Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[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.

Dan Quayle, Sara Palin

"Optimal for the job"

 

[bilby]

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.

Was he?

I am not sure how you can possibly know that.

That makes it fundamentally different.

And I am not sure it does - even if he was killed because of his political views, he's far from the only person killed for that reason. And the killing of a private citizen, however "politically" motivated it might be, is not the concern of the government. He wasn't an elected representative, nor an employee, of the government.

He was just a blowhard with an opinion his killer (presumably) disagreed with. Unless his killer had another motive than politics, which is certainly not someyhing that has been (or likely ever could be) ruled out.

Any opinion could lead to your death, if someone is crazy enough to decide it merits murder.

You or I could be shot dead tomorrow for holding the uncontroversial opinion that another motorist's behaviour is worthy of an eye-roll. Would that be any less chilling of public discourse than Kirk's shooting? Or any less worthy of a media frenzy?

We already live in:

a society where expressing any opinion can carry a death sentence.

... and we always have.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[crazyfingers]

If Kinnel sued he'd have a very good chance of willing on First Amendment grounds.

The resulting corporate decision to suspend Jimmy Kimmel from late-night television runs squarely afoul of the First Amendment. The constitution doesn’t guarantee Kimmel a talk show, but it does guarantee that the government won’t quash his speech because of what he chooses to say. Kimmel now has a straightforward suit for damages and forward-looking relief that he can and should file — not just against ABC, but also against the government officials who were the driving force for his embarrassing public disciplining.

The basic facts of Kimmel’s suspension are straightforward. The late-night host has been accused of mischaracterizing the motives of the alleged assassin of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, suggesting he may have hailed from the political right. On Wednesday, the chair of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, appeared on Benny Johnson’s podcast and described Kimmel’s remarks as part of a “concerted effort to lie to the American people.” The FCC, he said, has “remedies that we can look at.” He added: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way …. These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

Although the Supreme Court did not ultimately decide the merits in the social media case, no justice doubted the clear-as-day First Amendment principle that, as Alito explained, “government officials may not coerce private entities to suppress speech.” Indeed, less than a month beforehand, the unanimous court held in a different case that the First Amendment “prohibits government officials from relying on the ‘threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion . . . to achieve the suppression’ of disfavored speech.”

In a separate opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch explained what a plaintiff needed to show to get into court: Could the government’s conduct, when “viewed in context,” be “reasonably understood to convey a threat of adverse government action in order to punish or suppress the plaintiff ’s speech?”

This principle is both simple and sound: The government can’t do indirectly, through shadowy threats and mafia-like intimidation, what it is barred from doing directly. Indeed, this is a principle that even Trump apparently believes in: In July 2021, he filed civil actions against Facebook, Twitter and YouTube alleging that unconstitutional government jaw-boning of those firms led to the take-down and shadow banning of his and others’ speech.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/09/18/jimmy-kimmel-supreme-court-first-amendment-lawsuit-00570697

 

[crazyfingers]

Very likely also unconstitutional. The first amendment applies to anyone in the US.

This administration is hell bent to destroy the constitution.

 

[Gospel]

Was he?

I am not sure how you can possibly know that.

Well unless it turns out the shooters text message that said "I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out," wasn't from the shooter as the FBI claims, I do know that.

And I am not sure it does - even if he was killed because of his political views, he's far from the only person killed for that reason. And the killing of a private citizen, however "politically" motivated it might be, is not the concern of the government. He wasn't an elected representative, nor an employee, of the government.

Martin Luther King wasn’t an elected official either. But the people who had no issues with his assassination would’ve made the same argument you just did, so by their logic, you’re right.

... and we always have.

We didn't always encourage it though. At least not here in America.

 

[Derec]

Nope. Every word is wrong, as usual for you. You are not capable of being right about anything.

Now, that's the level of "discourse" I've come to expect from you pood. Just gainsaying without offering any reasoning or evidence.

 

[bilby]

Well unless it turns out the shooters text message that said "I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out," wasn't from the shooter as the FBI claims, I do know that.

Really? Even if the FBI claim is 100% true, that doesn't establish political motive. It sounds more personal than political to me.

 

[bilby]

Martin Luther King wasn’t an elected official either. But the people who had no issues with his assassination would’ve made the same argument you just did, so by their logic, you’re right.

Perhaps; But I am ALSO right for better reasons than theirs, so your attempt to cast me as a party to their entire abhorrent philosophy is not only fallacious but insulting.

This is just the argument ad hitlerum in disguise.

 

[Derec]

Firstly, "cancel culture" was about people being held accountable for their actions.

No, they were being held "accountable" for their politically incorrect, un-woke speech.
A particularly egregious example I recall from that era was when a young woman working for a college radio station was fired because she dared point out that Jacob Blake had a warrant for sexual assault, and that this was why police were trying to arrest him.
Arizona State University radio station votes to remove manager over Jacob Blake tweet
Ironically, the School of Journalism and Mass Communications at Arizona State was named for Walter Cronkite. To quote Bunk from the Wire: "Makes me sick, motherfucker, how far we done fell!"

Saying anything negative about Heroes of the Movement like George Floyd or Jacob Blake was considered breach of woke orthodoxy.

The firing of Colbert and Kimmel was about the content of their speech. And Kimmel's speech wasn't even provocative.

Colbert wasn't fired; his show was not renewed past next year. But he is still on air now. The concept of a late night talk show with a ~200 person staff is a relic from the era of network TV dominance, and does not work in a highly fragmented landscape with competition not just from cable TV but increasingly from streaming platforms. It is very likely Colbert will reinvent himself with a more streamlined, cheaper to produce format.

Secondly, the GOP cancelled Bill Maher (ABC again) in 2001 when he suggested that the terrorists weren't cowards, as was being portrayed by the right-wing.

Was it GOP, or rather a business decision by ABC? A business decision HBO saw differently when they gave him a show that is in its 23rd year now.
For the record, I do like Maher, but that was a stupid thing to say. Religious delusion does not equal bravery. And one can say that going after soft civilian targets rather than the military is a form of cowardice.

In no way trying to justify the actions. But fired all the same. Of course, Kimmel can't go to HBO like Maher did as Warner Bros / Discovery are looking at some sort of merger with another company and they won't want the FCC getting in the way.

I think he'll be fine in the end. But where were you in 2020 and 2021 to defend free speech by those critical of the #BLM movement?

 

[ZiprHead]

Kirk evidence contrasts with White House claims over 'radical left' groups and the CDC's big week: Morning Rundown

Plus, experts are torn over an expected interest rate cut from the Federal Reserve.

www.nbcnews.com

The Trump administration's suggestion that a secret network of violent left-wing extremists was behind the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk stood in contrast to the evidence presented by law enforcement. Text messages from the suspect, Tyler Robinson, to his roommate revealed a confession and an explanation, officials said, but made no link to any groups.

In the string of text exchanges, Robinson wrote that he "had enough of [Kirk's] hatred," and that "Some hate can’t be negotiated." The exchange was among the evidence that Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray used to charge Robinson with aggravated murder, felony discharge of a firearm, obstruction of justice, witness tampering and several other counts. Officials said they would seek the death penalty.

Robinson told his roommate that he had been planning the attack for over a week, the charging document alleged. While the investigation is ongoing, prosecutors revealed nothing yesterday that connected the alleged shooter to any leftist groups.

 

[Derec]

Except that blacks, women and other minorities have always been arbitrarily excluded.

It is simply untrue that this was the case until 2020 and Biden's corrupt bargain with Jim Clyburn.
In 1984 Geraldine Ferraro, a woman, was Walter Mondale's running mate.
In 2008, Sarah Palin, another woman, was John McCain's running mate.
Not vice presidential candidates, but ...
In 2008, Barack Obama, a black (well, technically biracial) man was nominated for president by the Democratic Party.
He won two terms.
In 2016, Hillary Clinton, a woman was nominated for president by the Democratic Party.

Biden changed that, to his credit.

Ending exclusion does not necessitate excluding everybody but black women not just from consideration for Veep, but also for SCOTUS justice. That is something you refuse to acknowledge, no matter how often I point it out.
Not to mention that, by 2020, there wasn't such an exclusion, as I have shown above.

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.”

You can't know that.

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

Wrong, as I have shown above.

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.

You don't end exclusion by doubling down on exclusion. It's illogical and it's sad that the leftists like you do not see that it was a wrong thing to do. Morally as well as strategically. Having Kamala Harris foisted on us cost us 2024, and possibly our democracy..
"Good job, Joe!" indeed ...

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

As lpetrich would say:
Evidence: ∅

 

[Derec]

Of course, you have not yet explained what makes her a poor pick.

I have, by pointing to her lack of good judgment.
I went into more detail in other threads, particularly the 2024 post-mortem thread.

Any white man who had a track record as AG and senator, among other qualifications, would have been hailed as an exemplary pick.

Indeed, she looked very good on paper. I have said the same in post #640. That's why she enjoyed a lot of early buzz and interest from donors.

But when the rubber hit the road starting in Summer 2019, she did not perform that well.
Her campaign overspent and ran out of money before 2020 started - poor judgment.
She went to the left fringe in the Senate and also tried to contest the outside left lane with the likes of Bernie and Warren.
For that reason she embraced nutty positions like banning fracking and offshore drilling - poor judgment.
She decided to attack Biden over his opposition to 1970s forced bussing policies - poor judgment.

She continued her poor judgment when she ran in 2024, but then she wasn't just losing the primary, she was losing the general election, because we did not have a primary, we had a coronation.

 

[Derec]

Well murdering federal agents and agitating during BLM protests didn’t get them their boogaloo. Maybe this will get them the bump they want.

"Boogaloo" was another made up bullshit that allowed people to pretend that every white #BLM rioter was a false flag rightie, despite the fact that #BLM and Antifa have many white supporters.

Take this as an example:
Protester at BLM rally on why he took part in Minneapolis arson

“I’ve seen articles accusing me of being part of the Boogaloo Bois. I’ve seen YouTube videos and posts on Instagram saying I’m part of the KKK or I’m a white supremacist and my goal was to frame Black Lives Matter as a collective for the arson of the precinct,” Wolfe said.
“None of that is true.”
[...]
“I was a regular [at the Salvation Army Harbor Light Center, a homeless shelter that provides free meals to the needy, where Floyd worked as a security guard], five days a week for breakfast, and I saw [Floyd] quite a few times,” he said. Wolfe said he did not consider himself Floyd’s personal friend, but they had a relationship that grew out of regular chats at the shelter.
“You can tell when people struggle with things, just by communicating with them. Obviously, he did. I did, too. That’s life. But, I mean, George Floyd was an awesome man.”

But because he is white, Wolfe was labeled as "Boogaloo" by the media, along with the other white arsonist involved in the same case. The two blacks also involved were considered legit #BLMers. Funny that.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Except that blacks, women and other minorities have always been arbitrarily excluded.

It is simply untrue that this was the case until 2020 and Biden's corrupt bargain with Jim Clyburn.
In 1984 Geraldine Ferraro, a woman, was Walter Mondale's running mate.
In 2008, Sarah Palin, another woman, was John McCain's running mate.
Not vice presidential candidates, but ...
In 2008, Barack Obama, a black (well, technically biracial) man was nominated for president by the Democratic Party.
He won two terms.
In 2016, Hillary Clinton, a woman was nominated for president by the Democratic Party.

Also  Charles Curtis, the 31st VP, was a Native American. He served with Herbert Hoover.

 

[bilby]

Ultimately it is unimportant whether Kitk's killing was political. What matters is that it is being politicized.

His life was certainly political, but he is worth far more to Trump and his MAGA loons dead than he ever could have been alive.

Martyrs are great, because when you say that you are doing things in their name, you can be certain they won't contradict you.

 

[crazyfingers]

Ultimately it is unimportant whether Kitk's killing was political. What matters is that it is being politicized.

His life was certainly political, but he is worth far more to Trump and his MAGA loons dead than he ever could have been alive.

Martyrs are great, because when you say that you are doing things in their name, you can be certain they won't contradict you.

True. And it's given Trump an excuse (a lying one) to violate freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of association. In normal times another impeachable offense.

 

[Emily Lake]

You need remedial reading lessons or something... What is meant by that is
WE (AMERICA) WILL BE IN THIS WORSENING SITUATION OF VIOLENCE AND OPPRESSION UNTIL TRUMP IS GONE AND PROBABLY LONG AFTER, but there is absolutely no chance of anything getting better in this Country as long as The Pedophile leads a ruling cult.
He is a Russian puppet and every outcome he ensures, does the will of his master.
Show me wrong.

The tragedy is that you, Emily, will probably be able to evidence your online history to land you a bigtime job in 2029 if The Felon is still alive, while mile will earn me a death sentence. But you're young, I'm not, and I hope you enjoy the spoils.

The tragedy, Elixir, is that you seem unwilling to make the effort to reduce hostility among citizens and avoid increasing the likelihood of a civil war.

As evidenced by the rather assholish content of your post.

 

[Emily Lake]

Whether it's harder or not to change a federal law or not is not the point. The point is that the supreme court on a whim would nullify same sex marriage, law or not.

No, they can't. Judges cannot make law, and the only way they can remove a law is if it's actually unconstitutional. And there's nothing in the constitution that could be used to support that view.

 

[Emily Lake]

But this is what the US has been doing for centuries, just choosing white males

This applies to pretty much all predominantly white countries though. Absolutely chafe about the last 40 years, but complaining that we didn't have a black woman as president #3 is kinda silly.