Jimmy Kimmel says the assassin of Charlie Kirk was MAGA. You say that it it okay to kill someone you disagree with politically. You have become nutjobs. Nuts!
You say that it it okay to kill someone you disagree with politically.
Huh?? I never said that. You're lying when you say that. Stop lying.
The shooter was a maga gun humper for most of his life. We know that for a fact. But, given how desperate and incompetent the FBI has proven to be under Patel, we cant be sure this is even the right guy. They announced that they caught the wrong person twice, lied about the evidence ("trans bullets"), and then the killer just conveniently confesses after getting away scott free? Credibility problem.
What would be even better is if you and everybody else actually cared about making sure that everybody was only fully honest, paid strict attention to the facts, and made their points in a fully rational way. You know: instead of just being hyperpartisan and ignoring everything wrong with their own side.
I won’t be holding my breath on you taking that approach, and I certainly won’t be holding my breath about it becoming the norm.
You say that it it okay to kill someone you disagree with politically.
Huh?? I never said that. You're lying when you say that. Stop lying.
The shooter was a maga gun humper for most of his life. We know that for a fact. But, given how desperate and incompetent the FBI has proven to be under Patel, we cant be sure this is even the right guy. They announced that they caught the wrong person twice, lied about the evidence ("trans bullets"), and then the killer just conveniently confesses after getting away scott free? Credibility problem.
Trans bullets are barrels that identify as bullets?
I’m not sure if you’ve been paying attention, but all these people believe they’re right, and so that makes them feel really confident and excusing bad behavior.
The only answer is to take a look at yourself, stand up, and say no to anything wrong. Do it consistently and do it to the best of your ability.
Jimmy Kimmel says the assassin of Charlie Kirk was MAGA. You say that it it okay to kill someone you disagree with politically. You have become nutjobs. Nuts!
Very few nutobs have said that it is okay to kill someone that you disagree with politically, you fukking dbag. Quit lying. People like you are an issue.
If we're going to play that game, we can also point to the MAGAs that celebrated the assassination of Minnesota State representative Melissa Hortman and her husband. The same MAGA nut attempted to kill state senator John Hoffman and his wife earlier in the day. MAGAs also celebrated the firebombing of Democratic PA Governor Josh Shapiro earlier this year.
You and people like you, from both political parties, have become a nuts. Nuts!
Jimmy Kimmel says the assassin of Charlie Kirk was MAGA. You say that it it okay to kill someone you disagree with politically. You have become nutjobs. Nuts!
Very few nutobs have said that it is okay to kill someone that you disagree with politically, you fukking dbag. Quit lying. People like you are an issue.
If we're going to play that game, we can also point to the MAGAs that celebrated the assassination of Minnesota State representative Melissa Hortman and her husband. The same MAGA nut attempted to kill state senator John Hoffman and his wife earlier in the day. MAGAs also celebrated the firebombing of Democratic PA Governor Josh Shapiro earlier this year.
You and people like you, from both political parties, have become a nuts. Nuts!
I quit reading after "you fukking dbag." Is that any way to have an honest discourse here? Do you talk to mom and dad like that? You are out-of-control and need to simmer down. You sound like a hothead.
Very few nutobs have said that it is okay to kill someone that you disagree with politically, you fukking dbag. Quit lying. People like you are an issue.
If we're going to play that game, we can also point to the MAGAs that celebrated the assassination of Minnesota State representative Melissa Hortman and her husband. The same MAGA nut attempted to kill state senator John Hoffman and his wife earlier in the day. MAGAs also celebrated the firebombing of Democratic PA Governor Josh Shapiro earlier this year.
You and people like you, from both political parties, have become a nuts. Nuts!
I quit reading after "you fukking dbag." Is that any way to have an honest discourse here? Do you talk to mom and dad like that? You are out-of-control and need to simmer down. You sound like a hothead.
Jimmy Kimmel says the assassin of Charlie Kirk was MAGA. You say that it it okay to kill someone you disagree with politically. You have become nutjobs. Nuts!
So you are reasonable in asking people not to cling to false narratives about the shooter’s politics and motives. We don’t know the whole story, but I expect any additional information to be way closer to what you suggest than what a portion of liberals and liberal media have been saying and even more mainstream media initially reported.
You can take your one strong request and add another: You refer to the “Kirk murderer.” That’s the singular noun.
Perhaps you could also denounce all the people on the Right who are saying “they” killed him?
I quit reading after "you fukking dbag." Is that any way to have an honest discourse here? Do you talk to mom and dad like that? You are out-of-control and need to simmer down. You sound like a hothead.
That’s rich. You want “honest discourse” when you say that democrats say it’s ok to kills people that you don’t agree with politically. There’s nothing honest in your discourse. 🤭
You say that it it okay to kill someone you disagree with politically.
Huh?? I never said that. You're lying when you say that. Stop lying.
The shooter was a maga gun humper for most of his life. We know that for a fact. But, given how desperate and incompetent the FBI has proven to be under Patel, we cant be sure this is even the right guy. They announced that they caught the wrong person twice, lied about the evidence ("trans bullets"), and then the killer just conveniently confesses after getting away scott free? Credibility problem.
Of course Robinson is the murderer and the evidence, including DNA analysis, is overwhelming. Even had authorities wanted to do so, it would have been impossible to frame him.
I quit reading after "you fukking dbag." Is that any way to have an honest discourse here? Do you talk to mom and dad like that? You are out-of-control and need to simmer down. You sound like a hothead.
That’s rich. You want “honest discourse” when you say that democrats say it’s ok to kills people that you don’t agree with politically. There’s nothing honest in your discourse. 🤭
You don’t really seem all that interested in honest, civil discourse, and he could very well be relying on disingenuous statements, but you just left open another possibility rather than dishonesty: he may not be able to deal with the facts fully rationally.
He sees a number of liberals online celebrate the murder of a man. I agree with him that it’s contemptible. He can then dishonestly say something that is technically true, but nevertheless wholly misrepresents the point: that “democrats” say it’s OK to kill certain people. Well, many of those people are Democrats (some are not registered with a political party, some identify as socialist, or whatever). But that position is far from representative of what you’ll find other Democrats saying. It also true that Republicans say racist things if you follow his logic in that way. But I would never suggest that the majority of Republicans are racist. Because I wouldn’t play the stupid, dishonest game that he seems willing to play.
The guy could conceivably turn then to a survey that shows a high percentage of Democrats saying that political violence is acceptable in some cases. If he considers that horrifying and wrong, I agree with him. I believe it’s wrong, and I believe that even though the survey left its questions too broad to be fully helpful, the problem is more with those respondents than with the survey itself.
But even that terrible view lumps together, people of different categories. and it mostly involves people who see a very extreme person is the target of the violence. I still agree that violence is not the answer and that those people are wrong. But they’re wrong view is not the same thing as violence against just anyone ”they disagree with.” And that’s another insinuation that OP’s point leaves out there.
Even the gunman, an unstable murderer with terrible ideas, referred to “some hate” — a small portion of hate — as the hate that cannot be “negotiated.”
And we acknowledge him as one of the most extreme people.
And even that man’s views are a far cry from insinuating that violence should be directed at just anyone you disagree with.
Many of these people’s views are contemptible and dangerous
But it’s also dishonest and dangerous to twist their words and make untrue insinuations that can stoke anger in their fellow Americans.
Jimmy Kimmel says the assassin of Charlie Kirk was MAGA. You say that it it okay to kill someone you disagree with politically. You have become nutjobs. Nuts!
Find me a single instance of an elected official saying it is okay to kill political opponents.
A number of typos there and not the clearest wording,, but I think the point is clear enough. Just one thing: “Leftists” would have been a better word choice than “liberals.” I suppose “liberals” is partially accurate, but most of those people aren’t actually liberal, and some of them wouldn’t even describe themselves as such (lots of leftist radicals consider liberalism to be a problem, just the way certain extremists on the right want an authoritarian government instead of liberal democracy as generally practiced in our constitutional Republic).
That’s contemptible, but what are the ramifications of “a single” or “a few”?
Since you’ve chosen errors, do you find yourself adamant about making sure you set people straight when they try to claim something like “everybody on the other side is like that”? or in your triage, did you just determine that was the primary error in need of correction?
On my last remark: I had a different set of things. I thought I had revised out but got posted.
A better point would be that the people who recognize Trump’s dog whistle in “second Amendment people” don’t see Senator Chris Murphy’s remarks as being permissive toward radical leftists. And vice versa.
Every elected official should, of course, take a firm stand against political violence. No matter the perpetrator and the target.
I applaud Governor Spencer Cox‘s reasonable leadership throughout this crisis.
There have been some times that people on the left have committed violence and I take Senator Bernie Sanders reaction to be appropriate: he swiftly, forcefully, and unequivocally denounce the violence. Even when it is perpetrated by one of his supporters. Because that’s when it is most important for an elected official to do so.
Compare that with the president’s reaction two violence from the right and the way his reaction differs if the perpetrator is from the left or the right. When violence is perpetrated by a leftist, he is forceful and may even sound vengeful. If it is perpetrated by someone on the right, his denunciation sounds rote with A level of conviction on par with that of a bully halfheartedly apologizing to a victim while parents and other authority figures are standing over and forcing him to do it. And that was his demeanor even before the heinous attempt on his life
The Loser shooter is a member of the alphabet community and his “love” was transitioning from male to female. To play make believe and dress up. The Loser hated Kirk and Charlie was all MAGA, a patriot. Kimmel is lying to his sheepy audience, he’s part of the deceptive media. It’s cool, late night is on life support and the mainstream media is dying slowly. Finally the shooter is a Loser and so is everyone else that ran to social media to celebrate Kirk’s killing.
That’s rich. You want “honest discourse” when you say that democrats say it’s ok to kills people that you don’t agree with politically. There’s nothing honest in your discourse. 🤭
You don’t really seem all that interested in honest, civil discourse, and he could very well be relying on disingenuous statements, but you just left open another possibility rather than dishonesty: he may not be able to deal with the facts fully rationally.
He sees a number of liberals online celebrate the murder of a man. I agree with him that it’s contemptible. He can then dishonestly say something that is technically true, but nevertheless wholly misrepresents the point: that “democrats” say it’s OK to kill certain people. Well, many of those people are Democrats (some are not registered with a political party, some identify as socialist, or whatever). But that position is far from representative of what you’ll find other Democrats saying. It also true that Republicans say racist things if you follow his logic in that way. But I would never suggest that the majority of Republicans are racist. Because I wouldn’t play the stupid, dishonest game that he seems willing to play.
The guy could conceivably turn then to a survey that shows a high percentage of Democrats saying that political violence is acceptable in some cases. If he considers that horrifying and wrong, I agree with him. I believe it’s wrong, and I believe that even though the survey left its questions too broad to be fully helpful, the problem is more with those respondents than with the survey itself.
But even that terrible view lumps together, people of different categories. and it mostly involves people who see a very extreme person is the target of the violence. I still agree that violence is not the answer and that those people are wrong. But they’re wrong view is not the same thing as violence against just anyone ”they disagree with.” And that’s another insinuation that OP’s point leaves out there.
Even the gunman, an unstable murderer with terrible ideas, referred to “some hate” — a small portion of hate — as the hate that cannot be “negotiated.”
And we acknowledge him as one of the most extreme people.
And even that man’s views are a far cry from insinuating that violence should be directed at just anyone you disagree with.
Many of these people’s views are contemptible and dangerous
But it’s also dishonest and dangerous to twist their words and make untrue insinuations that can stoke anger in their fellow Americans.
Do you have a poll that showing that a high percentage of liberals support celebrate the murder of certain individuals? What was the percentage for people on the right?
I consider Kirk to have been more of entertainer than an activist, and I don’t there being many people that wanted him dead.