Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[pood]

Wrong. You have.

In what way, concretely?

Likely in every way one could imagine

And what exactly is it you think you are “paying” for?

For being born with the un-woke skin color.

I see. So you are being discriminated against in daily life because you are white?

 

[Elixir]

The approach you advocate for now, against your political opponent, is just as justified

HIS political opponent? The Rapist isn’t HIS political opponent. Pay attention, Ems.
If Cheato had a political opponent he would name them. He always does. His main weapon is his mob of violent cultists, and anyone qualifying as a “political opponent” gets the violent mob directed against them.
NOBODY HERE RISES TO THE LEVEL OF A POLITICAL OPPONENT OF TRUMP.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why yes, yes it is in fact racist to assume that certain ‘slots’ are for whites only.

You (and ld) are misinterpreting Kirk's point here. What he obviously meant is a slot that would have likely went to somebody white if not for the pernicious practice of racial preferences, and people were treated as individuals.

Of course that is what he obviously meant — and it is racist through and through! How the fuck would he, or you, know that some “slot” would likely have gone to somebody white, without the hidden premise that non-whites would be unable to fill that particular slot because they “lack the brain processing power,” to use the odious little man’s odious words? If people were treated as individuals, and not as group skin colors, you have no evidence that this precious “slot” could not be filled by any number of nonwhite males.

When Kirk spoke of “slots” which he apparently thought white men were entitled to, he spoke the quiet part out loud: Our entire history has consisted of affirmative action for white men and white male privilege, and he wanted to keep it that way.

If the only reason those women got there was because of AA that inherently says it would have gone to someone else who was better without AA. And the reality is that means white or Asian. The actual error is those women claiming it was only because of AA that they got where they are.

 

[robnisch]

Turning Point Action

Join me in supporting Turning Point Action

secure.anedot.com

That didn't take long.
Is there a GoFundMe also?

 

[Elixir]

Democratic politicians have been treating not just opposing politicians but citizens as if they're evil to the core for years now.

Please cite ONE instance of Dems vilifying multiple groups in the public manner that Cheato does EVERY SINGLE FUCKING DAY. He flat out calls them (and us) evil, calls for the extermination, torture, detention without trial and elimination of whoever he names without any basis (other than that they see through him), and he does all this from the Bully Pulpit.
Show me who Biden or Obama threatened that way, or who they had disappeared without due process.
You’d have to have shit for brains just like Cheato, to draw the equivocation you’re “both sidesing” about.

That fucker is trying to destroy America, and it looks to become his first ever success.
We will all be better off when he croaks, regardless of cause. Period. An unpleasant fact for sure, but a fact nonetheless. Meanwhile, mealy-mouthed trumpapologists like you Emily, are his supporting cast.

 

[pood]

Why yes, yes it is in fact racist to assume that certain ‘slots’ are for whites only.

You (and ld) are misinterpreting Kirk's point here. What he obviously meant is a slot that would have likely went to somebody white if not for the pernicious practice of racial preferences, and people were treated as individuals.

Of course that is what he obviously meant — and it is racist through and through! How the fuck would he, or you, know that some “slot” would likely have gone to somebody white, without the hidden premise that non-whites would be unable to fill that particular slot because they “lack the brain processing power,” to use the odious little man’s odious words? If people were treated as individuals, and not as group skin colors, you have no evidence that this precious “slot” could not be filled by any number of nonwhite males.

When Kirk spoke of “slots” which he apparently thought white men were entitled to, he spoke the quiet part out loud: Our entire history has consisted of affirmative action for white men and white male privilege, and he wanted to keep it that way.

If the only reason those women got there was because of AA that inherently says it would have gone to someone else who was better without AA. And the reality is that means white or Asian. The actual error is those women claiming it was only because of AA that they got where they are.

So white and Asians are the master races?

You have ignored the more parsimonious (and correct) analysis: Even if AA got them where they went, it doesn’t follow they were unqualified for their positions, or that (lol!) whites and Asians were better choices, What DOES follow is that AA was needed to knock down barriers to their being chosen for positions they were perfectly qualified for but were debarred from because they weren’t white or Asian!

 

[Derec]

If the only reason those women got there was because of AA that inherently says it would have gone to someone else who was better without AA. And the reality is that means white or Asian. The actual error is those women claiming it was only because of AA that they got where they are.

I think for some (like SJL) I think AA is pretty much the only reason they were where they were.
Others (like KBJ) are smart and talented and would be successful either way. But they were still helped by AA to be more successful, and it was at the expense of someone with a less woke amount of melanin.
Schools like Harvard are a crapshoot even for great applicants, and the AA boost certainly helped her secure Harvard admission. And later, she was greatly helped by Biden not considering anybody but black women for SCOTUS.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Did you look through the whole thing? The second question in particular is concerning to me: Do you think it is ever justified for citizens to resort to violence in order to achieve political goals? 19% of people aged 18-29 said it's justifiable, irrespective of their politics. That should concern all of us, a lot.

Disagree, it's trivially obvious it's true. The question is what degree of wrong on the part of a politician justifies such action, and how certain they know they are doing wrong, that it's not a mistake that could be corrected. Think of the standard time travel trope of killing Hitler. (Which probably wouldn't have worked as by the time people could see it was warranted it was too late for that to solve the problem.) There are worse, though--I can think of two regimes that were so fucked up that neighbors resorted to invasion to stop the problems spilling over the border. One I think could probably have been solved with one bullet.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course, the critical words in LP's post are "If the only reason"... then yes, LP would be right. No one should get a position strictly because of their race.

I'm glad somebody gets it.

The issue we have here is that this isn't strictly about race... as much as people want to assume it is. Harris didn't become a VP candidate because she was black. She did stuff, had a career. No one wants to look at anything else in the resume. LP is obsessed with the answer on the ethnicity line.

But here you are wrong. "Black" was a required characteristic, but not the only one. That is discrimination. (But I consider all VP picks to be discriminatory, I'm not singling her out.)

And yet, she’s the only one you’ve mentioned. And not a single word about how, with a single exception, being a white make was a requirement to be POTUS or VP.

Putting any race or sex requirement on the VP position is wrong. It's just that it's normally not done openly so it doesn't get criticized. He openly told the world he was going to discriminate on race and sex and then proceeded to do so.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wrong! Neither I nor any of my ancestors benefited from it.

Wrong. You have.

I do not see why I should be paying for it now just because of my skin color just because some people who had a similar hue enjoyed advantages for it a long time ago.

And what exactly is it you think you are “paying” for?

You insist that we have, but we look around and see it's only a liability.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Your ideals have been a significant part of getting us into the mess and now the very people you claim to protect are and will continue to suffer for it.

This is just a bullshit narrative. People will always lie about the left no matter what we do. There is no tone whatsoever that will change that. And also no, the vast majority of the blame can be put on misinformation spread by social media as well as the Evangelicals.

Don't acknowledge reality. That's up to you. And the thing about it is this: it's not going to hurt the people the idealists on their umpteenth revenge tour want to hurt; just the opposite. As I already pointed out, we've lost Roe and we're going to lose Obergefell. If you don't care because of impractical and misguided ideals, then fine. It's not going to hurt me.

Finally, me and other like me won't vote for Dems because they don't represent us. I personally would never vote GOP, but the Dems will never see another dime from me, nor will I cast a vote for them until they can show minimal competence and reasonable representation.

 

[Elixir]

The US Constitution is at fault for all of this, just ask The Pedo in Chief. He’s gonna save all of us by getting rid of it.

 

[Elixir]

19% of people aged 18-29 said it's justifiable, irrespective of their politics.

Hey, that’s the demographic they say elected The Pedophile!
Ya really put your foot in it there, girl.

 

[pood]

Your ideals have been a significant part of getting us into the mess and now the very people you claim to protect are and will continue to suffer for it.

This is just a bullshit narrative. People will always lie about the left no matter what we do. There is no tone whatsoever that will change that. And also no, the vast majority of the blame can be put on misinformation spread by social media as well as the Evangelicals.

Don't acknowledge reality. That's up to you. And the thing about it is this: it's not going to hurt the people the idealists on their umpteenth revenge tour want to hurt; just the opposite. As I already pointed out, we've lost Roe and we're going to lose Obergefell. If you don't care because of impractical and misguided ideals, then fine. It's not going to hurt me.

Finally, me and other like me won't vote for Dems because they don't represent us. I personally would never vote GOP, but the Dems will never see another dime from me, nor will I cast a vote for them until they can show minimal competence and reasonable representation.

So you won’t vote for a Dem, which is essentially a vote for MAGGOTry, but progressives are to blame for Dems losing. Got it.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Democratic politicians have been treating not just opposing politicians but citizens as if they're evil to the core for years now.

Please cite ONE instance of Dems vilifying multiple groups in the public manner that Cheato does EVERY SINGLE FUCKING DAY. He flat out calls them (and us) evil, calls for the extermination, torture, detention without trial and elimination of whoever he names without any basis (other than that they see through him), and he does all this from the Bully Pulpit.
Show me who Biden or Obama threatened that way, or who they had disappeared without due process.
You’d have to have shit for brains just like Cheato, to draw the equivocation you’re “both sidesing” about.

That fucker is trying to destroy America, and it looks to become his first ever success.
We will all be better off when he croaks, regardless of cause. Period. An unpleasant fact for sure, but a fact nonetheless. Meanwhile, mealy-mouthed trumpapologists like you Emily, are his supporting cast.

With respect to Dems vilifying groups, it's not an explicitly stated policy. Rather, it's an implied one that current party leadership clearly communicates by e.g. failing to disassociate itself from extremist positions. It's an unwillingness to begin reevaluating things like DEI and the perpetuation of "white privilege." Things like the latter especially get out into the public consciousness and it's been an effective aid in driving significant swaths of voters away.

If lefty's want to preach those things, then the consequences fall on their shoulders for lost votes, alienation, and the law and policies that spring therefrom. If they want to pretend that their disdain for the Royal White Man doesn't get out into the wider public consciousness, then fine. They can just keep at it. I think it's shame for equal rights and a free society, but leftist idealists don't seem to give a practical shit.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Your ideals have been a significant part of getting us into the mess and now the very people you claim to protect are and will continue to suffer for it.

This is just a bullshit narrative. People will always lie about the left no matter what we do. There is no tone whatsoever that will change that. And also no, the vast majority of the blame can be put on misinformation spread by social media as well as the Evangelicals.

Don't acknowledge reality. That's up to you. And the thing about it is this: it's not going to hurt the people the idealists on their umpteenth revenge tour want to hurt; just the opposite. As I already pointed out, we've lost Roe and we're going to lose Obergefell. If you don't care because of impractical and misguided ideals, then fine. It's not going to hurt me.

Finally, me and other like me won't vote for Dems because they don't represent us. I personally would never vote GOP, but the Dems will never see another dime from me, nor will I cast a vote for them until they can show minimal competence and reasonable representation.

So you won’t vote for a Dem, which is essentially a vote for MAGGOTry, but progressives are to blame for Dems losing. Got it.

You want to keep examining the well-proven? Keep on keepin' on.

I'm fed up with being outraged. I know where the great majority of the pathetic state of the nation comes from, but it's not productive to keep preaching that fish live in water.

My concern is the ineptitude of a party that disdains legitimate, self-reflective discourse and perpetuates the perception of exclusion of the largest voting demographics. A party that can't win major elections is a useless one. It's especially frustrating to know that DNC competency would never have allowed Trump to get in the White House in the first place, let alone a second time, yet here we are.

You want to keep railing against past injustices that few people alive today had anything to do with? Go ahead. It's not going to hurt the dreaded white man.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Your ideals have been a significant part of getting us into the mess and now the very people you claim to protect are and will continue to suffer for it.

This is just a bullshit narrative. People will always lie about the left no matter what we do. There is no tone whatsoever that will change that. And also no, the vast majority of the blame can be put on misinformation spread by social media as well as the Evangelicals.

Don't acknowledge reality. That's up to you.

You can just, I dunno, look at the statistics. Without the Christian right, it's hard to see Trump's cult of personality becoming that powerful, or abortion being such a big issue.

 

[scombrid]

No, the situation is entirely asymmetric. That’s what people like you who whine about losing your white male privileges will never get,

I am young enough that I never enjoyed "white privilege", certainly not when it came to preferences in education and employment.

because you can’t afford to. Unqualified, evil white boobs like Trump and Kirk have been getting affirmative action since the nation began.

Maybe "since the nation began" until 1960s or so. But since the 70s there have been strong preferences for women and certain minorities.

There are also "unqualified, evil black boobs" who have huge audiences, for example racist fuck Al Sharpton on MSNBC.

yep. 1964 fixed everything. Sure. And your Christianitist buddy Charlie said that was a big mistake to even pass the civil rights act, much less try to unwind systemic imbalances in opportunity.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm concerned about the increasing view among younger people that violence like this is justifiable and acceptable. It bodes poorly for our future.

Master of understatement.
The acceptability of “second amendment solutions” has orange roots.

Democrats have done their fair share of fanning the flames too, Elixir. If we stand any chance of halting this runaway train, you're going to have to acknowledge that this isn't a one sided problem.

There will be no chance of “halting this runaway train” as long as the orange engineer is bent on causing a train crash.
You can bleat “both sides” til you’re blue in the face and it won’t change that FACT.

Let me see if I'm following you... Until Trump is successfully assassinated, you think we should continue pursuing a civil war? The only possible way we can avoid civil war is via political murder?

 

[Emily Lake]

As I already pointed out, we've lost Roe and we're going to lose Obergefell.

I think we're less at risk of losing Obergefell, because we actually have a law in place that requires all states to recognize same-sex marriages as legally binding. We never had an actual law regarding abortion, and that was the undoing of Roe.