Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[Politesse]

I was not aware of what happened on the House floor, and still don’t know. What happened?

Well, what happened in short was they held a moment of silence, and the Democrats obliged. Then someone (likely a Republican) requested that it not just be silent but an actual traditional verbal prayer for Kirk’s surviving family, and suddenly that was “too much.” You literally just did a silent prayer, but then one of your own devalued it over a verbal prayer they didn’t even know the wording of? Like, at least STFU and let them do the verbal prayer if they want, and only erupt if it turned into something ridiculous like, “we pray that Kirk be remembered as not a racist.” Then yeah, boo, throw balled-up paper, whatever. But instead, Democrats handed Republicans exactly what they wanted: the optics that Democrats were fine with the violence as the floor turned into a bunch of hooting and hollering. And it worked. It was old 70's cartoon villain predicable and they fell for it.

Okay, that is a much more accurate summary than you started with. Thank you for proving me wrong as to your character at least, if not the incident. I do not see compelled Christian prayers on the floor of the House as equivalent of a moment of silence, personally, nor do I see Democrats as solely or even primarily responsible for an incident that Boebert intentionally escalated by demanding something directly illegal, specifically because the moment of silence had gone off without a hitch up until then and thus did not give them the bogeyman they needed for the next day's propaganda. The flurry of shouting that ensued was unworthy of the House, however, and I do include both Parties in that assessment.

 

[Elixir]

So where are the receipts that the Democrats (the party) have done ANYTHING but condemn the violence that took the life of Charlie Kirk?

I guess we need a differentiator that can separate schadenfreude from celebration.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So where are the receipts that the Democrats (the party) have done ANYTHING but condemn the violence that took the life of Charlie Kirk?

I guess we need a differentiator that can separate schadenfreude from celebration.

No Democrat lawmaker condoned the violence, so no... we don't.

 

[Gospel]

unprecedented vocal prayer

I don’t think vocal prayer in the House is unprecedented.

 

[Gospel]

The Democrats are in for a surprise when the midterms roll around, they’re going to find out they’re wrong once again. They are managing Charlie Kirks death in the most idiotic way possible.

Receipts please.

Incoherent Rant incoming!

Receipts? Receipts.... You really need receipts for Democrats consistently underestimating public perception because they assume “we’re the good guys”? They’re hardly ever proactive, almost always reactive, and once again they’ve lost control of the narrative. This isn’t about Charlie Kirk personally, his assassination was wrong, full stop. End of story.

So where are the receipts that the Democrats (the party) have done ANYTHING but condemn the violence that took the life of Charlie Kirk?

Where is the receipt that I made that claim? I said they are managing Charlie Kirks death in the most idiotic way possible.

 

[scombrid]

The Democrats are in for a surprise when the midterms roll around, they’re going to find out they’re wrong once again. They are managing Charlie Kirks death in the most idiotic way possible.

Receipts please.

Incoherent Rant incoming!

Receipts? Receipts.... You really need receipts for Democrats consistently underestimating public perception because they assume “we’re the good guys”? They’re hardly ever proactive, almost always reactive, and once again they’ve lost control of the narrative. This isn’t about Charlie Kirk personally, his assassination was wrong, full stop. End of story. Stop drifting into debates over whether his opinions were racist; that’s not the question on the table. You’d think the house floor was one of Charlie’s “prove me wrong” rallies the way they carried on.¯\_(ツ)_/¯

They couldn’t even do something as simple as STFU on the floor during a moment of silence for a political assassination they already agreed was wrong, because, oh no, let’s make it about Charlie’s opinions. Good grief. And now look at y’all… just abandoned the young white republican voters who weren't extreme right. Thanks for your help I guess. If that help means assisting the far right in further strengthening their power over both major parties.

Y’all might as well step aside and let the extreme left take over. At least they might actually tip the scales.

I don’t know about the moment of silence thing, but from what I’ve seen, no major Democrats have expressing glee about Kirk’s death.

What is the question on the table? Of course the murder was wrong — all murders are wrong. But why should anyone stop “drifting into” debates about whether his opinions were racist? He was public figure who did great damage to untold numbers of people with his violent and hateful rhetoric, and here he is being beatified, even canonized, by a bunch of right-wing goons and trolls. His life was a public, open book, and is fair game for critique, particularly given slobbering being done over him by the far right.

Here is what Hunter S. Thompson wrote about Nixon on his death, among other things:

If the right people had been in charge of Nixon's funeral, his casket would have been launched into one of those open-sewage canals that empty into the ocean just south of Los Angeles. He was a swine of a man and a jabbering dupe of a president. Nixon was so crooked that he needed servants to help him screw his pants on every morning. Even his funeral was illegal. He was queer in the deepest way. His body should have been burned in a trash bin.

Jesus Christ, the House floor was not the place for that debate. Republicans asked for a moment of silence for Charlie because he was politically assassinated, not because they expected Democrats to never criticize who he was at any other time. By refusing, Democrats didn’t literally say “the assassination was fine,” but that’s exactly how it came across, and Republicans have been running with that narrative ever since. And of course it’s working, because when you make that stand on the floor, it looks like your opinions about the man outweigh the simple fact that he was assassinated.

Dumb of them to not shut up and let the Republicans have their little show. Democrats are like the kid that is relentlessly bullied and then only manages to fight back when the teacher is looking. They just keep taking the fucking bait.

Then again. Plenty of GOP horrible behavior is on display constantly without their ever being any consequence. I guess the lie spin distract model works. There is a pretty big double standard. Cheating on his wife ended John Edward’s political life. Compare that to Republicans.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

A Tale of Two Charlies

Charles Edward Coughlin was an ultra-right Catholic priest, Christian nationalist and fascist sympathizer in the 1930s and 1940s. Although he began his

www.counterpunch.org

 

[laughing dog]

OMG. the horrors. And I thought Texans were supposed to tough. But they are fucking snowflakes.

How does "tough" enter the issue that this young woman committed a misdemeanor assault while police were watching her meltdown?

FFS, hat grabbing should not be assault. The police overreacted to her overreaction.

If a young white man tried to pull a Muslim woman's headscarf after yelling how her "homie" was dead, would you also dismiss it saying that she should be "tough" and that the guy should not have been arrested for assault? Or do you advocate one set of rules for whites and men, and another for minorities and women? That the former should tough it out when you would never suggest the same for the latter?

A classic Derec hypothetical whataboutism. Interesting that you pointlessly interject race and sex. My answer to your passive aggressive racist questions are yes, no, and no.

No. Probably because that didn't happen.

Oh, it most definitely did happen.

It was a clusterfuck of misunderstanding that lead to lots of asshattery.

It was a clusterfuck, but not of misunderstanding, but of jumping to conclusions. The news media and many on the Internet assumed that the white teen must have been the asshat, and that the Indian must have been in the right.

No, your characterization that the boy was just standing around is false. There was plenty of misunderstanding between the actors involved.

 

[Gospel]

The Democrats are in for a surprise when the midterms roll around, they’re going to find out they’re wrong once again. They are managing Charlie Kirks death in the most idiotic way possible.

Receipts please.

Incoherent Rant incoming!

Receipts? Receipts.... You really need receipts for Democrats consistently underestimating public perception because they assume “we’re the good guys”? They’re hardly ever proactive, almost always reactive, and once again they’ve lost control of the narrative. This isn’t about Charlie Kirk personally, his assassination was wrong, full stop. End of story. Stop drifting into debates over whether his opinions were racist; that’s not the question on the table. You’d think the house floor was one of Charlie’s “prove me wrong” rallies the way they carried on.¯\_(ツ)_/¯

They couldn’t even do something as simple as STFU on the floor during a moment of silence for a political assassination they already agreed was wrong, because, oh no, let’s make it about Charlie’s opinions. Good grief. And now look at y’all… just abandoned the young white republican voters who weren't extreme right. Thanks for your help I guess. If that help means assisting the far right in further strengthening their power over both major parties.

Y’all might as well step aside and let the extreme left take over. At least they might actually tip the scales.

I don’t know about the moment of silence thing, but from what I’ve seen, no major Democrats have expressing glee about Kirk’s death.

What is the question on the table? Of course the murder was wrong — all murders are wrong. But why should anyone stop “drifting into” debates about whether his opinions were racist? He was public figure who did great damage to untold numbers of people with his violent and hateful rhetoric, and here he is being beatified, even canonized, by a bunch of right-wing goons and trolls. His life was a public, open book, and is fair game for critique, particularly given slobbering being done over him by the far right.

Here is what Hunter S. Thompson wrote about Nixon on his death, among other things:

If the right people had been in charge of Nixon's funeral, his casket would have been launched into one of those open-sewage canals that empty into the ocean just south of Los Angeles. He was a swine of a man and a jabbering dupe of a president. Nixon was so crooked that he needed servants to help him screw his pants on every morning. Even his funeral was illegal. He was queer in the deepest way. His body should have been burned in a trash bin.

Jesus Christ, the House floor was not the place for that debate. Republicans asked for a moment of silence for Charlie because he was politically assassinated, not because they expected Democrats to never criticize who he was at any other time. By refusing, Democrats didn’t literally say “the assassination was fine,” but that’s exactly how it came across, and Republicans have been running with that narrative ever since. And of course it’s working, because when you make that stand on the floor, it looks like your opinions about the man outweigh the simple fact that he was assassinated.

Dumb of them to not shut up and let the Republicans have their little show. Democrats are like the kid that is relentlessly bullied and then only manages to fight back when the teacher is looking. They just keep taking the fucking bait.

Then again. Plenty of GOP horrible behavior is on display constantly without their ever being any consequence. I guess the lie spin distract model works. There is a pretty big double standard. Cheating on his wife ended John Edward’s political life. Compare that to Republicans.

Holy shit, predictable ammo is still predictable ammo. Nobody’s stopping any Democrat from criticizing Charlie Kirk; they just chose the most obviously terrible place and time to do it. That’s my whole point. Fine, don’t see it if you don’t want to, I don’t care.

But seriously: you’re saying it’s smart move to having been bullied, to retaliate in front of the cops so all anyone sees is an assault? Why not push back while you’re being bullied so you don’t end up looking like trash? It’s not rocket science.

Some Republican senator tossed out the most obvious card, and the Democrats scrambled for it like seagulls fighting over a french fry.

 

[scombrid]

But seriously: you’re saying it’s smart move to having been bullied, to retaliate in front of the cops so all anyone sees is an assault?

No. Opposite. Not sure what was unclear about "They just keep taking the fucking bait". I mean it wasn't as good a metaphor as "seagulls fighting over a french fry" but it pretty much meant the same thing.

 

[bilby]

I said that meeting minimum qualifications is not the issue, as all of them do. The question is about selecting somebody close to optimal for the job,

It never has been until now.

Your first time objecting to any of the string of mediocrities and losers who have been selected as running mates by presidential candidates; Your first time espousing a (suddenly crucial) criterion of "selecting somebody close to optimal", when criticising the VP choice, just happens by pure coincidence to be the first time somebody who is neither white, nor a man, is picked?

Pull the other one, mate. It's got bells on.

 

[jonatha]

I guess the lie spin distract model works.

Qft

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So you won’t vote for a Dem, which is essentially a vote for MAGGOTry

"If you don't vote for Dems, you're a fascist nazi"?

I didn’t say that.

Not in those words specifically, no.

But you did say that not voting Dem is equivalent to voting for MAGA. And you've also expressed that MAGA is essentially synonymous with fascism and nazism. Therefore, not voting Dem is equivalent to being a fascist nazi.

If A = B, and if B = C, then A = C.

Not voting Dem in 2024 is in effect a half vote for fascism.

My third party vote in Alabama surely swung the state for Trump.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

In my exchange with Elixir, the context only became clear once he explicitly said he opposed the kind of political violence that happened to Kirk.

I apologize for being a sarcastic, facetious SOB. I thought my aversion to violence was clear. I don’t enjoy imposing my will on anyone, let alone by force.

And yet you are very quick to whip out insinuations that those who disagree with you are at least fascist and probably worse. Unless you have some other explanation for your fascination for gas ovens.

You may advocate non-violence, but you advocate exactly the right ideas to encourage the violent. Congratulations, your rhetoric worked.

 

[bilby]

I was going to suggest that, as Kirk was not an elected representative, nor an employee of the government, but was merely a private citizen with some ugly views and a podcast, it is inappropriate and bizarre for the House (or any part of the US government) to have any memorial of his death - he wasn't the only American who died that day; He wasn't even the only American shot dead that day.

My thesis was to be that the government should not be having a moment of silence for Kirk, unless they are going to have a moment of silence every time any US citizen dies.

But then I thought more carefully about the implications of such an argument; And I have completely reversed my position.

It should be mandatory for the President, as head of state, to observe a full ten seconds of silence each time any US citizen dies.

By my calculations, this would require Trump to only speak for about eight seconds per day on average, and to remain entirely silent the rest of the time.

 

[Millrat]

Apparently our House of Commons gave a standing O for Charlie and our Liberal representatives went along with it presumably to placate PePo and company. There no doubt is a creeping American conservatism here and perhaps this was a wise move at the end of the day.

 

[crazyfingers]

I said that meeting minimum qualifications is not the issue, as all of them do. The question is about selecting somebody close to optimal for the job,

It never has been until now.

Your first time objecting to any of the string of mediocrities and losers who have been selected as running mates by presidential candidates; Your first time espousing a (suddenly crucial) criterion of "selecting somebody close to optimal", when criticising the VP choice, just happens by pure coincidence to be the first time somebody who is neither white, nor a man, is picked?

Pull the other one, mate. It's got bells on.

Dan Quayle, Sara Palin

 

[Elixir]

All about Donald, not Charlie.
Parable:

Donald Trump was visiting a primary school in Orlando and visited a 4th grade class. They were in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meanings. The teacher asked Mr.Trump if he would like to lead the discussion on the word 'tragedy.' So our illustrious POTUS asked the class for an example of a 'tragedy'. One little boy stood up and offered: "If my best friend, who lives on a farm, is playing in the field and a tractor runs him over and kills him, that would be a tragedy."
"No," said Trump, "that would be an accident."
A little girl raised her hand: "If a school bus carrying 50 children drove off a cliff, killing everyone, that would be a tragedy."
"I'm afraid not," explained Trump. "That's what we would call great loss."
The room went silent. No other child volunteered. Trump searched the room.
"Isn't there someone here who can give me an example of a tragedy?"
Finally at the back of the room, Little Johnny raised his hand. The teacher held her breath.
In a quiet voice he said: "If the plane carrying you was struck by a 'friendly fire' missile and blown to smithereens that would be a tragedy."
"Fantastic!" exclaimed Trump, "That's right. And can you tell me why that would be a tragedy?"
"Well," says Johnny, "It has to be a tragedy, because it sure as hell wouldn't be a great loss... and you can bet your sweet ass it wouldn't be an accident either!"
The teacher left the room...

-facebook

 

[Gospel]

I was going to suggest that, as Kirk was not an elected representative, nor an employee of the government, but was merely a private citizen with some ugly views and a podcast, it is inappropriate and bizarre for the House (or any part of the US government) to have any memorial of his death - he wasn't the only American who died that day; He wasn't even the only American shot dead that day.

My thesis was to be that the government should not be having a moment of silence for Kirk, unless they are going to have a moment of silence every time any US citizen dies.

But then I thought more carefully about the implications of such an argument; And I have completely reversed my position.

It should be mandatory for the President, as head of state, to observe a full ten seconds of silence each time any US citizen dies.

By my calculations, this would require Trump to only speak for about eight seconds per day on average, and to remain entirely silent the rest of the time.

Look, I agree that countless Americans die in tragic and often avoidable ways every day, but I think it’s a mistake to lump political assassinations into the same category. Kirk wasn’t just another homicide victim, he was targeted and killed from 150 yards away because of his political views. That makes it fundamentally different.

Imagine if I were shot for speaking up about the children killed at school that very same day, or if you were gunned down just for making this post. The point isn’t whether people liked Kirk’s opinions, it’s that assassination shuts down dialogue itself. It creates a society where expressing any opinion can carry a death sentence.

It ain't about honoring a individual’s views or the individual themselves; it’s protecting the space where all views, including the ones we personally believe have real merit, can still be expressed without fear of a bullet.

But go right on ahead and ignore this difference, to both your own and my peril. And if not ours someone else's.