and harassment have unfortunately become the norm online, where anonymity has emboldened some users to push the limits of civility. In the United States, most of what anyone says, sends, or streams online — even if it's hate-filled or toxic — is protected by the First Amendment as free speech. But Germany is trying to bring some civility to the world wide web by policing it in a way most Americans could never imagine. In an effort, it says, to protect discourse, German authorities have started prosecuting online trolls. And as we saw, it often begins with a pre-dawn wake-up call from the police.
It's 6:01 on a Tuesday morning, and we were with state police as they raided this apartment in northwest Germany. Inside, six armed officers searched a suspect's home, then seized his laptop and cellphone. Prosecutors say those electronics may have been used to commit a crime. The crime? Posting a racist cartoon online. At the exact same time, across Germany, more than 50 similar raids played out. Part of what prosecutors say is a coordinated effort to curb online hate speech in Germany.
Sharyn Alfonsi: What's the typical reaction when the police show up at somebody's door and they say, "Hey, we believe you wrote this on the internet,"?
Dr. Matthäus Fink: They say-- in Germany we say, "Das wird man ja wohl noch sagen dürfen." So we are here with crimes of talking, posting on internet, and the people are surprised that this is really illegal to post these kind of words.
Sharyn Alfonsi: They don't think it was illegal?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/policing-s … ranscript/It was not just a private company doing. That's why some MAGAs, even loving the outcome, have critized the situation.
"This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney. We can do this the easy way or the hard way," Carr told right-wing commentator Benny Johnson that day. "These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead."
"They have a license granted by us at the FCC, and that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest," Carr said.
Hours after Carr's comments were reported by Johnson, Nexstar Media Group said its stations that are affiliated with ABC would preempt Kimmel's show "for the foreseeable future" because of Kimmel's remarks.
Nexstar is seeking regulatory approval from the FCC for its planned $6.2 billion merger with Tegna
About 10% of ABC affiliates are owned by Nexstar.
And today he said:
"I do think that again, we are in the midst of a massive shift in dynamics in the media ecosystem for lots of reasons, again, including the permission structure that President Trump's election has provided," the FCC chief said.
"And I would simply say we're not done yet with seeing the consequences of that," he said.And snowflake baby today:
“I have read someplace that the networks were 97% against me again, 97% negative, and yet I won and easily,” Trump said abroad Air Force One. “I would think maybe their license should be taken away. It will be up to Brendan Carr,” the chairman of the F.C.C., Trump added.
Freedom of speech in the U.S. is freedom from government censorship. No more, no less.
We have a FASCIST in the white house ...
Trump: “When you have a network and you have evening shows and all they do is hit Trump… They’re licensed. They’re not allowed to do that.”
This can not be normalized.This is the REAL reason Jimmy Kimmel no longer has a show and why Brian Kilmeade is still gainfully employed. This story is slowly being picked up by other news outlets.
Unrepentant Jimmy Kimmel refused to apologize after Charlie Kirk outrage — and planned to double-down on MAGA attacks: report
Late night host Jimmy Kimmel said he was unwilling to apologize for his remarks that blamed MAGA supporters for killing conservative activist Charlie Kirk — and said he was going to double down on attacking President Trump’s backers before he was yanked from the air, according to new reports.
Kimmel learned in a phone call from top Disney exec Dana Walden on Wednesday afternoon that his show was being removed indefinitely, Deadline reported, citing sources.
During the call, Kimmel reportedly refused to comply with calls from critics and the owners of dozens of ABC affiliate stations for him to apologize.
Disney, however, felt that if Kimmel had doubled down on his MAGA comments, the company would have been forced to make a more drastic decision than simply suspending the show, sources told Deadline.
https://nypost.com/2025/09/18/media/uji … k-outrage/LOL...GOT IT
Propose to kill a portion of the population, give a sorry ass explanation for it and ALL IS WELL IN MAGA WORLD....
I am absolutely flabbergasted... Let me apply the logic here..
So Jimmy would have been better of if he would have proposed murder as a solution to Maga and after millions of people heard it just apologize for it and he'd still have his job today....GOT ITA real grasp of logic would dictate
Jimmy Kimmel blatantly lied to his audience.
Jimmy Kimmel doesn't work for himself. He works for his network.
Jimmy Kimmel's employer told him to apologize and all would be well.
Jimmy Kimmel told his employer he would not and planned to do even worse.
Jimmy Kimmel's employer doesn't have to tolerate that from him or any employee.
Jimmy Kimmel's employer canceled his show. It is the network's show and not his. The employer was well within their rights to do such a thing. Jimmy Kimmel doesn't work for himself, he works for a network.
Jimmy Kimmel made a choice and experienced the consequences.
That is logic.Spoiler alert - Jimmy Kimmel was telling joke. It is Trump who is blatantly lying to YOU and the American people.
Here is the the real lie - ABC did not tell Kimmel to apologize.
And another - Kimmel's suspension had NOTHING TO DO WITH ABC "not tolerating" anything. What it had to do with was Trump's illegal threat to bankrupt them and that is all it was
And another - ABC did not cancel Kimmel's show.
Kirk made the choice to spread his hate and suffered the consequences.
That is logic without the ...Trump illegally threatened to bankrupt them.
ABC did not cancel Kimmel's show.
Charlie Kirk spewed hate.
These are the
F A C T S ?
["Jimmy Kimmel blatantly lied to his audience."[/b]
You mean like Pam went on camera and lied her ass off???
https://x.com/BulwarkOnline/status/1967763976063959073The false equivalence fallacy involves treating multiple situations or viewpoints as equivalent despite their significant differences.
Pam lied.... She went in front of the camera and blamed "the left" for Kirk's murder when Robinson had already been taken into custody. She chose to claim "the left" was responsible instead of the actual person who committed the murder...
Go ahead.... Explain the differenceThe left is made up of leftists. The assassin was a leftist. I am not sure how you consider that a lie.
Where's the evidence of that?... The man was not registered to any party. The man had never voted. The regime has not even put out any information concerning social media posts that he had made... Where is the evidence that shows he was anything other than someone who vehemently disagreed with Kirk's rhetoric? By Robinson's own admission he wrote "I had enough of his hatred". Where's the leftist screed?
And Pam? She knew the man's name.. he was in custody . For her to go in front of cameras with such incendiary rhetoric was absolute bullshit and so far beneath the office she holdsI guess you have not heard his love letters to his trans roomate? I guess you have not heard that his own family describe him as a leftist extremist?
His family absolutely did not describe him as an extremist... And sexuality is not an ideology..
Ain't that the truth... some people make it an art form.
Then if you know that, why do you keep doing it?
Kimmel openly lied---
Mike, That’s an excellent point. As I’ve mentioned, people ultimately choose who they want to listen to or watch on TV. The ratings over the past two years revealed something very interesting: many viewers simply stopped tuning in. One can only speculate why, but it’s clear that both shows lost a significant portion of their audience. In my view, Americans were simply not appreciative of the content they were being served. And it’s odd that some don’t consider that the owners of these networks aren’t there to push ideologies; they’re there to make money.
Also, I must add the FCC has rules... It would be wise for some to have a look at them. Here are a few ---
Key FCC Rules on Broadcast Content:
Obscenity:
Prohibited at all times. Broadcasting obscene content is illegal at any hour.
Indecency and Profanity:
Prohibited between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. when children are likely to be in the audience.
Indecent content refers to material that depicts or describes sexual or excretory organs or activities in a way that is offensive by community standards.
Profane content includes language that is so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.
Political Content:
The Fairness Doctrine, which required broadcasters to present contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues, was eliminated in 1987.
Currently, broadcasters are not required to provide opposing political perspectives but must adhere to specific rules regarding political advertising, such as providing equal opportunities for political candidates and allowing access to federal candidates.
False Information:
The FCC prohibits broadcasting false information about a crime or catastrophe if the broadcaster knows the information is false and it is likely to cause substantial public harm.
https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public- … hatgpt.comMy wife and I record the Jimmy Kimmel show every night because it is a late-night show. We then watch it the next evening. We watched the entire show last night. This is what he said about MAGA (not Trump).
“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.”
He then showed a clip of a press gaggle outside the White House, a reporter offered condolences and asked Trump how he was holding up after Charlie Kirk’s death. Trump responded by saying, "
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
…
Instead of addressing the loss directly, Trump pivoted to discussing the $200 million renovation project, including the ballroom and chandelier installation
Kimmel then responded with:
“This is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he called a friend. This is how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish.”
I ask everybody on this forum, does this warrant the indefinite suspension of comedian practicing satire? Does this really raise to the level of hate speech? How is this lying to his audience?
Trump is supposed to be a tough guy, but he has a very sensitive thin skin when it comes to people expressing their views about him. He will seek revenge and because of the power he has given himself, he can make life miserable for anybody who he perceives doesn't like him.
He also then introduced his guest, John Oliver who is a political satirist on HBO and has just won two Emmy's for his work. Look out John you are probably on Trump's, Carr's, and Bondi's hit list for hate speech and lying."Kimmel openly lied---
And what of Pam??
"Who killed Charlie? Left-wing radicals. And they will be held accountable."I guess the Pam's employer should pull her nighttime TV show. They should have a discussion with the FCC.
False Equivalence
Description: An argument or claim in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not.For instance, lets say someone is hired to be a devil's advocate and then they start talking about the benefit of angels ... what would happen to this employees job?
Why don't you comment on my post about what Kimmel really said on his show. Are you afraid to read it? Because it is the truth as recorded? It's not some BS from the radical right. He did not lie to his audience as the radical right is trying to frame it. Just educate yourself for once. (You can handle that right..cause you are a tough guy.)
"truth as recorded:" Esoteric
“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.”
Q. Who is the MAGA gang?
A._________________________
(He obviously took it too far.)My wife and I record the Jimmy Kimmel show every night because it is a late-night show. We then watch it the next evening. We watched the entire show last night. This is what he said about MAGA (not Trump).
“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.”
He then showed a clip of a press gaggle outside the White House, a reporter offered condolences and asked Trump how he was holding up after Charlie Kirk’s death. Trump responded by saying, "
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
…
Instead of addressing the loss directly, Trump pivoted to discussing the $200 million renovation project, including the ballroom and chandelier installation
Kimmel then responded with:
“This is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he called a friend. This is how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish.”
I ask everybody on this forum, does this warrant the indefinite suspension of comedian practicing satire? Does this really raise to the level of hate speech? How is this lying to his audience?
Trump is supposed to be a tough guy, but he has a very sensitive thin skin when it comes to people expressing their views about him. He will seek revenge and because of the power he has given himself, he can make life miserable for anybody who he perceives doesn't like him.
He also then introduced his guest, John Oliver who is a political satirist on HBO and has just won two Emmy's for his work. Look out John you are probably on Trump's, Carr's, and Bondi's hit list for hate speech and lying.Where are the Trumpers? I guess they are afraid to read the truth about the Jimmy Kimmel show. Where are Sharlee, RMN, and Ken. I would like to put this to bed with the truth.
We already quoted (I did for certain) that entire bit, commented on it, debated it... you are days late to the party.
That said. ABC... Disney... whoever has the right to fire who-ever they want, for whatever reason they want.
Tucker Carlson was fired because FOX was sued for his commentary... seems ABC/Disney isn't interested in going down the same road... so they fired Kimmel before he cost his company millions.
Personally I think Kimmel is just another dumb-ass making millions not being funny on late night... what is really ironic is he has done everything the Leftists typically get outraged about... from blackface to denigrating women sexually... he is a moron with a platform, I could care less about him.I am glad you brought up Jimmy's early escapades.
"will be pre-empted indefinitely," ... fired... semantics?Facts first, yes he was.
He was given a chance to apologize for what he said and refused.
So, he was then fired.
People Power, Gosh, I’ve shared my views—I was actually the first to post on this thread. I’ve done my best to respond when approached and to jump into conversations where I could. At this point, I’m not sure what more I can add, and I don’t like feeling repetitive. It seems you may be looking for something beyond what I can honestly agree with.
"I ask everybody on this forum, does this warrant the indefinite suspension of comedian practicing satire? Does this really raise to the level of hate speech? How is this lying to his audience?
Trump is supposed to be a tough guy, but he has a very sensitive thin skin when it comes to people expressing their views about him. He will seek revenge and because of the power he has given himself, he can make life miserable for anybody who he perceives doesn't like him." People Power
A man has been killed—a very prominent figure that many people loved and followed politically. That alone raises the stakes in this discussion. When Jimmy Kimmel claimed that a group of people—MAGA supporters—were trying to shift the blame elsewhere when, according to him, “it was one of them,” that was more than just satire. It was pointing the finger at millions of Americans who had nothing to do with the crime.
Does that kind of statement warrant an indefinite suspension? Many would say yes, because it doesn’t just mock an individual in a comedy skit, it assigns collective blame to a huge political movement in the wake of a tragedy. That’s not only insensitive, it edges toward incitement by singling out a large group of Americans and suggesting guilt by association. My God, face it, Trump won; he did so due to a majority of voters. Kimmel enraged millions.
Does it rise to the level of hate speech? Legally, maybe or maybe not. But it absolutely feeds division and hostility. And as for “lying to his audience,” if there’s no proof that the suspect was affiliated with MAGA, then Kimmel was spreading a narrative that misleads viewers, with a blatant lie. That’s a serious charge, especially for someone with a national platform.
I ask, and I know it will fall on deaf ears--- what if Trump said this?
“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the Democrat 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.”
Would you not be furious? I changed one word...
Trump often gets accused of being thin-skinned, but this situation goes far beyond his personal feelings. The real issue is whether it’s acceptable for a late-night host to exploit a man’s death to vilify millions of Americans for political gain. 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. Otherwise, what is someone like me supposed to think? I think you know I call balls and strikes. And I had sort of thought you do to.
“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.”
That is a blatant lie.
Charlie Kirk's murderer was anything but a member of MAGA. Far from it.
All Kimmel had to do was come out and apologize for this like his employer asked him. That was it. He chose to defy his employer's wishes and his show got suspended. Kimmel could have his show today but he chose to defy his employer and paid the price.
Don't forget his employer also has rights.
"(You can handle that right..cause you are a tough guy.)"
I don't know about that. I'm just a guy who has faced a lot of things in life worse than words on a computer screen. Has nothing to do with being tough but having things in proper perspective.
I'm sure you could make it a little worse with some effort. You're just throwing softballs here."Charlie Kirk's murderer was anything but a member of MAGA. Far from it."
Was he murdered by a "leftist" as Bondi very clearly stated on camera?"Was he murdered by a "leftist" as Bondi very clearly stated on camera?" willow
Yes, he actually was, if one considers who has been spreading horrific rhetoric and lies since Trump came onto the scene. Oh, the leftists are well responsible for Kirk's death.But where's the evidence? The man wasn't registered to a party, the man never voted and as of yet, absolutely nothing from his social media points to him being a part of any "leftist" organization or even any such rhetoric... And what does Trump have to do with any of this???
The man clearly stated he had had enough of Kirk's hate...
"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."
What is Trump have to do with any of this?
Robinson murdered Kirk because of Kirk's own words... Simple as that.
And Barbie blamed "the left" even if the man was a Democrat.. how would that even equate to becoming a murderer.?Hey, I’ve shared my view, and you’ve repeated yours ad nauseam. Yeah, my comment was pretty clear.
I really am sickened by those who use silly labels. Yeah, to include Trump too --- saved you some time. \
I repeat --- Sharlee01 wrote:
"Was he murdered by a "leftist" as Bondi very clearly stated on camera?" willow
Yes, he actually was, if one considers who has been spreading horrific rhetoric and lies since Trump came onto the scene. Oh, the leftists are well responsible for Kirk's death.What is Trump have to do with the murder of kirk?
and what proof does Barbie have that Robinson was a "leftist"??
A quote from your post...
"When Jimmy Kimmel claimed that a group of people—MAGA supporters—were trying to shift the blame elsewhere when, according to him, “it was one of them,” that was more than just satire. It was pointing the finger at millions of Americans who had nothing to do with the crime."
Barbie pointed the finger at millions who had nothing to do with the crime....
What proof to you have that Robinson was a leftist? As far as I know he was a middle of the road kind of guy who registered unaffiliated and supported Trump in high school. Doesn't sound very leftist to me. Why does it to you?
Proof? I owe you nothing, nor do I need to defend my views repeatedly. I see that your perspectives are very different from mine, and I find many of them problematic.
Why isn't the regime putting up the proof? Pam looks absolutely ridiculous blaming "the left" for the actions of one man who was apparently not driven by any ideology. And folks want to clutch their pearls over Kimmel's statement.. give me a break. If you're okay with pam, you should be okay with Jimmy.
I think the left look absolutely ridiculous for living in a state of denial.
It's sad.Where is the proof of Pam's claim that a leftist killed Kirk... There is not a bit of difference between her statement and Kimmel's. Yet I'm supposed to only be outraged at his words? Hypocrisy
Pam made a statement that she couldn't back up with proof. Yeah, SAD... I think also sad and embarrassing that she obviously believes many magas don't need actual proof...just accusation that fits their narrative. Does she think maga's are stupid???
How many "rightists" are gay?
There are or were 36 members of congress that are/were gay. 7 of them were Republicans or "rightists". One independent and 28 "leftists". That's an indication - the large majority are "leftists".
How many gay "rightists" have a mate that is transgender?
No stats, my guess is precious few, if any.
How many gay rightists with a transgender mate are angry enough over their party's stance to kill one of it's leaders?
You follow the trend and give your best estimate. Not the one that makes your point for you; an honest guesstimate.How many gay and or transgendered people choose not to belong to a party? Choose to not adhere to a political ideology? If that's Pam's argument, it's an insult to intelligent people everywhere. What a disingenuous argument.
I'm talking about real tangible proof of the man's ideology? She made a statement to millions that Kirk was killed by the left... With not a shred of evidence linking him TO ANY IDEOLOGY WHATSOEVER.
What are Robinson's OWN words and statements that go to his motive?
Not following your logic at all.. so because the man may have been gay or lived with or had a relationship with the transgender person it means that he adheres to all leftist ideology? And that because he is a follower of so-called leftist ideology he is therefore likely to be a murderer?
Is it at all possible that the man had no political leanings whatsoever? Like so many in this country... And that he was solely motivated by Kirk's words and views alone?
Being gay or transgendered does not automatically mean you are a participant in any political party or ideology...Dan, I am posting the link to AG Bondies full interview so anyone truly looking for context. facts can have a look see....
https://abcnews.go.com/US/video/attorne … hatgpt.com
Can't believe you are bothering with the repetitiveness. Got to give you credit.
This is nothing more than a power grab by Sinclair, Trump, and Carr to take Kimmel off the air and replace him with 30 of Sinclair's affiliates. Damn be the First Amendment Rights.
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.I was reminding Willow that she was being repetitive regarding the particular statement Bondi made, which she keeps bringing up to me. I have shared my opinion on it many, many times, so I’m not sure where this diversion is headed. I have also shared multiple perspectives on everything you just mentioned. I’ve been overly blunt on the subject and feel there’s nothing more I could possibly add. I understand that some may not agree with the views I’ve expressed, but I can only say that I do not appreciate repetitiveness or browbeating.
It is clear that AG Bondi attributes blame to a segment of the left. She has been forthright about her views, and it is important to recognize that she is exercising her right to free speech. My research shows that ABC News did not publish a full transcript of Bondi’s interview regarding Charlie Kirk’s assassination. However, I located the live interview and will provide the link so anyone interested can hear the complete conversation and all of the context for themselves. The media coverage offered only selective quotes, omitting the full context and the questions that prompted her statements.
While some may run with a single sentence, I choose to rise above, always striving to approach the conversation thoughtfully and fully.
I listened to the complete interview.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/video/attorne … hatgpt.com
Please stop diverting my conversations and bothering me with your repetitive posts.There is absolutely nothing in her statement that adds context to her claiming that left wing radicals murdered Kirk.... Nothing.
In fact, she sounds so ridiculous praising Patel... ROBINSON'S PARENTS TURNED HIM IN...Patel didn't do a damn thing.
Where is the missing context to Pam's attributing Robinson to the left??? Where is the context that makes her statement truthful?
ANYONE?
Pam failed to provide the context needed.. PROOFShar,
Attorney General Pam Bondi's views are in line with the Governor of Utah and other law enforcement officials. I agree with Attorney General Pam Bondi and I feel confident in saying so do most reality based thinking people.What are the details that any of these people are giving to substantiate such claims? What party did Robinson belong to? What was the last election he voted in and who did he vote for? What statements has he made online that contain extremist political views?
Even if the man had some political leaning either way, what does that have to do with a choice to murder??They know they can't answer those very good questions of yours, so they put their blinders on and ignore you.
Mike, I have said before, and I stand by it, radical left rhetoric was responsible for Charlie’s death. This rhetoric was fueled by Democratic members of Congress, amplified by left-leaning media, and spread across social media by those who had no respect for the truth. My God, a man died. In my view, nothing can change my mind that it was the radical leftists who spread lies and endless “what ifs.” What I see here is more of the same: pure whataboutism. That mindset has only fueled more hate—“what if,” “this could happen.” I still see it happening on this forum today. So tell me, do you really believe you’re going to change minds this way? Have you changed theirs? Can they change yours? Because I can assure you—they won’t change mine.
I dont agree, rhetoric did not kill, the Robinson man did. How many massacres and crimes can I blame the radical right ideology and rhetoric for, while you blame mental illness or otherwise the evidence against a rightwinger is unsubstantiated?
I believe the Right is using this boy (at 22 not much more than that) as a scapegoat to agitate other righties to “circle the wagons. This kid is hardly the mastermind tool from the left that Righties say that he is.
If blame can be so easily assigned, it is as I say, our society is in a state of unraveling as we speak. We will believe as we want, rhetoric does not kill. On the idea of personal responsibility, that your side always heralds, how does turning a thinking adult into an automaton really make sense, as an explanation?Cred, I hear what you’re saying, but let me point out a few things with clarity and common sense. First off, your response is classic whataboutism. Saying “well, how many massacres can I blame on the right?” doesn’t answer the direct concern, it just deflects. Wrongdoing isn’t excused by pointing to other wrongdoing. It just can't.
Yes, we’ve seen right-wing political violence, and it’s been condemned. But that in no way excuses the many political crimes we’ve also seen from the left. The left, in my view, seems unable to take criticism when it comes their way, and they don’t seem to learn from ignoring it.
I think you’re contradicting yourself. On one hand, you say this young man is “hardly the mastermind tool from the left,” but in the same breath, you acknowledge that our society is “in a state of unraveling.” That unraveling, in my view, is fueled by rhetoric; words matter because they set the environment.
You accuse others of using this 22-year-old as a “scapegoat.” But ask yourself, why is pointing to the radical rhetoric that influenced him “scapegoating,” while your position excuses the rhetoric entirely? That’s projection. You’re dismissing the very real role words play, while blaming the Right for “circling the wagons.”
What I’ve noticed, and again, this is my view, is that some on the left don’t seem able to grasp something very important. Many of us on the right are more apt to respect others’ views, even when we oppose them. The left, however, often seems to struggle with that. Take this very thread, for instance: what I see is an unwillingness to accept that others hold different perspectives. That’s fine, but at least respect the view, even if you strongly disagree.
Instead, too often the response is to browbeat—lacking a better word—with the same repetitive points. This adds nothing new to the conversation. That in itself says something. Still, the pattern is clear: repetitive arguments, and finally, diversion when faced with facts or questions that can’t be answered directly.
Your argument about “personal responsibility” doesn’t hold up. Of course individuals are responsible for their actions. But pretending that radical rhetoric doesn’t contribute to how people act is ignoring reality. Common sense tells us ideas can shape behavior, always have, always will. To deny that is to deny how propaganda, hate speech, and manipulation have historically led to violence, whether from the left or the right.
So no, this isn’t scapegoating. It’s holding accountable the poisonous rhetoric that sets the stage for tragedy."But pretending that radical rhetoric doesn’t contribute to how people act is ignoring reality."
In order to have that reality, you'd have to have proof of such.... Until that point it's not a reality.
The only pretending going on is from some on the right... Pretending, without a shred of evidence, that this murderer was a "leftist"
Where is the evidence that leftist rhetoric set the stage here??"But ask yourself, why is pointing to the radical rhetoric that influenced him “scapegoating,”
What exactly is the rhetoric that influenced Robinson??? And how do we know it influenced him??... many people look for what is possibly more true than what is presented. No matter who presents it.
https://youtube.com/shorts/56mUZU53Pl8? … TfP3fSDzM2
Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Candace Owens.
Is it antisemitism? Is something there? Both?
No, it is not about “whataboutism” but instead, what it is all about.
But if wrongdoing is ignored from one side of the political spectrum yet condemned from the other, that smacks of hypocrisy.
Has rightwing political violence which constitutes 75 percent of violent public acts since 2001 been condemned? Conservatives address this “with prayer” and determination to misdirect the blame from themselves and their ideology.
Yes, our society is in a state of unraveling because certain people and groups want to shred the first amendment. That dismissing constitutional prescriptions is what I mean by unraveling. After all the mayhem the right has been directly responsible for over the last 25 years, they never consider curtailing their speech or organizations that put out all of that Right wing bile, but they want to muzzle the left and its opinions. Hypocrisy?
Censorship of word and ideas have to climb over a high bar and that is the way that it should be. So what if this Robinson ascribed to left wing ideas, what right does Trump and his people have to censor left wing advocates and prosecute people not directly related to the crime? There has yet to be proven any sinister sort of conspiracy to kill Charlie that involved the Left. In my opinion, Trump and his goons are using this tragic event to muzzle the press, media sources of all dissent and opposition.
That might be an odd concept for conservatives, but the idea is that extremists from either pole need to be treated in the same fashion.
I dont see the Right as so accommodating of others, not at all. While i accept your right wing views and attitude, there can be no compatibility between those and mine. In addition, advocating of racism from the Right is automatically non-negotiable.
The world is full of opposing rhetoric, for the rightwinger anything left of center is radical. I consider the political right as “radical”. If we use any excuse like a young man, an adult, that made a choice to kill based on what he heard on television, radio and on line, only the conservatives react by cutting the media sources while accepting the firearms proliferation.
Sorry, your view is a subjective one and does not begin to address the magnitude or threats from the Right to engage in censorship that is completely unwarranted
In my opinion….."rightwing political violence which constitutes 75 percent of violent public acts since 2001"
show stats maybe?https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/r … data-shows
Right-wing extremist violence has been deadlier than left-wing violence in recent years.
READ MORE: How recent political violence in the U.S. fits into ‘a long, dark history’
Based on government and independent analyses, right-wing extremist violence has been responsible for the overwhelming majority of fatalities, amounting to approximately 75% to 80% of U.S. domestic terrorism deaths since 2001.A lot can be said, but that is for another time and place.
Thanks.Why anyone would think that conservatives should accept anything from a group that wants Biden as president? It is very easy to make up stats and compose polls to show what you want, and it would not be the first time that someone at a "news" organization like PBS invented numbers.
Are there any real independent organizations that back this up?With an attitude like that why should progressively oriented people accept anything from a Trump worshipping Rightwinger?
What you are saying is that facts dont matter and the truth can only be that which you manufacture.
Another source:
https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/ho … -SD008.pdf
How many excuses have you got left in your medicine bag, Doc?Cred,
The problem with these studies is they don't define what is a right-wing extremist. I saw one study where a man committed an assault on a relative. He was labeled as a right wing extremist because he wore a T-shirt that had a Confederate flag on it. Hardly proof of political motivation.
The other problem is that most of left-wing violence isn't counted. The CATO study you often cite has some serious flaws. Remember all the death and destruction from the George Floyd riots? The study didn't include that as left wing violence yet included January 6th. There was an incident in Portland where a man wearing a MAGA hat was shot point blank and CATO didn't include that as left wing violence. Obviously this was left wing violence.
So, most of the studies are done by left-wing researchers serving an agenda instead of the truth.
I have yet to find an unbiased and honest study on it.Yet people on the right would have us believe, without evidence, that Robinson represents "the left"....
That all is pretty convenient, Mike.
Are we equivocating again? Can there ever be a truth when your side consistently deny factual evidence? Again, looking at the big picture, how many fatalities were involved when virtually millions of people were involved in peaceful protests on behalf of Floyd? When piling up the body count over the last 25 years or more, the rightwinger racks up the greatest number, hands down.
If you are not really interested in the truth then of course all of the “information” is biased. So, all the information available on the subject is leftwing biased, again that is a convenient excuse to deny factual data.
January 6th is a prime example of RightWing violence. From the standpoint of the Rightwinger any information contrary to what they want to hear or believe is biased, that why you people are so dangerous and in my opinion intractable and subsequently, non-negotiable. There can never be a meeting of the minds with a rightwinger on the other side of the table.
Cred,
I don't believe this report is very accurate.
I've looked at it and there is no definition for what they consider right wing.
Are they trying to say that the shooter at the Pittsburgh synagogue, Robert Gregory Bowers was a member of the right wing?
Hardly, he was a fervent anti semite and nothing more.
Are they trying to say that the 2009 shooter at Fort Hood, Nidal Hasan is a member of the right wing?
Hardly, he had conversations with Arab terriorists before the attack.
Then there is Omar Mateen who shot up the Pulse Night Club in Orlando. Are they saying HE was a member of the right wing? Not likely. Before the shooting he described himself as an “Islamic Soldier”
So, what exactly are they considering right wing?
These studies, including the one from the CATO institute are pretty flawed. The one from the CATO institute didn't include the George Floyd riots as left wing violence but will include Jan 6 as right wing violence. The CATO study also didn't include an incident in Portland where a man was shot point blank for wearing a Maga hat.
It seems these studies are very quick to label any violence as right wing and intentionally ignore left wing violence.
I would love to see an honest study done on this topic and not one created to serve the left wing agenda.Mike, anti-Semitism is a classic rightwinger flash point. Intolerance is the very definition of the political right.
I would agree that the Fort Hood shooter would not qualify.
I would have to agree with your assessment of the Orlando Massacre shooting.
Attacks on minorities, women, anti-government (Freeman of Montana during the 1990s) nativism (attacks on immigrants)
That Uvula Texas shooting had no ideological marker, so i cannot dismiss your concerns entirely, while the McVey incident in Oklahoma City clearly did.
I really cannot dismiss your points in their entirety. I will look hard for the definitive list that makes my point more clear."Mike, anti-Semitism is a classic rightwinger flash point"
I don't agree with that one. Gregory Bowers belonged to no political groups and no right wing organizations.
Here is a good article.
The left's political violence problem
It’s become dogma on the left that most of the political violence comes from the right. Most of the justification of this idea comes from various studies. However, given how hard it is to define right and left in modern politics, it becomes even more difficult to define these terms with regards to assassins and violent agitators since their ideologies are often unorthodox. This task gets even harder since political violence itself is often hard to define.
Perhaps the most cited study is the ADL study that shows that right-wing extremism is responsible for 76% of “extremist-related” murders while left-wing extremism accounts for only 4%.
So, how do they come up with this? Well, many of these murders occur in prison and hardly seem ideological. Many of these murders are committed against family members and have no connection to politics whatsoever.
At the same time, the study ignores Luigi Mangione killing Brian Thompson and the Covenant School shooting as being extremist murders. If all killings from white gangs are counted, and murders that are clearly motivated by ideology are not counted, it is easy to tip the scales to one side.
Pundits also cite the Global Terrorism Database, but this suffers from similar issues.
For example, the Las Vegas shooter is denoted as “Right-Wing.” Since we continue to know next to nothing about Stephen Paddock, it’s hard to understand why he is classified as right-wing, other than to pin violence on the right.
Contrast this with the Network Contagion Institute Survey, which shows that 56% of people “left of center” think that the murder of Donald Trump would be at least partially justified.
Or, the YouGov survey that says “very liberal” people are eight times more likely than “very conservative” people to say that the death of a public figure they oppose is always or usually acceptable.
Of course, these are just surveys and not actions. However, they may illustrate the attitude towards political violence.
The recent assassination of Charlie Kirk and repeated assassination attempts of Donald Trump certainly point towards left-wing political violence. This is often countered by citing the attack on Paul Pelosi by David DePape, the assassination of Melissa Hortman by Vance Boelter, or the attack on Josh Shapiro’s home by Cody Balmer.
However, the political affiliation or the motivation of the attacker is not always clear. Paul Pelosi’s attacker did claim to be “right of center,” although his motivation was debated.
Melissa Hortman’s attacker may have had conservative views, but he was also a Tim Walz appointee and apparently thought he we was helping Walz.
The man who set fire to Josh Shapiro’s house was clearly on the left and claimed to be a registered socialist.
People that sometimes gets left out of this discussion are James T. Hodgkinson, Rene Boucher, Shannon Brandt, Nicholas John Roske, David Jakubonis, Quintez Brown, Robert Telles, Audrey Hale, Genesse Ivonne Moreno, Anderson Lee Aldrich, Alec McKinney, Snochia Moseley, Dylan Jesse Butler, Devon Erickson, Robin Westman, and others.
The frustration of many on the right is even when the political leanings are clear, as is the case with Tyler Robinson, the left will not accept obvious ideologies.
The left has also shown violence apart from assassinations or lone killers.
Conservatives are not completely immune from violent demonstrations, and yes, January 6 was bad. However, it is not true that conservatives killed anyone at the Capitol building on January 6.
Compare that with the BLM riots of 2020, which caused mayhem in multiple cities for weeks. Of course, leftists defended these riots by saying “rioting is the language of the unheard”. Let’s not forget attacks on the pro-life pregnancy centers, or on pro-Israel protestors. Similar attacks on pro-choice or pro-Palestine demonstrators seem to be few and far between. Or, the attacks on Tesla dealerships, or the destruction at federal courthouses. Trump supporters were physically attacked at his rallies in 2016 and conservatives continue to be attacked on college campuses and churches. More generally, our cities, where most leftists dwell, see far higher rates of violence than the rural bastions of conservatism.
While leftists do not have a complete monopoly on political violence, there is a growing realization that the left has a violence problem. Hiding behind flawed studies does not change this. More and more, Americans realize they would be safer around a bunch of rabid Trump supporters than hard core leftists. The sooner the moderate left realizes this, the better off we will be.
https://chriscillizza.substack.com/p/th … ce-problemGregory Bowers belonged to no political groups and no right wing organizations.
Funny. Sounds familiar.Good for you, after investigating this man and his “so what” column, i could find no reason to assume he is biased. But he remains one alternative voice contrary to many, many others that say otherwise.
I need a list of major terrorist activity with a designation of right/left/or other to match apples with apples. I am looking for that.
Ok, prison and familial relations dont count.
Ok, Paddock was essentially a madman without political affiliation.
There is a difference in a poll of left wing oriented people verses propensity to take the action in favor of the death of Donald Trump. I cannot stand the man, but that does not mean that i would kill him.
If we can have these nagging doubts about the motives of Paul Pelosi’s assailant and Melissa Hortman’s murderer, whose evidence point to right wing ideologies as the foundation of the motive for the attacks, why are we SO certain that we can so accurately pin down the motivation of Robinson for killing Charlie Kirk?
There is no doubt that Pelosi’s assailant had a clearly rightwinger motivation in his desire to attack other prominent democrats.
It is ridiculous to present Hortman’s killer as anything other than rightwinger motivated as we all know with certainty that his desire to attack democrats was based on anti-abortion, what could be more rightwinger than that?
Ok, on the assessment for gov Shapiro assailant.
The January 6th 2021 assault on the capital building in Washington was pure rightwinger, who can deny that? They should not have been there in the first place and that rabble contributed to what deaths occurred among the security staff, that is not deniable.
When it comes to mass murder of supermarket patrons and that style of quickly accumulating body counts, the Right is far more guilty. Why wasn’t the ideology behind the Buffalo and El Paso massacres put under the lime light of scrutiny at that time? So, i really dont want to hear the Right get all indignant about the motivation behind the Kirk assassin.
As for safety, his assessment is just a matter of opinion, i dont like Trumpers and find them far more menacing than association with the enlightened left wing crowd."There is no doubt that Pelosi’s assailant had a clearly rightwinger motivation in his desire to attack other prominent democrats."
I would like to see some proof of that.I think that this should suffice, courtesy Wikipedia
——
After being Mirandized, DePape gave an interview to San Francisco Police Department officers in which he said he planned to hold Nancy hostage and that he saw her as the "leader of the pack" of lies told by the Democratic Party. He said that he considered himself to be fighting "tyranny" and likened himself to the American founding fathers.[9] DePape told the police that he planned to kidnap and interrogate Nancy, and would break her kneecaps if she "lied" to him, believing that by doing so, "she would then have to be wheeled into Congress" as a "warning" to other members of Congress.[25][43] He also told police that he was on a "suicide mission" and had additional targets in mind,[35] naming California governor Gavin Newsom, actor Tom Hanks, and Hunter Biden—the son of then-president Joe Biden—as prospective targets.[14]Also,
She starts by asking, "Do you know why you're in custody?"
DePape answers, "Absolutely." He grows increasingly angry and emotional, claiming that Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats committed crimes to steal the election from Donald Trump. Then, Depape says, "I was going to hold her hostage and get her to tell the truth. If she didn't tell the truth, I'd break her kneecaps."
How would you know if they are flawed or not? What is your expertise to make such a conclusion?
Well, since you were silent, I guess you agreed with me that you don't have the expertise to make that assessment and we should ignore your opinion.
Dont blame me for the liars in the main stream media. Your side has been teaching every person who is able to think to doubt any information they present. The Trump white house could come out with a cure for cancer and the leftists on this forum would come out and say that Trump is trying to to poison the citizens of the US. How dare you sit there and complain about conservative attitudes when you are sitting there festering in hatred every day?
I am certainly not expecting any of you to accept facts when presented by conservatives.
As far as what is in my medicine bag, there are things to criticize even in this report but you could even come up with something if you would bother to read critically instead of swallowing everything that they feed you. You will notice that the report is only for 2021, but what I would really like to see is the numbers for the first 6 months of 2025 where extremists from the left have been reigning terror on the citizens of the US.
I doubt any leftist think tank is going to come up with that report.
Of course facts matter. It depends on how you report them, of course, but I would have thought you understood that by now.
How many more excuses for the leftist violence and evil can you come up with now?You know as well as I you have have NO PROOF that MSM lies. In the RARE cases where they tell a falsehood, they admit it and write a retraction.
The same, of course, cannot be said of your right-wing news sources.
NO PROOF, NO BELEIF.Go ahead and keep providing those CNN links then.No one believes them, even most of the people on your side.
I think that most of us who know how to reason, use critical thinking and have some research skills can evaluate the information coming from ANY source rather than simply dismissing something due to its source. Crap can come from anywhere.
So if the Biden white house says that a million more jobs were created than was actually created you can tell that? I think it is a good idea to accept that things that come from a source like that are crap.
Obviously, you don't know how those reports work do you?
Someone has to provide the truth and CNN is as good as any other MSM source.
And NO, YOU don't believe them, all rational people do believe them, howerver.
What... are you telling me we didn't have the greatest economy in American history under Biden... like they were telling us?
Are you telling me the millions of jobs they reported being created... weren't really created under Biden?
I think you are a bit skeptical... why would they lie?
We have - many times. But here it is again since it bears repeating.
A simple question to ChatGPT will get you this horrific result:
Here’s the clearest picture you can get for the last ~10 years (2015–2025 YTD) from reputable datasets. The short version: right-wing/white-supremacist actors account for the clear majority of deadly extremist violence in the U.S. over the decade; left-wing incidents exist but are far fewer, and 2025’s high-profile case (Kirk) doesn’t change the decade-long pattern.
What the best data show
Deaths by ideology (approx. 2015–2024)
The Anti-Defamation League’s annual Murder & Extremism tallies indicate ~75–80% of extremist-related killings were committed by right-wing extremists, with Islamist next and left-wing a small share. A 2025 summary notes three straight years of declining totals but the same pattern of right-wing predominance.
Congress.gov
+1
Incidents/plots by ideology (longer view, consistent with last decade)
The Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) finds that in the U.S. right-wing attacks and plots have outpaced other ideologies for years and that since 2020 white-supremacist terrorists were responsible for most U.S. attacks and fatalities.
CSIS
+1
Government threat baselines
* DHS Homeland Threat Assessments (2024, 2025) repeatedly highlight racially/ethnically motivated violent extremists (RMVEs), especially white supremacists, as the most persistent and lethal domestic threat category.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
+1
* GAO notes FBI-opened domestic-terrorism investigations more than doubled since 2020, underlining the overall growth in DT caseloads.
GAO
+1
Protest-linked political violence (context for 2020)
ACLED’s US Crisis Monitor recorded 22,900+ demonstration/political-violence events in 2020 across the spectrum (police force use, militia activity, rioting, car-rammings, etc.). This is event-count data (not just terrorism) and shows how most events were non-violent, with violent events a small share—but present on both right and left.
ACLED
+2
ACLED
+2
A simple, decade snapshot (best-available synthesis)
* Fatalities (2015–2024): Roughly 450–460 extremist-related deaths; ~75–80% right-wing, ~15–20% jihadist/Islamist, ~3–6% left-wing/other. (Range aggregated from ADL annual tallies and summaries.)
Congress.gov
+1
* Incidents/plots (2015–2025): Right-wing dominates counts year after year; since 2020, white-supremacist actors are responsible for most attacks and fatalities.
CSIS
* Threat posture: DHS and the IC continue to identify RMVE/white-supremacist violence as the most lethal domestic threat category.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
+2
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
+2
About 2025 headlines (e.g., the Kirk murder)
Some RIGHT-WING media highlight a “recent rise” in left-linked violence after the Kirk killing. There is NO EVIDENCE of such a rise. BUT, even if 2025 left-wing incidents had ticked up, the 10-year pattern still shows right-wing as the overwhelmingly deadlier side of U.S. extremist violence. (Also note that Pam Bondi was so embarrassed by this that she had DOIJ briefly remove an NIJ summary emphasizing that far-right extremists have committed “far more” ideologically motivated homicides since 1990—consistent with CSIS and ADL.)
The Wall Street Journal
+1
Sources (mix of government, research, and high-quality trackers)
ADL – Murder & Extremism (annual series): right-wing accounts for the majority of extremist killings; 2025 brief notes continued decline in totals but same pattern.
Congress.gov
+1
CSIS – Escalating Terrorism Problem in the U.S. (2020) and Global Terrorism Threat Assessment 2025: right-wing/white-supremacist attacks and fatalities dominate recent years.
CSIS
+1
DHS – Homeland Threat Assessment 2024 & 2025: RMVE/white-supremacist extremists are the most persistent/lethal domestic threat.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
+1
GAO – Domestic Terrorism (2023): FBI domestic-terror investigations more than doubled since 2020.
GAO
ACLED – US Crisis Monitor (2020): 22,900+ demonstration/political-violence events, documenting the broader protest-violence landscape beyond terrorism.
ACLED
I hope that answers your questionI couldn't pass this up.
Trump's hyperbolic brain says last year almost 300 million of us died from drug overdose. We are all dead.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medica … ocialshareI just asked my wife if she is dead - she said no and that Trump is crazier than a loon. (Maybe she is one of the 34 million left alive, lol)
"Has rightwing political violence which constitutes 75 percent of violent public acts since 2001"
Would love to see the proof of this.AGAIN
What NIJ Research Tells Us About Domestic Terrorism | National Institute of Justice https://share.google/m1B4f0EWEd91I0dZDI just provided it to Ms. Hill.
Also, why don't YOU ever offer proof of anything?
Cred,
They want us at each others throats... I have been saying it for years... YEARS!
And I know... KNOW... I have said it to you many times before.
The BIGGEST threat... the BIGGEST chance of the Country getting on the right track... and instead of the Rich getting Richer and who ever is not yet totally poor soon becoming totally poor...
Is when you and I set aside our differences and work together to make our government do what WE the PEOPLE want it to do.
Bad times are brewing... but it isn't the Extreme Right Wingers that are going to be bringing them (tho I admit technically one extreme side or the other will gain enough control to start shoving the other side into Camps... and Ditches) ... its going to be the richest that fleece (they have already taken tens of trillions) the Nation dry... and then move on to their WTO.. WB/BIS/IMF... NWO and America is just like any other place where the masses are downtrodden and do whatever the State tells them to do, or else.God, I love this "Yes, we’ve seen right-wing political violence, and it’s been condemned. But that in no way excuses the many political crimes we’ve also seen from the left. The left, in my view, seems unable to take criticism when it comes their way, and they don’t seem to learn from ignoring it."
The Right-Wing does MOST of the political violence BUT, it is NEVER condemned by the Right. Why didn't she mention that?
Credence - You got this wrong "But if wrongdoing is ignored from one side of the political spectrum yet condemned from the other, that smacks of hypocrisy." It doesn't just "Smack of hypocrisy" it IS Hypocrisy.Your response, which I labeled as whataboutism, “how many massacres can I blame on the right,” is of course your view. But I don’t believe pointing to numbers on one side excuses or diminishes wrongdoing on the other. I’ve never argued that one side ignores its own faults, though I’ve noticed many people on both sides struggle to admit when their own camp is guilty. What I take issue with is the weighing and tallying of wrongs, as you did in your comment, as though a higher number makes one side more excusable. My point has been focused on one issue, one man, one crime; in my view, the vile rhetoric from the left is why Kirk was murdered. I try not to lump all political violence into one basket, but to hold each case accountable on its own.
I have to challenge your framing because it leans heavily on selective statistics and dismisses the broader reality. Yes, some data suggests that right-wing actors are responsible for a larger percentage of violent incidents since 2001, but raw percentages don’t tell the full story. The left has had its own share of political violence, from Antifa riots to attacks on federal buildings, to the targeting of individuals for their political beliefs. Pretending this doesn’t exist is intellectually dishonest. Violence is violence, and it cannot be excused simply because the other side has “more.” One act of politically driven violence is one too many, regardless of where it comes from.
You accuse conservatives of only answering with “prayer” and deflection, but that’s a caricature. Conservatives condemn political violence, and you’ll find countless statements where leaders have done exactly that. The real question is whether the left holds itself to the same standard. When leftist rhetoric fuels destruction in cities, assaults on law enforcement, and intimidation of political opponents, where is the outrage? Where is the accountability? The double standard is glaring: the right is painted as collectively guilty, while the left distances itself from its radicals and pretends their rhetoric played no role. That is hypocrisy.
On censorship, you imply Trump and conservatives want to silence all left-wing voices. That’s not the case. The concern is when rhetoric crosses the line into vilification, dehumanization, or open calls that could influence violence. You say Robinson’s left-wing advocacy had nothing to do with Kirk’s death, but when someone parrots the same extreme narratives pushed by media or political voices, it’s fair to question the impact of those words. Just as the left blames talk radio, Fox News, or Trump for inspiring violence, consistency demands we apply the same scrutiny when leftist rhetoric leads to bloodshed.
As for calling the right “radical,” that’s just labeling to shut down dialogue. Conservatives view leftist policies, open borders, defunding police, and weaponizing identity politics as extreme. Both sides think the other is radical, but using that as a blanket dismissal avoids serious debate. If the real standard is equality before the law, then extremists from either pole should be treated the same.
At the end of the day, censorship isn’t the answer. Accountability is. If rhetoric fuels violence, then both sides need to own up to their role instead of pointing fingers. To claim only the right threatens free speech while ignoring the left’s push to cancel, deplatform, and silence dissent is not just subjective; it’s disingenuous.
What rhetoric? Millions of people hear the rhetoric of the right and the left every single day and 99.9 do not base a murder upon it... And what of the man's own free will? The freedom to form his own thoughts? Robinson clearly stated that he had had enough of Kirk's "hate". But it's easier to believe that he was a part of the radical left because there's just no personal responsibility whatever, right?
Hardly!!!
I put your statement to ChatGPT, reviewed the answer, didn't see a need to edit it and so present it here as reality.
Short answer: they’re both Republicans, but no—Bondi and Utah Gov. Spencer Cox are not really “in alignment” in style or approach, and they diverge on some substantive points. Here’s the gist:
Temperament & governing approach
* Cox has built a brand around de-escalation and civility—his “Disagree Better” initiative at the National Governors Association and a TED-style message urging Americans to resist hate and tribalism.
National Governors Association
+2
Utah Governor's Office
+2
* Bondi, as Trump’s attorney general, is closely tied to an aggressive, retributive posture from the White House. Recent coverage shows Trump publicly pressuring Bondi to prosecute political opponents, raising concerns about politicized justice.
Politico
+2
AP News
+2
Speech & “hate speech” questions
* Cox’s public stance emphasizes protecting debate while lowering the temperature; he’s not campaigning to police lawful expression.
National Governors Association
* Bondi recently had to clarify remarks after suggesting a crackdown on “hate speech,” acknowledging DOJ can’t prosecute speech unless it crosses into unprotected categories like incitement—after criticism from First Amendment experts.
Axios
+2
The Free Speech Center
+2
Policy examples that show a different compass
* Cox vetoed a transgender sports ban in 2022 (legislature later overrode him), and he sometimes takes more measured positions even while signing other conservative bills (e.g., resisting federal Title IX regs in 2024). That record reflects a moderate/conservative balance.
Utah Governor's Office
+2
HRC
+2
* Bondi is portrayed as vigorously advancing Trump’s hardest-line priorities at DOIJ, drawing watchdog and media criticism for perceived weaponization.
PBS
+2
Common Cause
+2
Yes just as Attorney General Pam Bondi stated.
You are so biased that you can't even understand what he is saying. That was not a lie. Do you dispute the fact that the radical right is still trying to say that the shooter was motivated "by the radical left."
The shooter was motivated because of what Kirk said about his being gay and his partner in transition. He was enraged by that.
You and other Trumpers are still hoping that will be the final outcome. Trey has already confessed, but you just keep on hoping. There is no need for an apology. Do you deny that Trump had Kimmel suspended because of what Kimmel said about Trump's ballroom?
Why didn't you comment about the rest of my post? Was there too much truth for you to handle?"Do you deny that Trump had Kimmel suspended because of what Kimmel said about Trump's ballroom?"
Yep, no proof.
"Do you dispute the fact that the radical right is still trying to say that the shooter was motivated "by the radical left."
I think it's pretty obvious.
"Why didn't you comment about the rest of my post? Was there too much truth for you to handle?"
I have better things to do with my time. If I feel like being entertained, I'll respond. Otherwise, it's just not important.
Am I standing next to President Donald Trump inside your head?
Do you now suffer from RMN Derangement Syndrome (RDS)?
I am trying to see how the context of Kimmel's statement could be taken any other way but as it was said. It is really very disappointing to see anyone here skewing what he said.
I do feel the widow will sue Kimmel and perhaps the network for this statement. I just don't understand why Kimmel would say such a thing.
Maybe you could explain, in your own words the false equivalence?
I see two people who went before a camera to millions of people and made very, very similar statements... Explain how the statements are different...Not going to waste my time. Some concepts are just beyond some people's ability to comprehend.
It is obvious the USS democrat is a sinking ship.
'I am now a registered Republican': Social media confirms tsunami of voters fleeing Democrat Party
'Charlie Kirk' effect hits leftists when they already are flailing
Across states like Florida and New Mexico, "Voter registration offices are reporting unprecedented surges in people switching from Democrat to Republican. These are Americans who watched the left's reaction to Kirk's murder and decided they'd seen enough," the report said.
https://www.wnd.com/2025/09/i-am-now-re … -confirms/No surprise here, it was exactly as I suspected that it would be…..
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar … aign=shareOf course it is... It's just more leftist spin...
They are feeding you just what you are used to being fed. No surprise at all.
WSJ...
They’ Didn’t Kill Charlie Kirk
It insults his memory to blame political opponents for one man’s heinous act....
"...there has been a disturbing and growing undercurrent in our national conversation and on the internet, a pronounced emphasis on “they” and “them.” Charlie would be alive but for “them.” “They” killed him. “They” are responsible for his death. “They” must be made to pay.
No. Charlie Kirk wasn’t killed by “them.” “They” didn’t pull the trigger. One person did, apparently a young man driven by impulse and a terrible hate. If there were a “they” involved, law enforcement would find “them” and the justice system would hold “them” accountable. But “he” and “him” are the correct pronouns for this horrendous act.
Our culture is built on the principle that individuals are responsible for what they say and do. People can be influenced by words they hear and groups they’re part of. But we aren’t helpless automatons whose actions are dictated by others.
Using Charlie’s murder to justify retaliation against political rivals is wrong and dangerous. It will further divide and embitter our country. No good thing will come of it.
It is also an insult to his memory. Anyone who saw Charlie in action could see he had supreme confidence that logic, facts and appeals to history were the way to win arguments. Not thuggery, threats or silencing. He was in the business of persuasion. No one can have faith in the power of persuasion like he had without an inherent respect for people who might disagree. Earlier this year, Charlie appeared on California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s podcast. Though they disagreed on much, they spoke for more than an hour, free of vitriol and full of mutual regard. That’s the model to emulate.
Charlie will be honored at a memorial service Sunday at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Ariz. The president, vice president and secretary of state will be among the speakers. What they say there will reverberate. Our political system could become even more dominated by deep, dark obsessions. Or Sunday could be a moment when Americans see people of prominence remind us that our republic’s continuance depends on debating important ideas with both passion and mutual respect.
Above all, it needs to be repeated: Violence has no role in our country’s politics. Now or ever. Reasoned discourse is essential to our democracy. Charlie Kirk understood that. Let’s hope it’s a message his eulogists honor.
‘They’ Didn’t Kill Charlie Kirk - WSJ https://share.google/QmU8cGr0PyjoAoQ4e"But we aren’t helpless automatons whose actions are dictated by others."
Be careful; you will lost our liberal Identity Card speaking like that. Victimhood, blaming others for every ill under the sun, is the name of the game for them.
But overall, a well said statement. I like it.
A past response, concerning Erika Kirk's first public statement, offered a thought like, 'I bear no ill will toward a widow' (I could quote it, we know it's Cred's comment, but that detail isn't pertinent—beyond being a stereotypical male boomer thought), and it stuck around.
The thread has been true to its title. It's had the typical tangents, but none directed at the widow. Even though she's described as having the same views as her husband, she's been spared the hate. Is it civility, or a matter of exposure?
With recent Turning Points news, will she become as vilified as her husband? I bet we find out soon.
GAJeeeeze... What a terrible thought... that the extremists would target her next...to add an intolerable, unbearable, exclamation.
It will depend on her behavior and her exposure.
If she (unintentionally) offends people, who knows what will happen to her.
She should not make herself a target.
Unless she wants her kids to be orphans.Wanna bet that if she doesn't pick up Charlie's hate narrative, the Right will come after her themselves.
"vitriol" and "hate narrative" was not Charlie or the Right.
Why do you say this?I say it because it is true
* 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?” Is he talking about you?
* “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.”
That is pure evil coming from Kirk.Some just can't handle the truth of what is happening.
You are really something...
I appreciate you, more than you realize, its comedic therapy coming on here sometimes."I appreciate you, more than you realize, its comedic therapy coming on here sometimes."
That is too true!
Yeah, I didn't need to add that last thought. It distracted from the main point of the first part (old habits die hard, right?).
GAWell damn, it led me right to that thought...
Hadn't even considered that until then. What is so sad is that in today's world it's more likely than not you just had a Nostradamus moment.
Here is the difference between Erika (at the moment) and Charlie - she didn't preach hate while Charlie did.
She is apparently active in her faith and conservative values, but not with the vitriol of her husband. Hopefully, that doesn't change.
Also, one can hope she carries on the part of Charlie's work that was good, having a conversation between opposing views. So long as she can keep the hate out of it, all will be good.GA, you can quote it, I am not dealing with someone who spread vitriol around. If she has like opinions to her late husband, she has kept them to herself and away from the public square. On that basis, she is spared from my wrath.
A quote wasn't necessary; the thought was neutral, neither a criticism nor an accolade. What you do with your wrath isn't pertinent. The 'why' is.
The thought stuck around because, for me, it's foundational. My life environment was/is that of a non-city Boomer. It formed a belief that women, all women, come to my mind on a pedestal. They can lose it in an instant, but it comes as a standard feature.
The thought you presented sounded like it had a bit of that 'respect for womanhood' reasoning. Could that be a factor in the other boomer-age guys here that haven't attacked her?
Ladies, I'm too experienced (cowardly) to say what I think your 'whys' might be. ;-)
If the lack of attack was influenced as described, even knowing at the moment that Erika Kirk held and supported all of the concepts that her husband is vilified for, it's going to be tough validating future attacks simply because she says what you know she believes now.
I mentioned to Ken that I should have left out the closing thought of the first comment, because it is more appropriate as a closer here.
"With recent Turning Points news, will she become as vilified as her husband? I bet we find out soon."
GAMy wrath means that I will not attack her as I did and do her late husband.
There is some legitimacy in deference to women that come from my generation and the way we were raised. But if she were on the podium spewing the same stuff her husband did, I would have had to attack her with the same ferocity. Yet, I am a CITY boomer and some of those instinct of chivalry are found among us as well.
I don’t know what the future will bring as to whether the grieving widow will pick up the mantle that Kirk left behind. So far, she has stayed out of the fray as long as she does that, I will leave the widow and children out of it.Oh hell. I'm trying to play nice. No more snark, pokes, jabs, or prods. And then you leave one of your infamous 'open doors.' You probably did it on purpose, knowing I couldn't resist the temptation.
The devil's on my shoulder, grinning like a cat, and whispering: Come on, it's only a quick diversion, you remember how, we can switch back and pretend it didn't happen.
But the contradiction . . . You gotta close those doors; he almost won.
GA
"Vilified" to repeat his words? Pft!
Go get the hat.
Isn't it sad, Credence, that the right always calls the TRUTH, leftist spin.
Charlie Kirk (unintentionally) offended people. He caused feelings/reactions of anger and rebellion.
Why? How? Can we use his death as a cautionary tale for Erika?
Did the same thing happen to Jesus? Did his haters misconstrue his message in demanding his crucifixion?
Are many finally seeing the value of Jesus' teachings regarding our connection to the metaphysical world of heaven, which we are urged to bring forth on earth?
Was Charlie just trying to bring heaven to earth?
But was misunderstood?Jimmy Kimmel and Steven Colbert are free to go and be on any other show that will have them.
They could even start their own podcast, cable show, etc. if they really wanted to say their political views to the public.
That is free speech.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.”
Lol, yes they are allowed to do that, THAT'S FREE SPEECHQ. Do the employers not have the right to protect their ratings and reputation?
Do they not have the right to hold employees to their expectations of good outcomes and avoidance of BAD ones?
A. OF COURSE THEY DO!Does the government have a right to threaten and coerce a private corporation?
Who and what defines slander in Trump's world? . Trump uses slander every chance he gets, but since he is our dear leader, it doesn't matter.
Slander is very wrong. You wouldn't like to be lied about and your reputation ruined.
In Trump's case he has more than a lot to loose since he is trying to save our nation.
We sue for slander because it is very unjust to abuse freedom of speech in this way.But who is lying about him? What are the lies that you are referring to?
Oh my gosh is not a lie you are referring to. What are they?
Virtually anything Trump says about another person nowadays, lol.
You're ignoring the pressure Trump is placing...
You mean the alleged pressure by President Donald Trump. There is no real proof.
It doesn't matter.
When Kimmel's employers tell him to apologize, he has to apologize or suffer the consequences. He chose to go against his employer and he suffered the consequences of his decision. This is how things work in the adult world.Trump: "They give only me bad publicity or press—they’re getting a license, I think maybe their license should be taken away.."
https://x.com/LincolnSquareHQ/status/19 … 9532171502I know you wont care and will continue to ignore the facts, but for anyone else...
You mean the alleged pressure by President Donald Trump. There is no real proof.
"This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney. We can do this the easy way or the hard way," Carr told right-wing commentator Benny Johnson that day. "These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead."
"They have a license granted by us at the FCC, and that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest," Carr said.
Hours after Carr's comments were reported by Johnson, Nexstar Media Group said its stations that are affiliated with ABC would preempt Kimmel's show "for the foreseeable future" because of Kimmel's remarks.
Nexstar is seeking regulatory approval from the FCC for its planned $6.2 billion merger with Tegna
About 10% of ABC affiliates are owned by Nexstar."These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead."
YES! AND THERE WE HAVE IT.House Energy and Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), whose committee oversees the FCC, raised a red flag while speaking at an event Thursday. “Just because I don’t agree with what someone says, we need to be very careful,” he said. “We have to be extremely cautious to try to use government to influence what people say.”
“We all should be very cautious,” said Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.). “The conservative position is free speech is free speech, and we better be very careful about any lines we cross in diminishing free speech.”
Moderate Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said she had questions about Carr’s handling of Kimmel’s suspension. Asked whether it could set a problematic precedent if Democrats come into power, she said “yes.” "I do think it was very unusual for the head of the agency to issue what seemed to be very challenging comments."
“I personally think it would be best if Brendan Carr had just probably stayed off television yesterday and let the market do the work,” said Ingraham in an appearance on Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom.”
"I don't want the government to be involved with policing speech," Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told reporters. "The FCC should not be involved," he posted on X.
There are many more...
Btw, since MAGAs love him...
Conservative podcaster and former Fox News host Tucker Carlson has accused the Trump administration of using Charlie Kirk’s death to trample on the First Amendment, a concern that has been raised by many on the left.Sen. Ted Cruz on his podcast Friday admonished Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr for demanding ABC suspend Jimmy Kimmel’s late night show over comments regarding Charlie Kirk — calling Carr’s actions “dangerous as hell” and “right out of ‘Goodfellas.’”
"He says, 'We can do this the easy way, or we can do this the hard way,'" the senator said of Carr in the latest episode of his podcast, "Verdict with Ted Cruz," which aired Friday morning.
"And I gotta say, that's right out of 'Goodfellas,'" Cruz said, referring to the classic mob film.
"That's right out of a mafioso coming into a bar going, 'Nice bar you have here, it'd be a shame if something happened to it,'" he said.
“If the government gets in the business of saying, ‘We don’t like what you, the media, have said; we’re going to ban you from the airwaves if you don’t say what we like’ — that will end up bad for conservatives,” said the Texas Republican.
You really don't get it do you. I feel for you..
"And it’s odd that some don’t consider that the owners of these networks aren’t there to push ideologies; they’re there to make money...."
And did abc, disney, nexstar or Sinclair state that the show was put on hold due to ratings??
It's baffling why ratings continue to be brought up.
In a statement shared on social media, Sinclair cited “problematic comments regarding the murder of Charlie Kirk” in its decision. Andrew Alford, president of Nexstar’s broadcasting division, called Kimmel’s comments “offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse.”
Odd, no mention of ratings.
But the head of the fcc?
He gave the ultimatum that the company could "take action" against Kimmel the "easy way" or face "additional work for the FCC ahead".
Now we know that it was Trump's THOUGHT POLICE (the FCC Chair in this case) whose ILLEGAL pressure led to Kimmel being "suspended". Of course the apologists here bought and spread Trump's LIES that it was ratings related.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/18/entertai … comes-nextLetterman, the fired Colbert, and Jon Stewart come to the defense of Kimmel.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/19/entertai … n-intl-hnk
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/19/politics … ldn-digvid (for those who are fooled easily, Stewart is being sarcastic)Lets say someone is appointed to a post to distribute the blessings of angels,
but instead they distribute the curses of devils. They would not be fired, because they're in an appointed role. They could be removed from their position, but not "fired".What is your point? What does it have to with Kimmel telling jokes?
Some things don't have to spelled out. They are obvious. Its shocking when some people act like they don't have a clue.
Aren't we all God's children? Who can deny that? Not Charlie Kirk.
This thread and all threads here are about demonizing Trump. But Trump is God's child too. So many deep seated lies and hatred for Trump swirl and infuse the consciousness of so many people all over the world. I hear in Europe, he is also hated. Maybe things would be better if we didn't suspect attributes and actions about President Trump that are so tremendously terrible. Lies that he is out for himself, out for his own wealth and power. That he has done despicable things with women and such. That he is a racist, a fascist and a dictator who wants to destroy "Our Democracy." That he is a liar and actually a war monger to the contrary of what he says. That he is unhealthy and mentally unwell. That he is going to remain in office after his term is over.
~ when actually he has good intentions and cares about this nation, its health, it's safety and its prosperity... but I hear the barfing already, so, Finis."Aren't we all God's children?"
I don't agree.
After seeing the behavior of those on the left, I believe there is more than enough proof that many of Satan's children are running lose in the democrat party.
Don't forget, you get to choose who you serve. God gave us free will.
Many of those people have not chosen God.
So, what's up with Candace?
Apparently, some MAGAs think the Trump admin got it wrong.
*Edit: I dont know why my post was edited, but here we go again.Are you talking about this one?
https://x.com/siscostwo/status/1968948111948034400
She's got a few things going lol . I see she has also taking a stance on opposing the regime's crackdown on Free speechThis is the first time I watch that video. Apparently she's been questioning the government version for days. I've seen some of her videos.
And if you read MAGAs comments to her videos, she's not alone.Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon has expressed skepticism over the text messages allegedly sent by Charlie Kirk’s suspected killer to his roommate, telling viewers of his War Room podcast that he’s “not buying the script.”
“I’m particularly not buying those text messages, it just seems too stilted, too much like a script—actually, like a bad script. So we gotta get to the bottom of it,” Bannon told his viewers on Tuesday.
“I am absolutely not buying this.” he said.Steve is a bit... eccentric... and definitely has some Conspiracy Theorist DNA in him, which is often proven correct... but not always.
Big big changes happening to our world... the new deal with the UK...
The GENIUS Act... the sidestepping of serious oversight for Crypto...
People who keep focusing on these side issues... like Kimmel ... they are going to be blindsided by the serious changes around the corner coming to our economy...
2008 was the sniffles compared to how sick... 2027? .. pretty good guess, right after the midterms but before 2028.. will be for folks not prepared.
"She has been forthright about her views, and it is important to recognize that she is exercising her right to free speech."
LOL
The irony.
I cant. LOLBondi has been forthright about her views, and it is important to recognize that she is exercising her right to free speech." I offered a link to the full interview. Maybe take some time and listen to it. This woman spoke her truth, you don't care for it --- your problem.
I guess it is a lot easier to grab a one-liner from Bondi, but I'm not sure a selected blurb shares what one is attempting to share.Yes, "her" truth - but not the REAL truth. Remember, she, unlike non-federal employees, has a duty and obligation to actually tell the Truth (I tried capitalizing all that but it looked too much like Trump wrote it). If she lies as part of her official duties, she can and should be held accountable.
As it relates to her official duties, Pam Bondi generally does not have the protection of the 1st Amendment
Free speech for Pam but not for Jimmy... Incredible.
"Free speech for Pam but not for Jimmy... Incredible."
This is one of the most incredible things I've seen posted in a long time.
My friends are going to enjoy reading this one.
The inability to understand a situation is absolutely unbelievable.Pam and Jimmy made nearly identical statements in meaning... Both attempted to claim Robinson belonged to a particular group... Without evidence.
But again.... What does belonging to a particular party have to do with a proclivity to commit murder??Keep it going.
Everyone is enjoying these responses.What does belonging to a particular party have to do with a proclivity to commit murder??
They were in no way the same. AG Bondi had information about the crime and did not say anything untrue—her statements aligned with what was being shared by the Governor, the FBI, local police, and even several family members. Kimmel, on the other hand, had no knowledge, no inside evidence, and offered only an opinion that wasn’t supported by anything, not even by left-leaning media.
Jimmy.. he's one of yours
Pam... He's one of yours.
At the time the governor shared his statement, there was absolutely no evidence of Robinson belonging to an extremist group...none
Meanwhile, it looks like he may very likely belong to a third group...
Part of the millions that don't give a shit about ideology and don't subscribe to or live their life by one...Shar,
I thought there was a chance what you said could be understood.
If that happened it would stop all the fun.
Thank goodness it doesn't seem like that will ever happen.
Every indication so far is that this was one guy who murdered Kirk because he found his ideology personally offensive....Pam or Kash have come up absolutely empty in their attempt to link Robinson to left-wing groups.
This, willowarbor, could actually be true. Furthermore, his father turned him in with too scant evidence. Why was he without a gun on the building? How could such a gun been stored in his pants? How could he take apart and put back together a 30odd6? How could such a gun not blow off Charlie's head? Where was the bullet? Why did Charlie fall to the right, rather than straight back? Why was the bullet hole so small? The crack of the gun was not loud enough for a 30odd6? Charlie had been wondering about and letting others express their views in support of Gaza about Israel's role against Gaza.
ULP.
Warning: Conspiracy Theory where there is a second shooter on the building under construction off to the side which is taller. Two "shooters / snipers." Only one with a gun. The other, a poser and a patsy.
We might as well let it go. We'll never know the truth ...
for years.
PS The texting style to the room mate was unrealistic / atypical for someone born in 2003.What i heard is that the bullet struck Charlie in the chest and that his bullet proof vest was struck and changed the trajectory of the bullet to his throat.
I am open to correction if that was not what happened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6zPjo5VogcThere is evidence he was not wearing a vest.
We are being pitted against one another. We are being played.
Its enough to make you withdraw from politics altogether.
I can't stand it. Sometimes I am aghast at the evidence against Trump.
If he is bad as you all say, I feel sorry that you know.Why do you feel sorry that we know about Trump's corruption?
On an aside... how did you feel about Biden's corruption?
How do you feel about the 'insider trading' that Congress gets away with?
Was Trump around pulling strings when Americans got fleeced in 2008?
Biden was... Pelosi was... Schumer was... how about their corruption?If i recall, the 2008 meltdown occurred during GW Bush’s watch, so you blame Democrats for that as well?
I do not blame sides... both sides were responsible for NAFTA... for Glass Steagall being repealed... for the bailouts of Wall St. "too big to fail" so lets fleece America...
The system is corrupt... it does not answer to the people... now we find out, did Trump read the distress of the people and use it to his advantage to make himself and his family as rich as any other elite we know about?
Or will he actually help the American people?
If he does both... in the process of making himself immensely wealthy he also helps 'Make America Great Again'... I am fine with that.
If he doesn't... we will know that as well by 2027...
I see some very scary things out there... things that are making me work to get ahead of the changes like I have never had to work (mentally) before...
But the cards have been delt... whatever Trump is going to bring is beyond anyone stopping... other than Trump himself.
Absolutely no one has Biden or Pelosi on their mind when they get an energy bill that has increased since the Trump regime came into power. I don't think anyone gives a shit about Pelosi or Biden when they walk through the grocery aisles... No one is going to give Biden or Pelosi a second thought when the ACA premiums skyrocket . That's the reality out here on the streets Ken...
An astutely accurate and on target statement...
The people... "on the streets" ... as you say... will blame the top dog...
We could go into the depths of why that is... but that is irrelevant really.
Another saying is true however "Give them bread and circuses, and they will never revolt."
What is also true... that Class conflict has been replaced by Race and Gender conflict... for the benefit of the truly elite & wealthy that have no allegiance to any particular country, creed, race or religion.
https://www.hamptonthink.org/read/class … ty-of-marx
I'm confused. Didn't Tyler confess to his father when confronted?
Now, he is not confessing he did it. Now, he is on suicide watch.
Remind me.. who has Robinson voted for?
Is he a registered Republican or Democrat?
Robinson's online activity, which there is a shit ton of, does it evidence extremist political views and statements?
Which extremist group or groups does he belong to?More freedom...
News outlets, lawmakers condemn new Pentagon restrictions on journalists
The policy requires reporters to pledge they won’t gather any information that hasn’t been expressly authorized for release or risk losing their media credentials.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s new mandate prohibiting reporters from obtaining military or defense information without Pentagon approval — or risk losing their press credentials — was met with condemnation from media organizations and lawmakers in Washington.
The new policy, drew criticism from both parties, with Rep. Don Bacon (R-Nebraska) delivering a sharp rebuke. “This is so dumb that I have a hard time believing it is true,” Bacon wrote on X. “We don’t want a bunch of Pravda newspapers only touting the Government’s official position. A free press makes our country better. This sounds like more amateur hour.”
“Asking independent journalists to submit to these kinds of restrictions is at stark odds with the constitutional protections of a free press in a democracy, and a continued attempt to throttle the public’s right to understand what their government is doing,” a New York Times spokesperson wrote. “This is yet another step in a concerning pattern of reducing access to what the U.S. military is undertaking at taxpayer expense. Our journalists will continue to report the facts deeply and fairly.”
“NPR is taking this very seriously,” its editor in chief, Thomas Evans, wrote in a statement. “We’ll be working with other news organizations to push back. We’re big fans of the 1st Amendment and transparency and we want the American public to understand what’s being done in their name.”
The pushback to the Trump administration’s new policy comes at the end of a heated week free speech in America.Twitter Kept Entire ‘Database’ of Republican Requests to Censor Posts
When the White House called up Twitter in the early morning hours of
September 9, 2019, officials had what they believed was a serious issue to report: Famous model Chrissy Teigen had just called President Donald Trump “a pussy ass bitch” on Twitter — and the White House wanted the tweet to come down.
But former Trump administration officials and Twitter employees tell Rolling Stone that the White House’s Teigan tweet demand was hardly an isolated incident: The Trump administration and its allied Republicans in Congress routinely asked Twitter to take down posts they objected to — the exact behavior that they’re claiming makes President Biden, the Democrats, and Twitter complicit in an antifree speech conspiracy to muzzle conservatives online.
“It was strange to me when all of these investigations were announced because it was all about the exact same stuff that we had done [when Donald Trump was in office],” one former top aide to a senior Trump administration official tells Rolling Stone. “It was normal.”
The voluminous requests often came from high-ranking political appointees working in different departments, offices, and agencies in the Trump administration. But during both the Trump and Biden presidencies, these types of moderation requests or demands were routinely sent to Twitter by the staff of influential GOP lawmakers — ones with names like Kevin McCarthy and Elise Stefanik.
Over the years, the knowledgeable sources say, staffers for Republican officials would regularly flag to Twitter content that they believed violated the app’s terms of service or other policies, including on spreading “misinformation” or “disinformation.”
Stung By Twitter, Trump Signs Executive Order To Weaken Social Media Companies
President Trump signed an executive order Thursday aimed at limiting the broad legal protections enjoyed by social media companies, two days after he tore into Twitter for fact-checking two of his tweets.
The president's latest confrontation with Twitter was set off after the tech company placed fact-checking warnings on two of his tweets that claimed, without evidence, that casting ballots by mail allows for voter fraud.
The president, who often uses Twitter as a megaphone to tout his victories and blast his critics to his more than 80 million followers, said Thursday that if he had the legal authority to do so, he would completely shut down Twitter.There has been much-ado about nothing regarding what is Right-Wing. We ALL know what that means, save for one maybe.
On the technical/legal side it is:
How researchers/agencies define right-wing in the U.S.
CSIS (terrorism database):
Right-wing terrorism = violence by non-state actors whose goals include racial/ethnic supremacy (white supremacy), anti-government/anti-authority ideologies (militia, sovereign citizen), nativism/anti-immigrant, anti-abortion, sometimes misogynist/incel-linked motives. They explicitly separate this from religious (e.g., jihadist) and left-wing categories.
CSIS
DHS/FBI (official threat categories):
They don’t use “right-wing” in statute; they use buckets like
RMVE/WSE = Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremists, esp. white-supremacist extremists;
AGAAVE/MVE = Anti-Government/Anti-Authority Violent Extremists (militia, sovereign citizen);
Abortion-related, etc. Functionally, RMVE-WSE + AGAAVE is what most researchers mean by “right-wing.”
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
+1
ADL, START, CSIS (trackers) all map “right-wing” to roughly those same white-supremacist + anti-government families, distinct from Islamist and left-wing/anarchist.
Congress.gov
+1
Where your examples land
Robert Bowers (Tree of Life synagogue, 2018)
DOJ, AP, PBS, and academic analyses detail his white-supremacist and explicitly antisemitic ideology (Gab posts, Nazi/white-power tropes). In every major dataset, that places him in the right-wing / white-supremacist category. Being a fervent antisemite is part of that right-wing typology when it’s embedded in white-supremacist ideology. - What Credence said.
AP News
+2
PBS
+2
Nidal Hasan (Fort Hood, 2009)
Classified in research and government accounts as Islamist-inspired / religious terrorism (contacts with Anwar al-Awlaki, self-described “soldier of Allah”). Not right-wing NOR left-wing in these schemes.
GovInfo
+1
Omar Mateen (Pulse, 2016)
Swore allegiance to ISIS during the attack; FBI/DOJ transcripts reflect jihadist framing. Again, not right-wing NOR left-wing in standard coding.
Department of Justice
+2
Federal Bureau of Investigation
+2
Why “right-wing is ill-defined” comes up
Different labels, same bucket. Agencies avoid the partisan term “right-wing,” preferring RMVE/WSE and AGAAVE. Researchers (CSIS, ADL) use “right-wing” as shorthand for those same ideologies. That naming mismatch can make it feel fuzzy if you’re not looking at the methods page.
Mixed/blurred motives. Some attackers have compound grievances (personal + ideological). Datasets still code by the dominant, evidenced ideology—hence Bowers → white-supremacist (right-wing); Hasan/Mateen → jihadist (religious).
U.S. GAO
Bottom line
“Right-wing” is defined in the major datasets as white-supremacist and/or anti-government extremist ideologies (plus a few adjacent subtypes), separate from jihadist and left-wing categories. By those definitions: Bowers = right-wing (white-supremacist); Hasan and Mateen = jihadist/Islamist, not right-wing.
CSIS
+2
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
+2
HOWEVER -
In common parlance — outside of government threat assessments and terrorism datasets — “right-wing” is a broad political label, often used loosely, sometimes imprecisely. Here’s how it typically works in everyday speech and media:
1. Political Spectrum shorthand
* Right-wing is often used to mean conservative, Republican-aligned, or on the right side of the U.S. political spectrum.
* In this sense, it covers mainstream conservatives (e.g., pro-market, small government, traditionalist values) as well as farther-right factions.
* Journalists may say “right-wing lawmakers” to mean Republicans with more conservative views, not extremists.
2. Common media usage for extremism
* In coverage of violence or extremism, “right-wing extremist” is used as shorthand for groups/actors motivated by white supremacy, anti-government militia ideology, nativism, or similar causes.
* That’s narrower than “all conservatives” but broader than just “Nazis” or “KKK.”
* Because of this overlap, some hear “right-wing” in extremism reporting and think it implicates the whole conservative movement — which is why people like Mike argue it’s “ill-defined.”
* 3. Contrast with other terms
* Far right: Used more often now in newswriting to distinguish extreme/violent movements from mainstream conservatives.
* Alt-right: Popularized around 2016 to describe white nationalist internet-based activism; now less used.
4. Why it feels fuzzy
* The word “right-wing” has different scopes depending on who’s speaking:
* Everyday politics: basically “conservative.”
* Security/academic analysis: white supremacist, anti-government, nativist violent extremists.
* Rhetoric/partisan use: sometimes stretched to smear all opponents on the right, or conversely denied by critics who say extremists are “just criminals, not right-wing.”
But in terms of the studies that use the term, it is violence by non-state actors whose goals include racial/ethnic supremacy (white supremacy), anti-government/anti-authority ideologies (militia, sovereign citizen), nativism/anti-immigrant, anti-abortion, sometimes misogynist/incel-linked motives.Giving kudos to Charlie where it is due. I trust Van Jones, African American CNN commentator. Pretty gutsy of Kirk to offer a meeting of the minds with an experienced adult, no BS professional representing my side, not just with a bunch of LDS college freshmen. I still think that Kirk’s position and ideology stinks, but at least he was not afraid to be challenged in a public forum regarding them.
Could he possibly be the conciliatory source so many on the right says that he was?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/lib … 11319.htmlHe might be. He certainly was open to discussion, and discussion of the reasonable kind. No need for name calling, lying, insinuations, etc.
The question I would ask, and I have no idea of the answer, is whether he is willing to compromise or does his evangelicalism prevent that. Will he accept abortion for other people while not accepting it for himself? May other gay people marry, or would he ban it for everyone? If a person wishes to change their sex (or pretend to) will he allow it or ban it because he feels it wrong for himself? Will he back off his idea that his religion should run the government?
Would Charlie demand that all submit to what he thinks his god wants or do they get to make their own lives without interference (as much as possible - any time two or more people live in close proximity there will be friction).I dont see any trace of the “libertarian” style conservatism in Charlie’s style or campaign. He is part of the group that believe that we all should hunker down to the same set of Judeo-Christian principles, as the Christian Right designates, compelling us all through government to comply.
Yes, that is the question. I don't know the answer and, given your known huge bias against anything from the right, I cannot simply accept your statement. I haven't listened enough to Kirk to know for myself; perhaps the future will change that.
I have to say, though, that as I sit here listening to the celebration of his life in Phoenix my opinion is shifting more and more to your side.Yes, i have a general bias toward the Right, but somewhat less with libertarians who generally support standard conservative Republicans as the lesser of two evils. However, Libertarians have points of policy that I could agree with where normally eternally divergent lines exist between me and standard conservatives. I find that with the Libertarian type, key intersections in our normally differing paths where they and the Left are in agreement. It is summed up in a “just leave us alone” attitude toward government.
I see more of that kind of conservatism in the mountain west. I saw a lot of that in Montana when I lived there.So do I, but that bias is built on experience. The way, as I am showing in my book on it, their actions have shown that I need to be biased.
BTW - Credence, I am having a battle royale with ChatGPT on getting Chapter 3 correct. That is why you haven't see an update.
Sorry to say, the polite Kirk is more or less a myth. He and Newsom did have a reasonably cordial interview - but apparently, that is the exception rather than the rule when the opponent isn't of the same mindset as Kirk. Here is what ChatGPT turned up.
Short take: sometimes, in long-form interviews or friendly venues, yes, Kirk can be polite and reasonable.
BUT, As a rule across his public work? Not really. Charlie Kirk’s style was often combative and polarizing—especially on campuses and social media—mixed with occasional cordial, “let’s-debate” moments (apparently that didn't happen much but his supporters and defenders think so).
Why that’s my read (with examples):
Cordial settings exist. In long-form, ideologically friendly conversations (e.g., Jordan B. Peterson’s podcast), Kirk often stayed measured and conversational.
YouTube
+1
But the core brand was confrontational. Major reporting describes his campus strategy as turning universities into culture-war battlegrounds, using tactics like TPUSA’s Professor Watchlist and highly charged exchanges to galvanize supporters. That’s not “no name-calling/insinuations”—it’s intentionally provocative.
The Guardian
Frequent misinformation/conflict online. Kirk repeatedly pushed false claims (e.g., about George Floyd, human-trafficking stats, and other topics), drawing fact-checks and corrections—hard to square with “reasonable discussion” as a norm.
Wikipedia
+1
Bottom line: He could be civil in certain formats, but his overall public persona—especially at campus events and on social platforms—was far more combative than consistently cordial or “reasonable” in the sense your quote suggests.You depend too much on ChatGPT.
It's almost like you want to avoid thinking for yourself.Oh, give me a break! I can say the same for you and your sources - although given you never offer any, it seems you are just making stuff up without any foundation.
I don't think anyone is questioning his ability to have used the speech he used.... At least I'm not.
Some can't or ever will understand who Charlie Kirk was. Many who smear him even here have admitted they did not know him or follow him.
Some may not, but after lengthy research, I certainly do.
Quote
“Stoning gay people is God’s perfect law.” Said during a June 2024 podcast with Jack Posobiec, referencing Leviticus
“Trans people are to blame for inflation.” Claimed on an April 2022 podcast episode, without evidence
“The Civil Rights Act was a huge mistake.”
Argued it led to government overreach and quotas
“The Great Replacement is not a theory—it’s a reality.” Echoed a white nationalist talking point
“There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected.” Defended extreme speech under the First Amendment5And to be more precise on the stoning of gays thing.
Kirk, in characteristic fashion was belittling Ms. Rachel, host of a very popular toddler's show that my great-grandson watched avidly, when she celebrated Pride Month with a message - Leviticus 19:18 (“love your neighbor as yourself”).
Apparently, that upset Kirk and he responded with "“In a lesser reference — part of the same part of Scripture — in Leviticus 18 … ‘thou shall lay with another man shall be stoned to death. Just saying.’” - JUST SAYING??? My God, what a sick, vile, and ungodly individual.
Your belief doesn't make it true, especially when it is a lie (I am referring to the first line.)
"Your belief doesn't make it true"
I guess it is that way for both of us.No, it isn't. My belief is based on truth. If it is not true, I don't believe it.
"My belief is based on truth."
It is based on your truth and nobody else's.There is only one truth, not mine, not yours - just the truth as supported by the facts.
I don't anyone on the left has the ability to grasp either.
Again, you only have your interpretation of what is hate speech.
It is subjective.
I could consider the things you've said about Charlie Kirk at hate speech."I could consider the things you've said about Charlie Kirk at hate speech" Mike
I agree — ECO has made statements that are far from factual, and in my view, that’s exactly the kind of thing that fuels hate. Spreading mistruths to tear someone down from behind a keyboard is one of the main ways hate takes root and spreads.
Mike, I must ask, why are you communicating with those who are clearly baiting you? I had to ask. I mean, by answering their posts, the mud here gets deeper and deeper. Does this comment appear to you as someone who respects your views?
"I hope those of you on the Right take this to heart and change your ways - "Spreading mistruths to tear someone down from behind a keyboard is one of the main ways hate takes root and spreads". ECOName ONE (that I didn't take back when pointed out).
Silence, according to Mike, means there aren't any that you can name and you are guilty of what you are accusing me of.Shar,
Like a wise man once said, "Just when you think the democrats on the left can't get any lower they start digging."What a wise man once said, "All your BS about Kimmel was for naught." Kimmel is back on the air. I just can't wait to hear what your reply is.
I’ve already shared my view regarding Kimmel, and I have nothing to change or repeat.
You know, I don’t play “gotcha” games. I feel I’m above that. I’m a conservative, a serious person, and I rarely change my opinion when I see something I feel was out of line or someone using their words to slander another, just because they have a forum to do so. To be honest, I went back to watch Kimmel’s words live on YouTube, and what struck me this time was his demeanor, it was gleeful. His words, his tone, even his eyes were glassy, as if he was getting some sort of excitement from what he was saying. I see a bit of this kind of gleefulness on social media. I mean, and for lack of a better word, it makes me feel… creepy.
"What a wise man once said, "All your BS about Kimmel was for naught." Kimmel is back on the air. I just can't wait to hear what your reply is." PPI have found that conservatives can't handle comedy or political satire. I have many conservative relatives who are that way. Several of them still have flip phones, because that can't adapt to change.
Trump makes me feel creepy every time he opens his mouth.
Trump turning Kirk's memorial into a political speech....it's ALL about him... It's absolutely grotesque.
I have been working on this since Kirk was murdered by someone who didn't like his hate speech.
This particular chart is based on hate crime data, mostly from the FBI although, under Trump, they have made it much harder to come by (gee, I wonder why).
The first thing to understand about this chart is that it counts crimes based on sexual orientation, until 2013, and sexual orientation plus gender identity crimes (SOGI) after that.
The second thing to understand is that it is the floor, the true numbers are much higher. Why? Because the FBI relies on state agencies to report them and they don't do a fantastic job at it. You also have states like Mississippi who say they don't have SOGI hate crimes on their state.
The elephant in the room, of course, is what happens starting in 2015. The crimes just keep increasing until 2024 when they fall for the first time in years.
There are reasons for that, of course, and I am looking into them now. One is that SOGI hate crimes seem to increase when things happen in the news that creates attention. An example is California's Prop 8 on gay marriage. Lot's of reporting and hate crimes increase. Another is Covid, all sorts of crimes increased during Covid including SOGI crimes. A third thing that can drive the numbers is how many agencies do or do not report in a given year.
I am running analysis now to account for those variables. But the TRUTH remains, not my truth, but the real truth, is that SOGI crimes have been skyrocketing since 2015-2016.Erika Kirk publicly forgives the man who killed her husband. “I forgive him because it is what Christ did,” she said. “The answer to hate is not hate.” Everyone stood in applause...
Trump...."I hate my opponents"
Really lovely ...I am glad Erika did, she seems true to her faith.
I seriously doubt Charlie would since he did everything Jesus frowned on. And, of course there is senile Trump who can't put two sentences together without telling a lie and putting his foot in his mouth.Ah, the absolute and complete ignorance of the left is always expected but still surprising to see.
Trump made a typical ugly political speech.... He hates his opponents, everyone loves tariffs, they're coming out with some wacky ideas on autism, "left wing lunatics"......the same crazy schtick. The man couldn't rise above his narcissism for a memorial...
The man dedicated to making your children sick or dead from preventable diseases compares Charlie Kirk to Jesus Christ. Can you imagine that, comparing him to the man who would frown on what Kirk ultimately said and stood for.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/21/us/video … igvid-vrtcThe memorial was quite a display... But I think Stephen Miller stole the show. He turned the event into a propaganda rally, recycling Goebbels’ "storm" rhetoric from 1932... This man is a dangerous zealot and I think he is pulls Trump's strings.
Absolutely, he lives in Trump's head rent free. along with Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro, Susie Wiles, and Brendan Carr. They all pull his strings.
Trump dishonors what Kirk said he stood for (and his wife actually does) by bluntly and deliberately signaling that forgiveness and unity were for others, and that he’d use Kirk’s assassination to intensify his efforts to impose personal power even more ruthlessly.
What a shameful and shameless caricature of a man.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/22/politics … l-analysisThe most believable part of his speech... The hate is palpable, you can hear it in his voice.
https://x.com/Ronxyz00/status/1969898536692224112
He has a consistent history of hate though... Back in July...
"They hate Trump, but I hate them too. I really do, I hate them. I can’t stand them.".
https://x.com/ReallyAmerican1/status/19 … 8600392823
He really is a very ugly, small, hateful manWhile he wears a hat that says United States of America. What a friggin hypocrite!
Probably his ugliest performance in recent history. The man has hate in his heart
He doesn’t know how to honor anyone else because he doesn’t care about anyone else. He doesn’t understand grief, or empathy, or decency... this performance made that abundantly clear
Tsmog, you there? Someone wrote you closed your hubpages account. If so, we will miss your voice of reason (and poems).
Hubpages may die due to corporate greed it seems. Its owners appear to be abandoning it.Democrat's 2028 Nominee?
https://x.com/RealSaavedra/status/1969073792409387340If Mamdani's term as mayor goes well...AOC will have shot in the primary. Otherwise I think her age will play against her.
and her sex and her color. 40% of the country only wants a White Male Protestant as president.
"and her sex and her color. 40% of the country only wants a White Male Protestant as president." ECO
Really -- I would have just said her being really dumb was enough.
Dumb?
"The Amish have no autism"
True or false?
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/19 … 9477947595Oh boy, I heard Trump at that presser. Once again he was worse than Biden - it was truly embarrassing to listen to. I think he beat his own record, maybe four lies a minute this time - of course I need to give him a bread since he repeated the same lies multiple times as he struggled mightily to think of something new to say.
That health care briefing today had to make Bill Cassidy and Susan Collins damn proud of their votes to confirm RFK Jr....MY GOD
Well at least while selling out the public health of a nation they avoided a mean post from Trump on Truth Social....
Priorities, right?
The presser was an incredible flood of stupidity...Here is a hoot - I asked ChatGPT this: Is anything Trump said at that presser true?
Now remember, ChatGPT doesn't have a problem telling me I wrong.
What was its answer? "Short answer: on the core health claims, no—they’re not true" ROFL.
The subject was AOC. Your frequent diversions say so much about you. They really do. I have shared that I wish you would pass my posts by. I can't get personal due to site rules. But I truly can say I find you bothersome. Why not converse with those you have more in common with?
I agree...
I'll be damned, that's two posts in one week where I agree with you.
I think her pairing up with Sanders during the Harris campaign was positioning her for this.
I think Sanders was more popular than Clinton or Biden... but the corrupt, criminal, cabal that has long had a stranglehold on the Democratic Party (if not all of DC) wanted their nominees... and in the process they did considerable damage to the Party, not that I think they care, they got what they wanted... trillions of dollars and a world at war.
I think its funny that people believe the country is so racist and sexist... it was more than a decade ago when Obama won, destroying that myth... that has been recreated with a vengeance since then.... almost as if he wasn't President for 8 years.
She is perhaps not the best speaker... but she is WAY more articulate and capable of putting one sentence in front of another than Harris was.
She comes across as way more believable... unlike Harris who went in whatever direction the political wind was blowing... or Clinton who couldn't hide her disdain for the common people of America.Must chime in--- But will stay on subject
I’ve thought about AOC as a potential presidential candidate, and honestly, I don’t see her as someone who could win a national election. For starters, her political experience is extremely limited; she’s served just a few terms in Congress. That’s a very narrow background when you’re talking about running the entire federal government and navigating complex foreign and domestic crises.
Then there’s her policy approach. All of her proposals are far left; one only has to look at her voting record and what she has tossed her support behind.
From Green New Deal-style programs to extremely high tax policies, it would be extremely difficult to implement and would alienate the middle class and even moderate Democrats. While they sound appealing in speeches, the practical implications are massive, and voters tend to respond negatively when they feel the policies are unrealistic or too radical.
Her communication style is another issue. She often uses social media and rhetoric that energizes her base but also polarizes the broader electorate. For a presidential candidate, you need to build coalitions across regions, parties, and demographics, and her current approach makes that very difficult.
Finally, I think her record on compromises and governance shows inexperience. A president has to negotiate with Congress, foreign leaders, and state governments; it’s not just about calling out opponents or making bold statements. Based on her history, I don’t see evidence that she has the experience, temperament, or intelligence to handle the pressures of the presidency.
In short, I think her combination of limited experience, radical policy positions, polarizing style, and lack of demonstrated governance skills would make her a very weak candidate in a general election. Her age will also be used against her.You've literally just described Trump....to a T
Ken, Honestly, I feel like the Democrats have nothing to offer in 2028. Their extreme ideologies have dug them into the mud where they belong, and they have no candidate who could genuinely appeal to a broad majority of Americans. Meanwhile, their far-left element, with its big, loud, and often unintelligent mouths, will keep pushing the same radical ideas that sunk them in the first place. It’s almost laughable. I predict we’re going to see a promising midterm, and once that energy hits, we’ll be off and running. The momentum is on our side; they will not recover from the mess they’ve made of themselves.
I watched the video, oh my, what can one say? Only AOC, please just keep keepin on. I mean, what a piece of work. Dumb does not suit the word I am looking for, but it will do.If the Trump administration does not get a hand on the inflationary pressures still in the economy or stagnation in available jobs, the Democrats wont have to do much to have favor during the next coming midterms. Trump’s slight of hand regarding redistricting will not be enough to save him.
While economic challenges such as inflation and job growth can influence midterm elections, it’s important to consider the broader context. When President Trump entered office in January 2025, the U.S. inflation rate was 3.0% and the unemployment rate was 4.0%. As of August 2025, the inflation rate stands at 2.9% and the unemployment rate is 4.3%, indicating a relatively stable economic environment.
Regarding job growth, recent data indicates that the U.S. labor market added 911,000 fewer jobs than initially reported for the 12-month period ending in March 2025. These figures reflect adjustments from the period before President Trump’s second term began in January 2025. Since then, the administration has implemented policies aimed at stimulating job growth, including tax reforms and regulatory updates.
In terms of redistricting, efforts to redraw U.S. House districts before the 2026 elections have led to political adjustments at the state level. Redistricting is part of a broader strategy to ensure fair and effective representation across all districts.
Many economists are feeling that we will see a growing economy in the next year.To the majority of people none of that will matter or be remembered during the 2028 election... by majority I mean 98% or so...
That is just the way it is...
The state of the economy... if it really goes south nothing else will matter.Ken, I get what you’re saying, the economy is always a huge factor, and for a lot of people, it tends to overshadow everything else. That said, I don’t see it quite the same way. I think, how to say this… we’ve come very near to the abyss with the far-left ideologies being pushed, and that could scare a lot of people across the political spectrum. While the economy definitely matters, voters also notice leadership, foreign policy, and how crises are handled. These kinds of cultural and ideological shifts stick with people, and I think they will matter when it comes time to vote in 2028. I also think the game has changed. Every day, we see a political party dish up more rhetoric that does not correlate with our morals, our American values, or, in some cases, basic decency.
Freedom of speech is a bigger factor. Nice try at distraction.
"Freedom of speech is a bigger factor. Nice try at distraction." PP
Hopefully, free speech is something the Democrats have in their toolbox for the next election. My party, on the other hand, is at a turning point. We’re working hard to break historic records in voter registrations, courting young people who will follow us, and offering them a stronger agenda, which includes free speech, a real chance to thrive, and to be proud of their country. I’m genuinely stoked by everything I’m seeing happening at my party right now.
Trump will not be stopped; he learned well the first time around. And he is on a roll.Sure, you will get free speech on Fox News because that is where Brendan Carr goes to talk about the plan to silence the MSM. Trump and he define what is hate speech and what is not.
Free speech and the First Amendment matter a lot to everybody. It's one of the pillars of democracy this country was founded on. Without it the economy does not matter.
- yeah... well... good luck to the MSM convincing anyone not in lockstep with their Leftist spin that Trump is a threat to their Free Speech...
We all remember where our 'Free Speech' was going until Elon Musk bought Twitter... now X.
We can all look over to Canada or the UK and see where the Left has taken it...
UK free speech crackdown sees up to 30 people a day arrested for petty offenses such as retweets and cartoons
https://nypost.com/2025/08/19/world-new … ensorship/
Canada To Imprison Anyone Who Has EVER Posted ‘Hate Speech’ Online
https://www.eurocanadians.ca/2024/05/ca … ech-online
And the economy ALWAYS matters... being able to eat ALWAYS matters...It's not about Canada. It's about the U.S. Nice try, but it didn't work.
Being able to speak freely also matters. It's cost us a lot more to eat because of Trump's tariffs and his terrible economySure... you want to make it about the U.S. ... and ignore the weight of the argument in the process... well we need to look no further than California to see where the Leftist lunacy will take us:
Gavin Newsom and California Democrats rammed through an online censorship bill
PENALTIES
- If you post something on social media anywhere online that the state of California deems to be hateful, there's a penalty for that reckless violation, a civil penalty of up to $500,000.
- For an intentional, knowing or willful violation, a civil penalty of up to $1 million
“SB 771, passing the Assembly on September 10th, 10 days ago. Then on September 16th, passing the Senate completely under our noses, which means right now, all that stands between complete statewide government censorship is Gavin Newsom's signature”
“I exaggerating about how bad this bill is? No, I am not. Here is the actual bill. You can pull this up yourself on the state's website.
The Bill's called SB 771. It's called Personal Rights Liability, Social Media Platforms.
In Section 2, Title 23 of the Bill, it defines the penalties for breaking this new California law
- If you post something on social media anywhere online that the state, the State of California deems to be hateful, there's a penalty for that reckless violation, a civil penalty of up to $500,000
- For an intentional, knowing or willful violation, a civil penalty of up to $1 million.
That is the definition of the state controlling speech, folks.
— What type of speech is California trying to police here? Well, let's read from the Bill. It says, "This bill protects against online harassment, particularly when directed at historically marginalized groups."
“the State of California's actively passing UK style laws that will fine you for saying the wrong thing. Pretty wild. And this bill is completely done, folks. It's passed in the House, it's passed in the Senate. All that's left is Gavin Newsom signing it into law”
https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/1970507754734497812
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc … ornia-law/
https://www.webpronews.com/california-b … l-content/
https://www.calfac.org/ab-715-heads-to- … s-stop-it/
https://unherd.com/newsroom/gavin-newso … ensorship/I read every one of your links and not a single one of them talked about what the bill actually contains,
California Senate Bill SB 771 (2025–2026 session), introduced by Senator Stern, is a controversial and multifaceted proposal aimed at regulating social media platforms in relation to digital hate crimes, harassment, and intimidation. Here's a breakdown of its key components and implications:
Core Purpose
SB 771 seeks to clarify and extend liability for social media platforms that:
Use algorithms to amplify or distribute content that violates California’s existing laws on hate crimes, harassment, and intimidation.
Aid, abet, conspire, or act as joint tortfeasors in such violations through platform behavior or design2.
Legal Mechanism
The bill adds Title 23 to Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, and includes:
Civil penalties for platforms that knowingly or recklessly facilitate harmful content:
Up to $500,000 for reckless violations.
Up to $1 million for intentional or willful violations.
Provisions are severable, meaning if one part is struck down, the rest may still stand.
Any attempted waiver of these rights by platforms is declared void and unenforceable.
Algorithmic Accountability
The bill targets AI-driven content distribution, arguing that platforms can act like digital accomplices:
“Imagine the same anti-Semitic person uploading the same flyer’s credible threat to a social media platform where the platform steps into the role of identifying the recipients… There should clearly be a possibility… that the platform be liable”.
Legislative Status
Passed the Assembly on September 10, 2025.
Passed the Senate on September 11, 2025.
Awaiting Governor Gavin Newsom’s signature to become law.
Broader Implications
Supporters argue it’s a necessary step to protect historically marginalized groups—including Jews, LGBTQ+ individuals, immigrants, and people of color—from algorithmically amplified threats.
See here is the difference between conservatives and liberals You guys pickup sh*T and run with it. We do research and analysis before we post something that is critical.Whatever research and analysis you did missed a whole lot ... As is the norm for Leftist driven agendas supported by those trying to impose their will on others.
Here is the actual bill. You be the judge.
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB771/2025
Midterms are a distraction... like they were for the Republicans three years ago... they are almost irrelevant in today's America... the EO is pushing the majority of "change" today... usurping Congress' role to a large degree...
Its not one side that is to blame for it... its both sides... it has escalated for the last couple of decades.
If the economy goes south... the extreme ideologies that AOC espouses will sound like the answers to the majority of people...
Throw in something unforeseen on top of that... like we had in 2020 with the Pandemic... and AOC could coast into the Oval Office on a tidal wave.
If you can't see that as possible, then 2020 taught you very little...
Things were going great in 2019 for more Americans than perhaps any time in history... certainly since the Clinton years and the passing of NAFTA... Trump was as shoe in for re-election... and then...She probably wouldn’t even make it through the first debate. Plus, she wouldn’t get support from big-money donors — she’s too young and lacks experience. My God, if the economy takes a downturn, most people will look for a candidate with real experience in finance and leadership, not someone who has very little experience with anything substantial.
At any rate, I guess on this issue we’ll have to agree to disagree, just like we did when we debated back and forth on who could win in 2024. I kept the faith. And this economy will take a bit of time, but I think by mid-2026, we will be talking about a good economy.
And IMO, Biden won thanks to one of the biggest smear campaigns in the country’s history. Trump almost pulled it off. I still feel like Americans are done with, for lack of a better word, phony BS. The Democrats are standing naked for all to see, and honestly, it’s just not a pretty sight.
I hope those of you on the Right take this to heart and change your ways - "Spreading mistruths to tear someone down from behind a keyboard is one of the main ways hate takes root and spreads".
Weren't folks just complaining that Biden tried to curb the mistruths from people behind keyboards spreading covid lies on Facebook?
Woo-Hoo - ABC/Disney are putting Kimmel back on the air tomorrow. I wonder what he will say?
Boycott's work! They caved to the pressure.
I just can't wait to see what the Trumpers on here will say. I know what I'm saying, Ding Dong the Witch is Dead.
He will probably get a huge boost in views for a couple of days...
Then people will realize he is just an idiot Night Show Host... not someone you want to rally around as the next savior...
And then he will go back to being Mr. Irrelevant... and costing ABC/Disney millions more than he's worth...
Disney does seem to excel at throwing away money these days on flops.So you have a Jimmy Kimmel Talent Meter app?
His contract is up in May --- I think, just my view, Disney saw a lawsuit -- free speech and all that. His ratings were bad, and I assume you are right, some may tune in to see what he says --- Then back to the same old, some old.
Sinclair will preempt Jimmy Kimmel's show despite Disney ending its suspension
Sinclair Broadcast Group announced Monday that it would preempt ABC’s "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" when it returns Tuesday night.
"Beginning Tuesday night, Sinclair will be preempting ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ across our ABC affiliate stations and replacing it with news programming. Discussions with ABC are ongoing as we evaluate the show’s potential return," the company’s statement read.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/sinclair- … suspension
Sinclair, which operates 30 ABC affiliates, previously joined Nexstar, another owner of ABC affiliates, in preempting Kimmel’s show last week after he made controversial comments regarding Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin.Sky News Australia has put the hypocrisy of the left into perspective
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlLZVWvDW1EI am not even going to read your link. Sky News Australia is owned by News Corp and Rupert Murdoch, the same owner of Fox News. Neither have any credibility in my book.
It looks like Jimmy Kimmel’s show is technically back on the ABC network, but that doesn’t mean everyone will actually see it. ABC suspended him after his controversial comments about Charlie Kirk, and while Disney has now reinstated the show, Sinclair Broadcast Group, which happens to be the largest owner of ABC affiliates in the country, is refusing to air it on any of their stations. Sinclair owns far more local ABC outlets than the network itself does, so even though ABC is moving forward, a huge chunk of viewers in Sinclair markets won’t see Jimmy Kimmel Live! at all. Instead, Sinclair is filling the slot with news programming until Kimmel agrees to their conditions, which include giving a direct apology to Kirk’s family, making a meaningful personal donation to them and to Turning Point USA, and publicly committing to uphold broadcast standards. So really, this isn’t just about ABC’s decision; Sinclair has more influence over what a lot of households can actually watch.
My sources
https://nypost.com/2025/09/22/us-news/s … hatgpt.com
https://people.com/jimmy-kimmel-live-wi … hatgpt.com
https://apnews.com/article/jimmy-kimmel … 4195ef1175
Many media outlets believe Nexstar is withholding the show like Sinclair, but as of the latest verified reports, Nexstar has not publicly confirmed that decision after ABC said the show would be reinstated. Unable to confirm this rumor.Let me just guess. They are going to fill it with right wing propaganda. There goes the neighborhood..
I’m not sure what they’ll fill the time slot with, but in my view, they’ll likely avoid anything that promotes lies or foments hate, because, generally, lies just cause problems. I also think networks are realizing this isn’t just about the Kimmel issue; their ratings are now facing real competition from old reruns. In fact, some cable news networks are now competing with The Golden Girls for viewers. CNN’s primetime ratings, for example, hit historic lows in July 2025, averaging just 497,000 total viewers, a 42% drop from the previous year. It seems clear that many people have turned away from left-leaning media, while Fox News continues to hold strong ratings. That contrast speaks volumes.
Fox News gets higher ratings because of what Rupert Murdoch established; He bought the New York Post and modeled Fox New after it. It is fraught with sensationalism and easy to follow. A housewife could be at her ironing board and listen to Fox and it would be just like listening to a radio broadcast. It also has bimbos with their skirts hiked up to their who, who.
" It also has bimbos with their skirts hiked up to their who, who." PP
Hey, you brought it up—I also notice the difference in show hosts, but I’ll be honest (and I probably shouldn’t be on this one): I see a noticeable difference in the appearances of liberal women versus conservative women. (To go any further would make me delve into being really judgmental)
As for why Fox gets more viewers, I think it comes down to how they report the news. They cover everything quickly and make a real effort to do so with less bias. Yes, there is some spillover, but it’s far less than what I observe on left-leaning networks.This is what I mean about "There goes the neighborhood." That is why Brandan Carr wanted Kimmel removed. But now they are just going to do it on their own
The Corporate Pressure
At the same time, Nexstar and Sinclair were pursuing a $6.2 billion merger involving Tegna, which required FCC approval.
To avoid jeopardizing the deal, both companies pulled Kimmel’s show from their ABC affiliates—Nexstar controls 28, Sinclair 38.
Sinclair Broadcast Group
Ownership: Family-run, led by David Smith.
Reputation: Known for injecting conservative commentary into local news via “must-run” segments.
Notable Moves:
Hired Trump advisor Boris Epshteyn as chief political analyst in 2017.
Aired pro-Trump editorials and segments across its 193 stations.
In 2018, went viral for having anchors read identical scripts warning about “fake news,” which critics called Orwellian.
Criticism: Accused of reducing local coverage in favor of national conservative content.
Nexstar Media Group
Ownership: Publicly traded, led by CEO Perry Sook.
Reputation: More subtle but increasingly conservative, especially through its cable network NewsNation.
Notable Moves:
Launched NewsNation in 2021, originally pitched as “unbiased,” but now often described as “Fox News lite”.
Hosts like Leland Vittert and contributors like Bill O’Reilly have pushed right-wing narratives.
Former Fox News exec Bill Shine reportedly consulted on NewsNation’s launch.
Political Alignment: Nexstar executives have praised Trump-era deregulation and expressed alignment with GOP media strategy.
Summary
While Sinclair is more overtly conservative, Nexstar has drifted rightward, especially through NewsNation. Both have faced criticism for editorial bias and political influence, particularly in how they shape local and national narratives.When you think Left is right and Right is wrong... this is the type of stuff that bothers you.
When you think Left is just as full of BS as the Right... if not more... then this type of stuff makes you shrug and go... so what?
And more people read fox than any other news outlet.
He is obviously providing content people want to see.
Can't argue with success.Sure, but what they are getting is radical right propaganda and Trump interviews to help in the brainwashing of their viewers. The fact that they have the majority of the viewership is why this country is so divided. Trumpers have all been chosen by Cambridge Analytica and they don't even know it,
I don't know, maybe it's because they're hitting Americans at the average reading and comprehension level?
At least they can read.
The types that don't consider themselves 'victims' easily convinced to vote for a free phone, a new handout, the promise of their criminal acts or debts will be cleared...
Is not only that. The main reason, and they know it is:
According to Nielsen Media Research, Fox News averaged 2.43 million total viewers Monday through Sunday in primetime since June 20, besting ABC's 2.38 million viewers, NBC's 2.21 million viewers and CBS' 2.03 million viewers. In August, Fox News averaged 2.3 million total viewers in primetime.
Do the math.Thanks for posting those stats — I never realized a cable network would be listed right alongside the traditional broadcast networks (free, over-the-air). Just to clarify, the main difference is that broadcast networks like ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox TV are free to watch over an antenna, while cable networks like Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC require a cable or streaming subscription.
Are you comparing Fox News to TV shows and sports?
Or are you comparing apples to apples... News shows to News shows?
A more accurate comparison would be MSNBC and CNN (combined) to Fox News stations (is there one or two?).
This is something we all know.
The ‘Study’ You’re Citing About Right-Wing Violence Is Full Of Fake Data
An Antifa-connected researcher with rabid bias against the right is held out as an expert on deciding who is extreme.
After Charlie Kirk was assassinated last week, conservatives noted that most political violence comes from the left. The left bristles at this fact and has responded by dramatically padding the numbers to pretend the reverse is true.
Loadenthal is an “openly anarchist Antifa-affiliated … researcher at the University of Cincinnati who, by his own admission, is a far-left violent extremist,” The Federalist reported in 2023.
So we have an Antifa-connected researcher with rabid bias against the right, held out as an expert on deciding who is extreme. It is like using a vegetarian to define which meat eaters are the most humane — none of them, says the vegetarian.
The Prosecution Project lists January 2024 charges against John Reardon of Massachusetts, who made antisemitic threats against synagogues and the Israeli Consulate. It notes, “Influenced by events in Gaza, he also said, ‘you do realize that by supporting genocide that means it’s ok for people to commit genocide against you.’” The Department of Justice never identified Reardon’s political affiliation, but The Prosecution Project’s own account seems to indicate he was a pro-Palestine fanatic, a cause typically associated with Democrats. Yet The Prosecution Project identifies Reardon’s crimes as “rightist” because they’re “identity-focused.”
The group also lists 2022 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act charges against Edmee Chavannes — even though “Chavannes was found not guilty.”
The Prosecution Project even includes the posting of racist stickers in its tracker, as if that’s comparable to terrorism or violence. One wonders if the group will treat Democrats’ desecration of Charlie Kirk memorials with the same seriousness.
Most crimes involving race or abortion businesses are blamed on the right in the data, with nothing to back up those claims. Yet these issues and others often cross over to the left. The Federalist has reported on the progressive anti-abortion movement, for example, and the left’s Marxist oppressor-versus-oppressed framework is manifestly racist.
Comb through the ridiculous data on The Prosecution Project’s website, and you will soon conclude it is worthless to everyone except leftist propagandists trying to downplay Charlie Kirk’s murder and flip the blame for violence in the U.S. to the right.
Similarly, a biased “study” by Alex Nowrasteh at the Cato Institute was debunked this week by Amber Duke at The Daily Caller.
Nowrasteh claims politically motivated violence is rare in the U.S., but that when it happens, “right-wing terrorists” are more often to blame than the left — that is, when you exclude the terrorists who killed 2,977 victims on Sept. 11, 2001, and exclude injuries, property damage, and people who were not killed. Thus, his criteria exclude the two assassination attempts on President Donald Trump, for example. Additionally, Duke found that some of the crimes Nowrasteh blamed on the right were at best questionable and at worst downright wrong.
Duke pointed to another lopsided study by the Anti-Defamation League, which also claims the right is to blame for increased political violence. Ryan James Girdusky unpacked those magic numbers and noted glaring omissions. For example, the ADL left the murder of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson out of its study.
“The motivated reader can slice and dice these numbers in different ways, count marginal hate crimes as politically motivated terrorist attacks, assign different ideological motivations to the individual attacker, and must still conclude that the threat to human life from these types of attacks is relatively small,” Nowrasteh writes.
He is so wrong. Every crime sends ripples of consequences into the victims’ communities. At least half the nation feels victimized by the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and we are not counted in these studies.
Too many have seen or will see the video of that senseless moment when Kirk was silenced, and they will be changed by what they see. If you measure by ripple effect — if you measure by how many members of Congress refuse to condemn the assassination — the left is killing it at killing us.
Consider a Sept. 12 piece from The Economist claiming, “extremists on both left and right commit violence, although more incidents appear to come from right-leaning attackers.”
Right up front, the piece admits it used data “largely compiled by researchers whom sceptical (sic) conservatives would probably dismiss as biased.” The disclaimer is meant to inoculate The Economist’s audience to its sloppy reporting, as if challenges from conservatives will somehow prove The Economist’s accuracy.
Yes, readers should be beyond skeptical of the source in that piece, The Prosecution Project. Its website claims to “track[] and provid[e] analysis of felony criminal cases involving illegal political violence, terrorism, and extremism occurring in the United States since 1990.”
The founder and executive director of the Prosecution Project is Michael Loadenthal, although the links naming the website’s leadership were broken Friday, meaning no names were visible. Google had not yet scrubbed Loadenthal’s name from searches.
https://thefederalist.com/2025/09/20/th … fake-data/Mike, I think you nailed it here. The problem isn’t just the numbers; it’s who gets to define what counts as “right-wing” violence in the first place. When someone like Loadenthal, who openly identifies with Antifa, is the arbiter of what is “extreme,” the outcome is predictable. That’s like letting the fox guard the henhouse.
I went and looked through The Prosecution Project’s database myself, and what stood out was how loosely they stretch categories. Posting a racist sticker is logged right alongside actual terror plots, while violent attacks linked to left-wing or pro-Palestine causes somehow get shifted into the “rightist” column. That’s not rigorous research; that’s agenda-driven labeling.
The problem isn’t just the numbers, it’s who gets to define what counts as “right-wing” violence in the first place. When someone like Loadenthal, who openly identifies with Antifa, is the arbiter of what is “extreme,” the outcome is predictable. That’s like letting the fox guard the henhouse. I actually went through The Prosecution Project’s database myself, and it stood out how loosely they stretch categories. For instance, they labeled a pro-Palestine threat against synagogues as “rightist,” and they put things like racist stickers right alongside terrorism and murder, inflating the numbers to make the right look worse. At the same time, violence that comes from the left is often coded differently, minimized, or excluded entirely. So while the database looks like rigorous research, it’s really more like narrative-shaping than objective analysis. And it’s just common sense, if studies consistently tilt in one direction while ignoring things like two assassination attempts against Trump and now the murder of Charlie Kirk, then the framework is broken, not the facts. Real research should be transparent, consistent, and willing to admit that violence exists on both sides. What we have here instead is propaganda dressed up as data, and people are right to be skeptical.
The sources I used before sharing my view---
https://data.theprosecutionproject.org/ … umShown=10
https://theprosecutionproject.org/?utm_ … hatgpt.comShar,
How many people on the left have thrown down a study and said, "See, that proves there is more right wing violence than left wing."
None of them actually looked at the sources for the numbers or how the data was collected and organized. The end result is flawed reports the left believes is their gospel and proves their agenda.
I think you stated it correctly,
"What we have here instead is propaganda dressed up as data"Mike, I’ll be honest, your post got me thinking, and I had not considered how these stats were being itemized into “right-wing” or “left-wing.” It really blew my mind. I mean, when you start reading some of the crimes, you notice cases where left-wing crimes are being attributed as right-wing. For example, the Prosecution Project’s database lists the 2020 case of Jessica Reznicek, an activist who openly identified as a Catholic Worker and aligned with environmental causes, who sabotaged the Dakota Access Pipeline. Despite her very clear left-wing affiliations, the database categorized her under “far-right.” To me, that kind of labeling is misleading and makes it hard to take the numbers at face value. So many glaring examples, I was shocked.
WONDER WHERE THIS WILL END UP ON THE LIST --
AGO: Officials say no ICE agents injured in deadly shooting, anti-ICE messages found on bullet casings
Gunman opens fire during Dallas ICE detainee transfer, wounds multiple people...Shar,
Like the old saying goes, "Just when you think the left couldn't sink any lower, they start digging."Interesting that the FBI is declining to state that the victims were all detainees...
Not interested in anything other than facts when discussing a crime. I posted what is being reported regarding what was written on the bullets.--- Officials say no ICE agents were injured in the deadly shooting, and anti-ICE messages were found on bullet casings. And that those killed were detainees, and no ICE officers were hurt.
I am sure we will hear more in the following days.I'm not a lawyer but...the head of the FBI literally tweeting pictures of unconfirmed evidence within minutes of a murder seems like the dumbest shit imaginable....fishy also
Maybe it's time Trump tone down his ugly mouth...Unconfirmed? Motive: FBI Director Kash Patel posted an image of the ammunition on social media, showing unspent rounds marked with “ANTI-ICE.” He stated that an initial review of the evidence suggests an “ideological motive.” As for your other bait, I won’t take it—because I stick to facts that can be quoted from an actual human being. Have fun--
Yes, you are correct about the left digging, but we are digging to debunk your right-wing rag and search for the truth and facts.
The Federalist** is widely recognized as a **right-wing biased news outlet**.
Media Bias Ratings
Here’s how independent media watchdogs assess it:
- **AllSides** rates The Federalist as **Right**, meaning it consistently aligns with conservative or traditional viewpoints.
-
**Ad Fontes Media** goes further, labeling it **Hyper-Partisan Right** and categorizing its reliability as **“Unreliable, Problematic”** due to heavy opinion content and selective sourcing.
---Editorial Style and Focus
- **Founded** in 2013 by Ben Domenech and Sean Davis, The Federalist positions itself as a counterweight to mainstream media narratives.
- It emphasizes **cultural commentary**, **religious values**, and
**conservative policy advocacy**.
- The site often critiques progressive movements, left-leaning media, and Democratic politicians.
---
Controversies and Criticism
- It has faced scrutiny for publishing **misleading or unverified claims**, especially around topics like COVID-19, election integrity, and political violence.
- Critics argue it prioritizes **ideological framing** over journalistic neutrality.I hope you attempt to controvert something mentioned in the article.
I doubt that's possible.
It is based on facts.Ask and you shall receive. The left deals in research, analysis, and facts, not right wing MAGA propaganda.
What The Prosecution Project Actually Is
The Prosecution Project (tPP) is an open-source research initiative that tracks felony criminal cases involving political violence, extremism, and terrorism in the U.S. since 1990. It aims to analyze how defendants are charged and prosecuted, factoring in ideology, motive, and impact.
---
Criticism and Controversy
Conservative outlets like *The Federalist* and *Rocky Mountain Voice* have sharply criticized tPP’s data and methodology:
- They allege that tPP mislabels left-wing violence as right-wing, citing examples like Jessica Reznicek, an environmental activist categorized as “far-right” despite her progressive affiliations.
-
Critics argue that the project’s founder, Michael Loadenthal, has ties to Antifa and anarchist movements, raising concerns about ideological bias.
- Some cases listed by tPP involve defendants who were acquitted or whose political affiliations were ambiguous, yet still coded as “rightist”.
---
Is the Data “Worthless”?
That’s a rhetorical judgment, not a factual one. While critics point to inconsistencies and ideological bias, supporters argue that the database offers transparency and a starting point for analyzing political violence. The site itself warns that some cases are still in progress and not fully audited—which means researchers and readers must interpret the data cautiously.
---
On Charlie Kirk’s Death
The claim that tPP is being used to “downplay Charlie Kirk’s murder” and “flip the blame” is part of a broader narrative emerging from right-wing media. It reflects frustration with how political violence is categorized and perceived. Whether that narrative holds depends on how one interprets the data and the motives behind its presentation.
What Alex Nowrasteh Actually Claims
Alex Nowrasteh, a researcher at the Cato Institute, published a study asserting that **politically motivated violence is rare in the U.S.**, and when it does occur, **right-wing terrorists are responsible for a majority of the deaths** — *excluding* the 9/11 attacks, which he categorizes under “Islamist” ideology.
- **From 1975 to 2025**, his data shows:
- **87%** of deaths from political violence were caused by Islamist terrorists (mostly 9/11).
- **11%** by right-wing terrorists (391 deaths).
- **2%** by left-wing terrorists (65 deaths).
- He **excludes**:
- Non-lethal violence (e.g. injuries, property damage).
- Hate crimes not clearly tied to political ideology.
- The 9/11 attacks, to avoid statistical distortion (they account for 83% of all deaths in his dataset).
---
Criticism from Amber Duke and Others
Amber Duke, writing for *The Daily Caller*, and other conservative commentators have challenged Nowrasteh’s framing:
- They argue that **excluding non-lethal violence** (like arson, assaults, and threats) **skews the picture**, especially when left-wing groups like Antifa or BLM are involved in widespread unrest.
- Duke and others claim that **some incidents Nowrasteh attributes to the right are misclassified**, or ideologically ambiguous.
- They also point out that **attempted assassinations**, such as the two attempts on President Donald Trump, are excluded because they didn’t result in death — despite their obvious political motivation.
---
Methodology vs. Narrative
Nowrasteh’s study is narrowly focused on **fatalities**, which makes it clean for statistical analysis but vulnerable to criticism for omitting broader patterns of political violence. His goal is to quantify lethality, not total unrest. Critics argue that this **underrepresents left-wing violence**, especially when it comes to **property destruction, intimidation, and ideological targeting**.
---
Bottom Line
Yes, Nowrasteh does claim that right-wing terrorists are more lethal than left-wing ones — *when measured strictly by deaths and excluding 9/11*. But that conclusion depends heavily on his definitions and exclusions. Critics like Duke challenge both the **categorization of incidents** and the **scope of what counts as political violence**, arguing that it paints a misleading picture.
Yes, that quote is accurate and comes directly from [Alex Nowrasteh’s September 2025 article](https://www.alexnowrasteh.com/p/politic … iolence-is) titled *Politically Motivated Violence is Rare in the United States*. In it, he argues that while politically motivated violence is tragic and corrosive, it remains statistically rare in the broader landscape of U.S. crime.
Here’s the context behind his statement:
---
Nowrasteh’s Core Argument
- From **1975 to 2025**, there were **3,597 deaths** from politically motivated terrorist attacks in the U.S.
- **83%** of those deaths came from **9/11 alone**, which he excludes in some analyses to avoid statistical distortion.
- Since **2020**, only **79 politically motivated murders** occurred — about **0.07%** of all murders in that period.
---
What He Means by “Slice and Dice”
Nowrasteh acknowledges that:
- Readers can **reframe the data** by including hate crimes, property damage, or injuries.
- They can **reassign ideological motives**, especially in ambiguous cases.
- But even with those adjustments, the **overall threat to human life remains statistically small**.
---
Why This Is Controversial
Critics argue that:
- His narrow focus on **fatalities** ignores broader patterns of political violence, intimidation, and unrest.
- Excluding **non-lethal attacks**, like attempted assassinations or mass arson, may understate the real-world impact.
- Ideological coding (e.g., labeling incels or anti-abortion extremists as “right-wing”) can be contentious.
---
So yes, Nowrasteh did write that line, and it reflects his broader thesis: that while political violence is emotionally and socially damaging, its **lethality is statistically rare**. Whether that’s a sufficient measure of threat is where the debate begins.All AI aside — in my view, we’re now watching left-wing rhetoric come to full fruition. The vile words of Democratic congressmen and women, the left-leaning media, and the radicals on social platforms have stirred up so much hate that it has spilled over into horrific violence. Keep your studies-- it's all very clear to those who possess common sense.
Your dear leader holds the trophy for hate, viciousness, revenge, lying and cheating. He is the reason the country is divided. He is the leader who promotes all the radical right propaganda. It starts at the top and works its way down to those who have been brainwashed by his radical agendas.
Yes, it doesn't exist except in the minds of radical right-radicals who made it up.
Jimmy Kimmel is back
Video
- ("More importantly, he had no ratings.")
- "Well, I do tonight."
*standing ovation*
-“He tried his best to cancel me, instead, he forced millions of people to watch the show. That backfired bigly. He might have to release the Epstein files to distract us from this now.”
Orange snowflake's reaction
Minutes before Kimmel’s show, Trump railed against ABC lifting the suspension in a post on Truth Social, writing, “I can’t believe ABC Fake News gave Jimmy Kimmel his job back. The White House was told by ABC that his Show was cancelled!”
“I think we’re going to test ABC out on this. Let’s see how we do. Last time I went after them, they gave me $16 Million Dollars. This one sounds even more lucrative. A true bunch of losers! Let Jimmy Kimmel rot in his bad Ratings,” Trump wrote.Glad to see we can focus on the big issues...
No wonder why Trump is so popular...
Never watched him before... won't now, but I never watch any Night Show or any Main Stream TV at all for that matter... but I'm sure he will cash in on this... maybe he can get some air time on the View... write a book or two... change gigs and become a political pundit...
Did see this tho...
These 114 Cities Will Not Air Jimmy Kimmel's Return to TV: All Sinclair & Nexstar Stations Revealed
https://www.justjared.com/2025/09/23/th … -revealed/
Maybe a sign of bigger things to come... you can say whatever you want on your tv show... that doesn't mean anyone has to air it on their networks.
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...