Charlie Kirk Assassinated

[tstorm823]

But alas, it will run out of steam, and there'll just be some dead guy and a few weeks of overcharged comment for everyone to feel a bit foolish about later.

I seriously doubt that last part about people feeling foolish.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

It isn't, it is certainly less credible, but I will accept the premise that the two options are in the same ballpark.

With that in mind, why do you knowingly choose to spread misinformation at the same level as those you most resent?

Why do you?

 

[Agema]

I believe it was literally yesterday that I told you some Republicans had less than ideal responses to the shooting for which condemnation is justified. Your fantasy version of me is rather silly.

"Some Republicans had 'less than ideal' responses." Oh, what a incisive and damning admission! Truly you are maestro of introspection.

You only ever concede the most superficial criticisms, and then use that to pretend you're reasonable when defending the important. To be fair, maybe you don't even realise that's what you always do.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

some Republicans had less than ideal responses to the shooting

Calling for the death penalty, calling for civil war, calling for all liberals to be arrested... oh yeah, that's "less than ideal" alright.

Clown.

 

[tstorm823]

You only ever concede the most superficial criticisms, and then use that to pretend you're reasonable when defending the important. To be fair, maybe you don't even realise that's what you always do.

When your criticism is fair and measured, I can agree with you. When your criticism is inflated (at best), I disagree.

I don't see my "superficial criticisms" but defense of "the important" as terribly different than this post by you like an hour ago.

Trunkage:" That being said, Trump has been sending tripwire troops into cities for a while now so he can justify a civil war. "

Is he though? Or is the pathetic old fart just playing as close to dictator as he can get away with without someone deciding enough's enough? TACO, remember.

Since Trump started rampaging ICE all over the country, public support for hardline anti-immigration policies have been dropping, because it turns out it makes lots of people feel uncomfortable, even Republicans. Let's imagine Trump sends in the national guard to a city, and it even just accidentally kicks off a massacre. I think those troops would be out in a matter of hours and he'd never put troops anywhere near another US city.

I am sure that Trump would bloviate like crazy, and blame others, and self-justify, and tell everyone how tough he is. But I think enough people would be appalled, and the chickenshits in Congress would finally draw some sort of line and tell Trump just how deep in the shit he is. Then the Congressional Republicans would cover for him like crazy until he left office of course, but the line would stand.

I'm reasonably certain that if your post was by me instead, you would be coming in to condemn me for running cover for Trump and downplaying his actions.

 

[Silvanus]

I'm reasonably certain that if your post was by me instead, you would be coming in to condemn me for running cover for Trump and downplaying his actions.

"I'm reasonably certain that if I said things I'd never say, you'd still condemn me".

The problem is that you never offer robust or consistent criticism to begin with.

 

[tstorm823]

"I'm reasonably certain that if I said things I'd never say, you'd still condemn me".

The problem is that you never offer robust or consistent criticism to begin with.

Any fair or honest criticism appears as defense in the context of a board of communists who take extreme positions. I really don't think you appreciate how philosophically close you and I are.

 

[Silvanus]

Any fair or honest criticism appears as defense in the context of a board of communists who take extreme positions. I really don't think you appreciate how philosophically close you and I are.

Philosophical closeness is a hallucination on your part. And I have yet to see this fair and honest criticism; its always milquetoast finger-wagging provided the person in question has an R next to their name, even as they cross lines that would have you screaming bloody murder if it was a D.

 

[Trunkage]

Any fair or honest criticism appears as defense in the context of a board of communists who take extreme positions. I really don't think you appreciate how philosophically close you and I are.

I see you need to look up the terms communist and extreme

As to closeness... I don't like discrimination and want it excised from any interaction. You don't like anyone to have morals different from yours and want them excised from any interaction. Sure I see it

 

[Silvanus]

I see you need to look up the terms communist and extreme

Well, there are two (maybe three?) prominent communist forumites. But there are at least 5 or 6 prominent conservative ones.

 

[Schadrach]

That's not how that works. If you think he's an insurrectionist, you have to charge and try him as one.

I'm sorry, but the Heritage Foundation and the justices they've installed via Bush and Trump have declared Trump immune to most laws, and will continue to declare him immune to whatever they need him to be immune to until such time that he is no longer needed by Heritage.

Simple question: Do you acknowledge that the fake electors plot was a thing? If you do, do you acknowledge that the pieces for it had to be assembled and in place before Jan 6 for it to even potentially work? If you do, then how was it supposed to work if no one disrupted the Jan 6 proceedings to prevent the real slate of electors from being counted? The scenario where Trump isn't an insurrectionist is one where insurrectionists were working to put him in power without his knowledge up to and including encouraging him to say things that would promote their plan, which makes him a useful idiot at best.

You do realize the democrats won't release the Epstein files either, right? Both sides have claimed they want to release said files when they are not able to. When they are able to, they will not release them because important enough people are in them and will influence either side to not release the files. It's that simple. It's like any other campaign promise made while campaigning that immediately can't be done when they actually get elected in.

To date, everyone involved in a vote to release Epstein documents that has voted against doing so has been GOP.

Yes. Honestly, this is probably all going to blow over in a few weeks. A year later things will be mostly the same and occasionally the odd one of us will think "Oh yeah, some guy shot that other guy a year back, didn't they?"

It's just everyone gets caught up in the emotion, and they want to be a part of the hubbub, and it's so terribly exciting! Get upset! Get outraged! Hurl accusations! And so in pile a load of people who haven't been seen in the forum for months-years because this is the biggest goddamn drama party of the season, and they need to be in there too. Then the trolls are aroused by the smell of controversy, so they wade in as well, which helps keep the shitball rolling.

But alas, it will run out of steam, and there'll just be some dead guy and a few weeks of overcharged comment for everyone to feel a bit foolish about later.

It's so cute you think Shapiro will ever let anyone forget how he got the job. He might decide it being a groyper (presuming it was) is a deep state trick to hide left wing violence, but he will certainly not let anyone forget how he got the job so long as he can blame it on the left.

Since Trump started rampaging ICE all over the country, public support for hardline anti-immigration policies have been dropping, because it turns out it makes lots of people feel uncomfortable, even Republicans. Let's imagine Trump sends in the national guard to a city, and it even just accidentally kicks off a massacre. I think those troops would be out in a matter of hours and he'd never put troops anywhere near another US city.

Let's be fair, the point is to normalize what he's doing with ICE. Come election time (maybe midterms if he feels secure in it, if not then next presidential election) he'll have ICE stationed at polling places for "election security" to "prevent illegals from voting" and will proceed to use their recently SCOTUS approved notion that race is in and of itself reasonable suspicion that one is illegal to interfere with voters, which in turn will cause further voters not to show up. Trump's admin will then declare the reduction in turnout as the number of illegals trying to vote, because if you'll probably eventually be turned loose why would you let being accosted by ICE stop you?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I'm sorry, but the Heritage Foundation and the justices they've installed via Bush and Trump have declared Trump immune to most laws, and will continue to declare him immune to whatever they need him to be immune to until such time that he is no longer needed by Heritage.

Simple question: Do you acknowledge that the fake electors plot was a thing? If you do, do you acknowledge that the pieces for it had to be assembled and in place before Jan 6 for it to even potentially work? If you do, then how was it supposed to work if no one disrupted the Jan 6 proceedings to prevent the real slate of electors from being counted? The scenario where Trump isn't an insurrectionist is one where insurrectionists were working to put him in power without his knowledge up to and including encouraging him to say things that would promote their plan, which makes him a useful idiot at best.



To date, everyone involved in a vote to release Epstein documents that has voted against doing so has been GOP.

He's not immune from being tried as an insurrectionist... Plus, they had 3 years to do that before that ruling as well

Wasn't the electors thing the same exact thing JFK did?

The democrats put it to vote because they knew they didn't have the votes. Why don't the democrats put it to vote when the do have the votes like during the Biden administration?

 

[tstorm823]

Well, there are two (maybe three?) prominent communist forumites. But there are at least 5 or 6 prominent conservative ones.

There are like 3 conservatives that are here more than a few times a year, at least that many avowed communists, and then another half-dozen users who sit around liking each other's posts, which includes most of the avowed communists. And then non-communist lefties. This forum is very left wing.

I see you need to look up the terms communist and extreme

There are self-described communists here. Some users are speculating that Kirk was assassinated by Israel so that Ben Shapiro can take over Turning Point. I think I am using those words quite reasonably.

Philosophical closeness is a hallucination on your part. And I have yet to see this fair and honest criticism; its always milquetoast finger-wagging provided the person in question has an R next to their name, even as they cross lines that would have you screaming bloody murder if it was a D.

I can't think of anything Republicans are doing that fundamentally Democrats haven't already done.

 

[Trunkage]

There are self-described communists here. Some users are speculating that Kirk was assassinated by Israel so that Ben Shapiro can take over Turning Point. I think I am using those words quite reasonably.

I see we have gone from 'board of communists to there are a couple of communists so I can blame everyone else here as a communist

 

[Seanchaidh]

This forum is very left wing.

So there ARE communists in the state department!

 

[Silvanus]

There are like 3 conservatives that are here more than a few times a year

I can think of more than 3 off the top of my head. I don't particularly want to, because it could prompt further pointless argument, but I certainly could if pushed.

at least that many avowed communists

Can think of two.

and then another half-dozen users who sit around liking each other's posts, which includes most of the avowed communists. And then non-communist lefties. This forum is very left wing.

"Non-communist lefties", "people who like each other's pubs"... come on, dude.

 

[thebobmaster]

Washington Post opinion columnist Karen Attiah says she was fired over Charlie Kirk posts

“Now, I am the one being silenced — for doing my job,\

www.usatoday.com

Freedom of speech at work, people. Remember, it's OK for Charlie Kirk to have said these things, but quoting him on it is a fireable offense.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

This forum is very left wing.

Sure, if we're following the Republican definition of "left wing", which is "not entirely comfortable with calling for killing the homeless on live television".

 

[Ezekiel]

It does seem like a professional job.

 

[thebobmaster]

Don't forget, people. It's disgusting how the left wing is celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk! Sure, he said a few disagreeable things, but he was a good Christian man who was taken from his wife and daughter by a left wing who is out assassinating anyone on the right. They couldn't get Trump, so they are settling for Kirk.

If you think I'm exaggerating anything there, I'm actually paraphrasing/quoting my brother's rant from yesterday. He describes himself as being neither left nor right wing, saying that he'd rather leave politics out of anything affecting his daily life. I only do this to point out that the narrative is working on at least some of the general public.