Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[GenesisNemesis]

Meeting minimum qualifications was not the issue. The issue is that when you restrict yourself to a small fraction of possible candidates, you are unlikely to find anybody close to optimal for the job.

Oh, nonsense. There are and were plenty of black women qualified for the job, including Harris.

Nonresponsive to my point.

Of course it was responsive.

I usually trim the quotes to the parent layer only, but here I leave the full exchange, just to show how non-responsive you are.
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, which is unlikely to find somebody like that if you restrict your candidate pool to 6.5% of the population based on race and sex.
You responded with "there are and were plenty of black women qualified for the job" because that was not in dispute. But you are more likely to find a great fit if you do not arbitrarily exclude 93.5% of the population.

Except that blacks, women and other minorities have always been arbitrarily excluded. Biden changed that, to his credit. Again, let’s be honest: you know perfectly well that if Biden had not announced he was restricting his search to black women, you still would have complained that Harris, had he picked her, was a “DEI hire.”

It is just astonishing how you destroy irony meters everywhere. Eliminating from consideration blacks and women because of their skin color and plumbing was always the national norm, and Biden decided to end it.

No, he didn't. He did not eliminate exclusion, he doubled up on it and made it explicit. And not just for Veep, but for SCOTUS too!

No, he ended arbitrary exclusion. Good job, Joe!

Women only just got the vote a little over a hundred years ago, and as little as 60 years ago blacks could not even vote in many places!

In what way does that justify excluding everybody who is not a black woman from consideration?

It is justified by ending the exclusion of black women.

She barely lost the election,

Yes, and a better candidate would have probably won it.

with racism and misogyny being the likely reasons for her loss.

Bullshit. Some of her disadvantages were not her fault, like having a very short time in which to prosecute a campaign, or the global anti-incumbent sentiment. Others were, for example focusing her campaign on "vibes".

Ot course racism and misogyny played a huge role in her loss.

I don't know about huge, but it for sure was a factor. But she lost because she didn't address what most people cared about: the economy.

Except she did. People just didn't pay attention.

Harris has proposed a slew of economic policies. Here's a look at what's in them

Among other proposals, Harris wants to increase homebuilding and affordable housing stock, provide more tax incentives for first-time homebuyers, and cancel accumulated medical debt for millions of Americans.

www.pbs.org

 

[Gospel]

This part I agree with, except that words are not always just words. I believe that stirring up a mob can reach the point of deadly threat even when there is no imminent risk.

Then the words that stir up a mob ought be met with the words "You're under arrest". The mob depending on what they do should be met with equal measure.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Camryn Booker...

As to the specific charges, at the moment she is merely a suspect, not a convict. There's a whole bunch of video, but where's the video of the "assault," i.e. "trying to knock off someone's hat?" How do we know this wasn't an escalation such as a camera in her face and her repeatedly saying to stop and following that a swipe at a hat or a swipe at the camera that was misconstrued as a swipe at the hat? How do we know it happened at all if there is so much video but no video showing the event and surrounding potential escalation? Why hide just that part of the video? We're asked to call people like Derek Chauvin and George Zimmerman suspects by the usual posters even when there is ample evidence of violence orders of magnitude worse, yet there are posters who go on to say she's guilty without any evidence at all or at least look at the issue far too narrowly.

And what I mean by that is look at the forest, not just the tree. We have the GOVERNOR saying it was about free speech, which if it were not, is very misleading firstly and/or lying by omission and/or engaging in post hoc fallacious logic. BUT is he really? As the authority in Texas over those policemen and the educational institution to some extent, he's promoting a cultural value system where her free speech is violated and he is openly saying it out loud: free speech we disagree with when it offends us is an arrestable offense. He isn't just saying it to the world, he is, as an authority figure, praising the police and praising the college. THAT isn't happening in a vacuum either, it's BEEN happening. The college and the police were already aware of the conservative value system and already take part in it. And they were already aware of this well prior to the arrest.

We are simply allowed to be offended by what the governor has claimed and is doing, magnified by the major changes in institutions in the country.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Perp oughta do some serious time for "trying to knock off a hat". 5-10 years in prison.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't know about huge, but it for sure was a factor. But she lost because she didn't address what most people cared about: the economy. And I think that she was a little too left for the middle. The Biden moderate voters voted for Trump or weren't motivated enough to vote.

She lost because the inflation was an albatross around her neck (am I'm mixing metaphors here?). The economy is why suburb women voted more for Trump. And of course, the movement that Kirk helped create that got many more younger people to vote for racist Grandpa.

 

[Elixir]

according to police,

police say Booker hit the male in the head with an open hand

Poor guy. Good thing he was supporting the dead Fascist.
I’ve seen PLENTY worse occur on the CU campus without either party getting arrested or expelled.

Any behavior that denigrates victims of violence is reprehensible

I wonder if any TT students ever “denigrated” the Hortmans, Mr Pelosi or any of the other victims of RW violence, and got expelled or arrested for it.

Not that this chick didn’t deserve it, and not to say I know that slights against Dem victims of minor RW violence are routinely punished in similar manner, but it sounds like something that occurs used to occur regularly without such repercussions.

But no more; civil behavior is sure to result from this righteous enforcement action. /sarcasm

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Danica Patrick is quite the act. She is a member of the same group that did nothing but lambast her. She is a member of group that doesn't like her for being a woman that dared enter a male's venue. And note, the hate was in NASCAR, not Indycar.

 

[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.

 

[Elixir]

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

I suspect that was a bit of sarcasm?
It might be best taken literally.

 

[pood]

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.

 

[Toni]

My honest thoughts? Lots of people don’t like [Kamala Harris] because she’s black and lots of people don’t like her because she’s a woman.

I think the number of those people is less than you think. Far less. Personally I think she is too far left (from her Senate career and 2020 run) and i think she lacks good judgment.

I also believe that Biden stepped in in 2020 to save us from Trump, correctly assessing that a white establishment make was needed to quell the bots of sexism and racism most of us do not like to admit even to ourselves. Maybe especially to ourselves.

I thought it was just a random typo, but you consistently seem to be misspelling "male" as "make". What gives?

I can't speak for why Biden decided to run, but the establishment closed around him after SC to prevent Sanders getting at least a plurality of delegates. Had the moderates remained split between Biden, Mayor Pete, Klob etc. that was a very strong possibility.
I think Biden should have ran in 2016. We would have been spared Trump.
But I also think Bloomchen would have been a better "old white guy" president for 2020. He would have resisted the fauxgressive fringe more. I think Biden letting himself be pulled too far to the left was a big reason why his presidency ended up being so unpopular that we got Trump 2.0.

Harris was never my favorite candidate. I like her even less now.

And yet you are quick to say that others who are critical of her must be so because of her skin color or plumbing.

I’m ok with voting for candidates who are not my personal favorites. I vote for who I believe is the better candidate. I’ve only truly liked and wholeheartedly heartedly, without reservation, voted for two candidates who won POTUS. I mostly have voted for candidates who lost.

I also voted for Harris/Walz, but without much enthusiasm.

Male/make. Typo. K and L keys are adjacent on my phone and make is a real word so it’s not flagged as a typo so I don’t always catch it. Similar to and and abd, although abd is flagged as a typo.

I’ve always been a terrible typist.

 

[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.

 

[Toni]

The site specifically looked at mass shootings in schools and workplaces. Only an idiot refuses to acknowledge that the motivations of shootings at schools and at workplaces differ sharply from other types of multiple/mass shootings associated other criminal activity or family annihilations.

The motives are different, but your claim was specifically that it was overwhelmingly whites who are responsible for these shootings. And the data from you citied here does not back that point, as I have shown. Whites are underrepresented among mass shooters even under more restrictive definitions of the term.
Are you finally ready to concede that point?

At least some of the school shootings seem to have been motivated by desire for some kind of fame or notoriety or just lulz. We do not look at the 9/11 attacks or Oklahoma City bombings the same way, although they killed many more people including young children.

So what's your point here? Especially relevant to this thread, which is about a targeted assassination, not about a mass shooting.

My claim—supported by data—is that school shootings are committed by an overwhelming majority of males who are white.

My point was that these shootings ( school/church/workplace) are differentiated from mass shootings related to other criminal activity by our media and by ourselves as a society. It is generally noteworthy and newsworthy when a child is killed in part of a drive by shooting, for example or on a school shooting. Same with churches. If there was a drive by shooting which killed a bunch of parishioners going or leaving a church service that would make national news. A gang shooting in Chicago? Not so much. A child killed in a gang shooting? Bigger news.

I absolutely do not think that the lives of people killed in gang shootings or as part of criminal enterprise are not tragic and those responsible are reprehensible. But those deaths have a different motivation than do school shootings and so do the shooters. The demographics of the shooters and the victims are usually quite different as well.

I point this out because some people are inclined to ignore the differences in motivations for the crimes and of the shooters. Some people want to paint only persons of color as being violent while ignoring the fact that white males kill a lot of children.

If you want to focus on the great divide with respect to violent crime, you could point out that most violent crime is committed by males, period. I don’t think that would make you any happier.

 

[pood]

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.

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

But I’m not talking about that anyway. I’m referring to your “drifting into debate” thing, and the “And now look at y’all,” which certainly sounds as if you’re addressing us.

 

[Gospel]

But I’m not talking about that anyway. I’m referring to your “drifting into debate” thing, and the “And now look at y’all,” which certainly sounds as if you’re addressing us.

The entire post was directed at the Democratic leadership. How I went about it is a Black thing.

 

[Elixir]

But I’m not talking about that anyway. I’m referring to your “drifting into debate” thing, and the “And now look at y’all,” which certainly sounds as if you’re addressing us.

The entire post was directed at the Democratic leadership. How I went about it is a Black thing.

One huge “problem” with so-called Democratic leadership is that WE are it.
Not like Republicans whose Orange Jesus is the alpha and the omega of their political existence.
Republicans March in jackbooted lockstep to Trump’s idiotic direction, while Democrats revel in being an unruly mob. No wonder the fascists prevail.

 

[Politesse]

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.

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

Gospel will not want to clarify that, I'm sure, given his pointedly one-sided narrative. But you can easily find some write-ups of the incident. In short, the House hosted a moment of silence at the request of House majority leader Mike Johnson. Noted hyper-conservative and key Trump ally Lauren Boebert broke the silence, demanding that a historically unprecedented vocal prayer be conducted, because (sic) "silent prayers get silent results!". Outraged Democrats responded in kind, and the House descended into chaos for several minutes. Much shouting, both sides of the chamber. Not the proudest day for the US House of Representatives, to be sure, and neither Party emerged looking great. But Gospel has greatly misrepresented what actually happened, and I certainly don't see how that aids his supposed goal of toning down the rhetoric!

 

[Gospel]

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.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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?

 

[pood]

Well, not having seen this, I don’t know what to say, but regardless of the exact circumstances, I don’t think there should be any praying on the House floor, and certainly not under pressure. That separation of church and state thing comes to mind.