Friday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm going to say it: I don't care about if it can be done to my side because it already was -- anyone remember Jay Leno -- I am so glad, SO GLAD that Jimmy Kimmel is gone!

15 years ago I was defending an undergrad on judicial charges that he'd torn down a Jimmy Kimmel poster, Kimmel being an obnoxious &^%$#$^^ back then.

He and Corrolla were genuinely funny with The Man Show but that wasn't political and not really *that* sexist, beyond the girls jumping on trampolines.

Two schmucks gone, two to go. Winning....

[Kazinski]

I'm not glad Jimmy Kimmel is gone, he wasn't important enough to worry about, and the FCC commissioner should have kept his mouth shut.

Besides Jimmy Kimmel is a funny man, here he is celebrating Tucker Carlson getting fired.

https://x.com/Sarcasmcat24/status/1968733829964640326?t=dOVLNLUjuAsiqKZ7VNGuQA&s=19

Very amusing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Tanning his testicles" is crude, not funny.
Kimmel is a nasty man, good riddance.

[Martinned]

Yes. Everyone knows that the true secret to masculinity is tanning your taint.

[David Nieporent]

Um, that's something Carlson himself was promoting.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2022/04/20/tucker-carlsons-testicle-tanning-dangerous-far-right-propaganda/7376795001/

[Joe_dallas]

I never liked tucker, that clip of kimmel making jokes about tucker is not funny

[Kazinski]

What's humorous of course is his complete lack of outrage of Carlson being fired because his political views.

He welcomed it and thought it was a perfectly acceptable response to views he disagreed with.

[Sarcastr0]

Carlson being fired because his political views
That's not how the news told it.

It's also a collateral issue.

I notice that while you give lip service to the FCC shouldn't have done that, you're a font of irrelevant chaff on the issue.

[damikesc]

Oh no, you seem mad people are not supporting Kimmel sufficiently.

[LexAquilia]

He's more upset over the canning of Kimmel than the murder of Kirk.

The Left's reaction to this tells the entire story.

[David Nieporent]

There are 20,000 murders a year in the U.S. Each one is a tragedy, but not as bad as government tyranny.

[Frank Drackman]

What’s sexist about girls jumping on trampolines?

[Jazzizhep]

My reaction?

[Frank Drackman]

That's a reflex (if you're lucky)

[Kazinski]

Regardless of the FCC's unhelpful statement about Jimmy Kimmel, he was probably gone anyway.

Here is Sinclair Broadcasting listing its conditions to put Kimmel back on the air on its 38 ABC stations:

"Sinclair will not lift the suspension of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” on our stations until formal discussions are held with ABC regarding the network’s commitment to professionalism and accountability.

Sinclair also calls upon Mr. Kimmel to issue a direct apology to the Kirk family. Furthermore, we ask Mr. Kimmel to make a meaningful personal donation to the Kirk Family and Turning Point USA.

Regardless of ABC’s plans for the future of the program, Sinclair intends not to return “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” to our air until we are confident that appropriate steps have been taken to uphold the standards expected of a national broadcast platform."

Given that ABC is already losing money on Kimmel, 38 stations is a lot to lose, even though none of them are in the top 20 markets.

https://sbgi.net/sinclair-says-kimmel-suspension-is-not-enough-calls-on-fcc-and-abc-to-take-additional-action/

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — Make advertising boycotts of Sinclair media outlets a feature of the next political campaign. No doubt most Sinclair viewers will not care what happens politically, so long as Trump/MAGA interests get support. But some advertisers will care, and Sinclair might be influenced toward caution about trumpeting fascist crap in public.

[Brett Bellmore]

Interesting that you assume advertisers would side with the guy pissing off half the market...

[Martinned]

Interesting that you assume that your opinions are the same as "the market".

[Jazzizhep]

A 72% loss in the coveted advertising demo and a 38% decline in overall audience is not Brett's opinion. It is the market.

[Malika la Maize]

This is likely very misleading-the audience for late night would be losing out to streaming and social media regardless of what’s on, the networks increasingly have to chase the long tail too.

[Jazzizhep]

Now explain Gutfeld! And he's on cable.

Yes, broadcast has been hurt just as much as cable by streaming.

Kimmel had just 261k in the target demo. That can't be explained just by streaming. Late night talk shows are dying just like network TV (again Gutfeld! There is market.) Kimmel and Colbert bet they can alienate half a potential audience and stay in business. They lost that bet.

[Martinned]

Old people watch linear TV, young people watch Youtube and Tiktok.

[Frank Drackman]

Generalize much?
Well I'll play (I was going to say "I'm Game!" but some Androgynous Tranny might shoot me in the Neck)
Your "People" used to line up French Partisans and see how many of their heads an 8mm Mauser round would go through (I think it was usually 7 or 8)

Frank "OK, you ANTIFA's line up in Alphabetical order for Roll Call!"

[Joe_dallas]

true technology changes have created a dying market for late night tv somewhat similar to the dying newspaper industry. that being said, there is an acceleration of death by pissing off half the market.

[Malika la Maize]

Then why is the least political of the big three (Fallon) the one with the lowest ratings?

[Martinned]

@Malika: Not anymore he's not.

[damikesc]

Kimmel is comfortably less than Fallon. Has been losing audience for 10 yrs straight.

[Sarcastr0]

If they thought it made business sense to drop Kimmel, they'd have done that.

Instead, they kept him till the government strongarmed them.

Your second guessing their business judgement just shows you have more ego than sense.

[Jazzizhep]

Maybe they were waiting for a way to drop the contract. Kimmel gave them that. Can't your crystal ball tell you that?

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe they were waiting for a way to drop the contract

Why would they need to wait?

No; it doesn't make sense. Your 'maybe' is not just speculation, it's not aligned with the facts. You're just running cover for government strongarming.

[Jazzizhep]

If they don't fire him for cause they have to pay his contract. If he broke a morals clause, bye-bye and no soup for you.

It is amazing how your hatred of Trump keeps you from very basic thought processes.

[Sarcastr0]

Even if there was a morals clause, no one has used it.

Making up new shit over old shit is still making shit up.

This has less to do with Trump and more to do with you bullshitting.

[Malika la Maize]

How did what he said break a morals clause?

[Ska]

Probably a good question for Disney's lawyers. And Kimmel's lawyers, for that matter.

[Jazzizhep]

Sarcratro

"Even if there was a morals clause, no one has used it.

Making up new shit over old shit is still making shit up."

How do you know they didn't use it? Crystal ball again.

I am not making shit up. You asked why they waited until now. I offered a plausible explanation. I then offered a plausible reason how they could get out of the contract. I never said "I knew" that's what happened.

I take it all back. He only had 8 months left on his contract. He was gone anyway. Just a case of premature...firing him. He makes $17mil a year. Maybe they try to get out of it. Maybe not. It certainly wasn't worth the boycotts for 8 months of headaches.

[Sarcastr0]

The idea that this is the first time Kimmel offered a plausible reason to trigger the morals clause has a number of holes in it.
1) This is hardly a slam dunk on that front
2) They still haven't exercised it! If it exists! So your whole theory of motive is based on nothing but your speculation
3) He's got a whole history of kerfluffle-worthy stuff.

This timing stinks, and unlike some on here you're not so dumb you don't know it. Which means you're a conscious apologist, bullshitting for the regime.

Quit that; you don't need to be that.

[Joe_dallas]

From AI -
Jimmy Kimmel's ratings have been on a declining trajectory, with sharp drops in mid-2025, leading to a year-end total viewership of 1.1 million in August 2025, and an advertiser-coveted 18–49 demographic viewership of 129,000 in the same month. These numbers represent a significant fall from the 1.95 million total viewers and 212,000 viewers in the 18-49 demo that "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" had in January 2025. The ratings slump has led to speculation about the future of his show, particularly as his ABC contract is set to expire the following year.

[Joe_dallas]

From AI -

2015-2016: Averaged around 2.2 million viewers.
2016-2017: Continued to average 2.2 million viewers.
2018: Viewership dropped to 2.1 million.
2019: Further decline to 1.9 million viewers.
2020: Sunk to 1.8 million viewers.
2021: The show managed only 1.5 million nightly viewers.
2025: Averaged 1.6 million viewers overall, a 37% drop from 2015

august 2025 numbers at 1.1m

[bernard11]

2022-2024?

Seems important if you are trying to show a trend.

[Life of Brian]

If they thought it made business sense to drop Kimmel, they'd have done that.

As I said yesterday, Kimmel's contract was almost up anyway. Before this week, it's not hard to imagine them deciding that intangible PR factors outweighed the cash burn and that it was a net plus to limp him along for the last few months.

Then he took a flamethrower to those PR factors.

That left them with no discernible upside to continuing to limp him along, and at least a chance of stopping the bleeding with the crowd he had just alienated on their behalf.

[Sarcastr0]

PR factors

Nonsense. Appearing to kowtow to Trump is worse for PR than just firing Kimmel because he wasn't bringing in the $$.

This is just making shit up. And not even convincing shit.

I used to think you were just a really contrarian pedant. You've lately revealed yourself to be a full on authoritarian.

[Life of Brian]

I'll tell you something you probably won't believe, but that's fine.

I really, really wish that Carr hadn't sat for that interview that day.

That gave you and your ilk cover for your frothy conspiracy theories that would have been a lot harder to pull off had the market forces just played out without the distraction.

If you really think these companies were sitting around monitoring the Benny Johnson (who?) show and that the C-suite and legal departments for three different companies all got in alignment to do something this drastic a couple of hours later, I can't wait to fill you in on my prize swampland in Florida.

[Don Nico]

"You've lately revealed yourself to be a full on authoritarian."
The gaslighter cannot help but be dishonest.

[Sarcastr0]

What conspiracy theory? Trump and the head of the FCC said it!

Yeah I’m sure you wish you didn’t have to cover for the indefensible again. It sucks when they say the quiet part loud. Which is basically what you just said. Nothing above the actual authoritarianism.

Just unfortunate how open it is, eh?

[jb]

"That gave you and your ilk cover for your frothy conspiracy theories that would have been a lot harder to pull off had the market forces just played out without the distraction."

It's not a conspiracy theory when the head of the FCC threatens a broadcast license over speech he doesn't like. Maybe that wasn't the thing that caused ABC to pull Kimmel (although some reporting says that it was at least a factor), but this isn't shadow figures in back rooms. It's the Trump administration directly going after companies that give a platform to voices they don't agree with.

[DeAnnP]

Well after Colbert, Trump said Kimmel was next. Low and behold, it actually happened. Trump has now said Fallon and Meyers are next. I guess we will have to wait and see if that comes to fruition. Then we'll know.

[Life of Brian]

It's not a conspiracy theory when [Brandon Carr said stuff]. Maybe that wasn't the thing that caused ABC to pull Kimmel

But the conspiracy theory is that the stuff Carr said indeed was what caused ABC and the affiliates to all simultaneously fix their problem -- not Kimmel who actually caused the problem. So maybe all we're really disagreeing on is the vernacular.

Word on the street is that Disney is trying to find a path to get him back on air, but Kimmel is dead-set against doing anything but doubling down -- which according to this source was the same reason they ultimately pulled the plug on Wednesday's show. None of that fits the "Carr said no" narrative at all.

[Sarcastr0]

You’ve made all of that up, is the thing.

[Life of Brian]

I guess you're replying to me, maybe? I made up the article I linked to? Did you bother reading it?

[Sarcastr0]

You've made up the secret intent to fire Kimmel just looking for an excuse.

Right out of your ass, it is.

Born out of the necessity to pretend this is something other than what it is.

[Life of Brian]

You've made up the secret intent to fire Kimmel just looking for an excuse.

As I mentioned and linked in Wednesday's open thread, Kimmel himself knew he wasn't going to be renewed over a year ago. You're of course free to pretend that has no bearing whatsoever on how the network might be expected to think about and react to this sort of boulder that broke the camel's back, but the rest of us certainly don't have to.

[bernard11]

LoB,

If you really think these companies were sitting around monitoring the Benny Johnson (who?) show and that the C-suite and legal departments for three different companies all got in alignment to do something this drastic a couple of hours later, I can't wait to fill you in on my prize swampland in Florida.

Probably they weren't monitoring that show, but they didn't have to. Carr's comments were widely reported on social media. Do you think broadcast companies in general don't pay close attention to Carr's statements? I doubt it.

And a company like Nexstar, that had a multi-billion dollar merger on the line that needed FCC approval, probably paid more attention than most. You think they were not aware of the Paramount situation?

[Life of Brian]

Probably they weren't monitoring that show, but they didn't have to. Carr's comments were widely reported on social media. Do you think broadcast companies in general don't pay close attention to Carr's statements? I doubt it.

I'm sure they eventually heard about it -- though it certainly would take some time to trickle upwards from those actually monitoring social media buzzes, through people with enough institutional/legal knowledge to sort this into the "OMG RED ALERT" bucket rather than the typical overblown Benny Johnson hot takes, and then round up the actual high-level decision makers who probably weren't exactly sitting around waiting for this to happen.

And that's ultimately my point: no matter exactly when you start the stopwatch, there was a pretty short period of time between the interview running and the ultimate announcements by Sinclair, Nexstar, and ABC, and it seems exceptionally unlikely that the execs and lawyers across those three not-small organizations could have, in that amount of time, 1) heard about the comments; 2) actually listened to them; 3) decided those comments represented actual, right-now-actionable risk; 4) gamed out the ramifications of immediately dropping the show; 5) gamed out possible alternatives to just dropping the show; 6) gone back and forth with Kimmel trying to get him to play ball so the show could continue, 7) finally realized he wasn't playing ball and so decided to move forward dropping it; and 8) drafted lengthy public press releases, in that short of a time frame.

Far more believable in my view this had been fomenting since the prior night when the show actually aired (talk about monitoring social media!), and that a considerable number of people spent a lot of time starting to churn through this in lieu of sleeping.

[not guilty]

IOW, LoB, you are engaging in speculation and conjecture.

[Life of Brian]

And the folks making the rain-dance level argument where it must have been based on Carr's comments because they happened in that time order are not engaging in such speculation and conjecture?

If we're not going to take the companies at their word for why they did what they did, we're all looking at the available data points and gaming out the most probable, sensible explanation that fits as many of those data points as possible. If you have an idea for a better technique, bring it on.

[David Nieporent]

As I mentioned and linked in Wednesday's open thread, Kimmel himself knew he wasn't going to be renewed over a year ago.

And as I replied, you didn't bother to read the article you linked to, because it doesn't say that.

Also, the issue here isn't non-renewal.

[Life of Brian]

"Nuh uh" is not an argument. Feel free to explain what you feel the article says that is materially different than what I said.

And in my view, a looming non-renewal is a lovely proxy for the network's likely willingness to go to bat for you when you're dumb enough to drop one in the punchbowl on national TV.

[David Nieporent]

"Nuh uh" is not an argument. Feel free to explain what you feel the article says that is materially different than what I said.

Kimmel from that article: "The host revealed that he is yet to sign a contract extension with ABC, and the likelihood of getting a deal done at the moment isn't very high."

You: "Kimmel knew he wasn't going to be renewed."

[Life of Brian]

Kimmel from that article: "The host revealed that he is yet to sign a contract extension with ABC, and the likelihood of getting a deal done at the moment isn't very high."

Man, did your clipboard overflow or something? Really weird how it so cleanly dropped the very next sentence:

“I think this is my final contract,” he tells the Los Angeles Times.

You might want to get that checked.

[Magister]

That reads like Kimmel choosing not to continue doing the show.

His contract is up at the end of his current season, taking him through May 2026. For years, Kimmel — who has also hosted the Oscars for ABC and just won an Emmy for hosting the network’s “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?” — has contended with whether to continue his show, most recently debating whether to renew his contract in 2022.

[Malika la Maize]

Notice how he elides what the FCC did. Ignorance or disingenuousness?

[windycityattorney]

So now when someone tunes into what was Jimmy Kimmel live they are going to get a Charlie Kirk tribute.

Lol.

Fuck Sinclair. "Make a significant monetary contribution to TurningPoints USA; publicly apologize AND MAKE IT SINCERE" Ya no. They lost their g-damn minds.

[Life of Brian]

"Fuck that shit -- I WAS gleefully dancing on Charlie Kirk's grave!"

[Sarcastr0]

Nothing like what the comment you replied to said.

[Life of Brian]

"Nothing like" other than its entire premise -- flatly refusing to and in fact ridiculing the notion of taking a couple of basic steps to make crystal clear that he held no ill will toward Kirk or the people that knew and loved him, and certainly didn't mean to come across that way.

[Sarcastr0]

'Bow and scrape or I'll assume you endorse murder!'

You can lie all you want, it doesn't change that he never said anything like that.
It's plain to read, as is your attempt to use a false accusation to help with you tantrum harder.

[Life of Brian]

If it's that plain to read, then why in the world do you feel the need to keep trying to Sarcsplain it?

[not guilty]

LoB, no one is dancing on Charlie Kirk's grave.

You seem to be delighted, however, at Disney/ABC giving in to Brendan Carr's thuggery.

If you and Jimmy Kimmel were both drowning, and I had only one life preserver to throw, it wouldn't be a difficult choice.

[damikesc]

...or do not slander a dead man. I know, a bridge too far.

Asking anybody on the Right to defend Kimmel is a non-starter. Your side is quite happy seeing all of us die and, should any of us die, will happily celebrate it.

Your side is evil. Undeniably so.

[Life of Brian]

Disney/ABC giving in to Brendan Carr's thuggery.

And there's that rain-dance level argument I just mentioned. Do you have any cool animal hide drums you beat as you drone that?

[Magister]

Brendan Carr's statements were strongly criticized by Ted Cruz, so it seems at least some on the right will break with the administration's attacks on free speech. Cruz and many others seem to accept that those statements caused Kimmel's suspension. And Carr threatened broadcaster's licenses for unfair treatment of Trump even before he was appointed, so the coercion was already there even if nobody had heard his most recent threats on Benny Johnson's podcast.

[Life of Brian]

Brendan Carr's statements were strongly criticized by Ted Cruz . . . Cruz and many others seem to accept that those statements caused Kimmel's suspension.

It's fallacies all the way down. Whether Carr's comments were ill-advised/ill-timed is a fully independent proposition from whether those comments actually caused Kimmel's suspension. I've read through Cruz's comments and don't see anything to the contrary. As usual, if you disagree please provide his actual language rather than your optimistic characterizations. Thanks.

[Magister]

My "optimistic take" is shared by most commentators and pretty much only explicitly denied by Life of Brian, whose takes are always slanted to defense of his cult leaders. If you want to demand proof, provide some of your own; of course the network will publicly deny any relation while insiders say otherwise; conspicuously, Variety reports

Jimmy Kimmel and Disney are working toward reaching a compromise that would allow “Jimmy Kimmel Live” to return to ABC.

Seems odd if they were losing money and going to cancel him anyway.

Trump's and Carr's threats against licenses of broadcasters who said things Trump didn't like were well known; criticism of Kimmel was rampant for several days before this suspension. Life of Brian's pretense requires that networks barely have an idea that there is an FCC head, let alone what he might have said, while they have pending mergers and projects for the FCC to approve. By analogy, it can be imagined that the victim bled out from previous wounds and not from a shot fired in his direction so close before his demise.

[Brett Bellmore]

I can't say that Kimmel particularly pissed me off, because I haven't watched TV in many years. But you're hiding under a rock if you think Kimmel wasn't alienating a lot of his potential audience.

[Martinned]

What does that have to do with the FCC threatening to take away people's broadcasting license?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Look into WHDH's loss of Boston Channel 5 in the 70s.

Public interest.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett once again puts on his business genius hat and explains how they key to profits is being less woke.

The fact that this isn't followed by many businesses is proof the left has infiltrated EVERYWHERE.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 2 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Brett once again puts on his business genius hat and explains how they key to profits is being less woke.

Sacastro - Brett's comment reflects how things work in the real world, not the alternate universe that you reside

[Don Nico]

"The fact that this isn't followed by many businesses is proof the left has infiltrated EVERYWHERE."
He distorts and stamps his feet because the content of his comment is worthless.
Kimmel lived by the sword and he died by the sword. What is new about that.

[damikesc]

it is amazing that so many think that after Colbert lost tens of millions a year...that Kimmel, with half of the audience, does NOT lose millions is just assumed.

[Bunny495]

When Brett says "I can't say that Kimmel particularly pissed me off, because I haven't watched TV in many years." it is important to note that not only is he alone in this action as well as the industry expecting it to not only continue but increase.

Truth be told I can't ever remember seeing Kimmel (or any other late night host) since Leno left. I would bet dollars to donuts more peeps are not watching late night due to life style changes than because they were POed about his political stance.

[Martinned]

You should have a look at the numbers the late night hosts are getting on Youtube.

[Don Nico]

Martin, today you are on to something. YouTube is great entertainment and I get to choose the comment. So I am happy to pay the premium for no ads.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No Bunny -- when Leno had a good line, it would be repeated the next morning in the office. We had analog VCRs back then to "time shift" shows we wanted to see.

Today there are all kinds of ways to redistribute video clips and some of Gutfield's actually are because he is actually (apolitically) funny. The rest aren't and THAT is why no one watches them -- it's not lifestyle...

[Malika la Maize]

FYIGM is one of Brett’s essential life rules.

[shawn_dude]

Define "potential audience" here. He is a center-left comedian who makes fun of Trump. That pretty much means his "potential audience" excludes 33% of voters that represent MAGA. There are plenty of comedians willing to pander to the Americans who knowingly voted for a convicted sexual offender that attempted a coup in 2020.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd define it in terms of the potential audience for that time slot, not the potential audience for somebody determined to alienate a large part of the time slot's potential audience.

[shawn_dude]

Then you'd be wrong here because the potential audience for that time slot will undoubtedly include people unlikely to watch anything remotely like late night comedy. Marketers know their demographic and they tighten it down far, far more than just "anyone with a pulse that has TV on at that hour." The reason for this is because it make it easier for advertisers to discern the value of sponsorship and all the money-raking that effort results in.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — You are talking about audience curation without realizing it. There are many ways to go about doing it. The method you seem to presume—trying to capture everyone in an entire market segment—would not be typical practice except among trivially small publishers. If you are trying to compete in a large market segment, a conscious choice to write off one audience fraction to optimize access to another fraction is pretty routine. The Dacron Ohio Democrat Republican is long-ago media parody, not real life. If memory serves, that parody publication served up the local angle with headlines like this:

TWO LOCAL WOMEN FEARED MISSING IN ERUPTION
Japan Destroyed

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett -- memory is Sinclair has a station in Bangor, ME.
An advertiser would backfire.

[bernard11]

First, how do we know that they were losing money on Kimmel? Where the figures published somewhere, by someone who didn't have an interest in whitewashing the cancellation?

And the real business issue is who do they replace him with who will do better. Late night TV is declining, it seems, so how do they replace the audience, or they going to show a blank screen?

[Nelson]

“ the guy pissing off half the market...”

The fact that the MAGA people think that 50% (or , for the most delusional, more) of the country support Trump unconditionally is fact #2,398 on the list of “things that show Trump supporters suck at basic facts”.

Trump was elected by less than 50% of the people who voted, which was 63.7% of eligible voters. So just over 30% of adults voted for Trump.

Trump’s approval rating overall is 44.9% (he retains the distinction of being the only President in history never to have gotten over 50% approval), with 52.9% disapproving. On important issues like immigration, economy, trade, and inflation, his approvals have dropped nonstop since his election.

So no, his supporters aren’t “half the market”. They aren’t even half of voters who voted. If you wanted to pander to the group that was largest, that would be people opposed to Trump. In no world have Trump supporters ever even reached 33% of the market.

Stop acting like he has some sweeping mandate. He doesn’t.

[wvattorney13]

This assumes that the only viewers that are pissed off by Kimmel's schtick are hard core MAGA supporters. An awful lot of people turn the channel because they are tired of hearing one-sided, unfunny, anti-Trump rants every night. They tuned in to watch comedy.

[David Nieporent]

The only people pissed off by Kimmel's schtick are people who were never viewers to start with, because it's fake outrage over something he didn't say that anyone who actually watched would know he didn't say.

[Mr. Bumble]

There you have it form the man who knows everything and what everyone thinks.

[Nelson]

“ This assumes that the only viewers that are pissed off by Kimmel's schtick are hard core MAGA supporters”

No, the only people who think he should be canceled are MAGA. The only people that think he said something even slightly offensive are MAGA. The only people who think this is something worthy of government censorship are MAGA.

Claiming to know the reason why people choose one show over another based on your personal biases is absolute idiocy. Some people found him unfunny. They didn’t fail to watch because they were outraged, they failed to watch because they don’t like his kind of humor. That’s why I tried, but didn’t like, The Studio. There are a lot of people out there who find it hilarious, I’m just not one of them. Tgat doesn’t mean I’m outraged.

[Sarcastr0]

Probably!

Sinclare piling on is the effect, not the cause.

You keep working to minimize the effect of the FCC

[Jazzizhep]

Will your crystal ball give me Powerball numbers? Maybe you used your Ouija Board?

[Sarcastr0]

What crystal ball? I understand the causal arrow of time, is all.

[Jazzizhep]

You don't know it is causal in the least. That is what your crystal ball is for.

[Malika la Maize]

Forget casual, is it plausible? More importantly, defensible?

[Sarcastr0]

They key part of the comment is the "arrow of time" bit, you silly man.

You're citing a thing that happened after the fact as the cause.

I don't need to be a brain genius to see that you're full of it.

[Jazzizhep]

Again, your crystal ball is telling you they wouldn't have done it anyway.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"What crystal ball? I understand the causal arrow of time, is all."

Yup. As any physicist knows, one of the immutable laws of science is post hoc ergo propter hoc.

[Don Nico]

It's his vibes, man. His vibes, not his crystal balls.

[David Nieporent]

Sinclair also calls upon Mr. Kimmel to issue a direct apology to the Kirk family.

WTF? Apologize to them for what? He didn't say anything to or about them.

[shawn_dude]

This is not exactly true. He did send condolences to the Kirk family via an instagram post on the day Kirk was shot.

[not guilty]

I'm sure that David was referring to Kimmel's monologue not having said anything to or about Kirk's family.

No one at all should celebrate Charlie Kirk's death. Neither should anyone who disagreed with his hateful shtick celebrate his life.

[bernard11]

First, Sinclair itself is a pretty right-wing organization. Not surprising they're kissing Trump's ass.

Second, this is ridiculous. Kimmel said nothing about Kirk. It's nothing but an effort to humiliate Kimmel and make him, and others toe the MAGA line.

I'm astonished you support this, and pretend all is well. If Sinclair wanted to get rid of the show they could have waited a few months for the contract to run out. They didn't.

And Nexstar succumbed to blatant extortion.

[damikesc]

Awwww...poor Kimmel. Won't anybody think of Kimmel?

Screw him. Silence him for all I care.

[Nelson]

Authoritarianism is your thing, eh? Not surprising.

[David Nieporent]

I'm going to say it: I don't care about if it can be done to my side because it already was -- anyone remember Jay Leno -- I am so glad, SO GLAD that Jimmy Kimmel is gone!

1. Every single American over the age of about 25 who isn't suffering from Alzheimers remembers Jay Leno.
2. Leno is not on Dr. Ed's "side" on anything.
3. Nothing was "done to" Jay Leno. WTF is Dr. Ed talking about? Can anyone translate his claim from retard into English?

[Brett Bellmore]

"2. Leno is not on Dr. Ed's "side" on anything."

I think that's kind of the point: He wasn't on anybody's side, he was just funny.

You don't HAVE to set out to alienate half the population in order to be funny, you know.

[Martinned]

True. But you also shouldn't have to stick to "just" being funny in order to keep your job. Being able to annoy the Regime is kind of the point of the First Amendment.

[Jazzizhep]

"Late night comedic talk show that starts with a stand-up routine doesn't really need to be funny."

Well, that is certainly a take.

"One should be able to alienate half his audience and still remain on air."

Is another take that is brutally stupid.

[Martinned]

Fox News annoys a lot more than half of its potential audience, and that doesn't result in the FCC Chair telling the company to fire the host.

[Jazzizhep]

Change the subject often, or do I hold a special place in your heart?

The topic was about hosts of late night comedic talk shows needing to be funny.

But I'll play. FOX doesn't annoy over half its audience. People who watch MSNBC aren't FOX's audience. As evidenced by their growth. Kimmel alienated almost half of HIS audience. See the difference?

[Martinned]

Congratulations, you've almost grasped the point. Broadcasters don't have to placate everyone in America to keep their job or earn their paycheck.

Either way, it's none of the Regime's beeswax.

[Don Nico]

"it's none of the Regime's beeswax."
Now do COVID YouTube videos.
What matters is only whose ox is gored.

[Martinned]

If you think Covid misinformation in the middle of a pandemic and criticism of the Regime are remotely the same thing, you're really beyond all help.

[Joe_dallas]

martin - There was considerable misinformation on both sides to the covid debate, with misinformation coming from the health authorities which was very prevalent and in many respects considerably more misinformation from health authorities.
Its one thing for non medical knowledgable individuals to falsely claim ivermectin was effective , its quite another thing for medical experts to spread misinformation.

[Brett Bellmore]

As I said elsewhere, once you can silence "misinformation" anything the censor wants silenced becomes "misinformation". So, yeah, same thing: Stuff the censor wanted silenced.

Was it misinformation that the virus originated in that lab? Because they were treating that as 'misinformation'.

[Sarcastr0]

Facts gotta matter, Brett.

Going postmodernist so you can insist whatever makes you mad is illegitimate may play politically, but at ground truth, facts matter and misinformation is not the same as just 'disfavored speech.'

Set up checks to make sure it's actually disinformation! But don't pretend facts don't exist independent from government authority.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“ Facts gotta matter, Brett.”

Just the other day you said that facts were formalistic bullshit.

[Malika la Maize]

Why is Kimmel’s audience all of America but Fox’s is only the people who lean towards Fox?

[Jazzizhep]

Because he used to appeal to everyone. It is not hard.

CNN once appealed to everyone as well. Ergo, their audience was all of America. FOX grew precisely because people were tired of the monolithic media. FOX's audience has always been those disaffected by MSM.

[Malika la Maize]

But it’s increasingly hard to appeal to everyone in an increasingly polarized nation. So that’s silly.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think it's actually that hard to appeal to almost everyone. You do it by avoiding topics that divide people.

Late night TV doesn't HAVE to be political. It went many years not being political. Becoming political and ticking off half the audience was a choice.

Why was that choice made? It wasn't made to increase market share, that's for sure; Nobody would be stupid enough to think you'd increase market share by angering half your audience.

Basically an agent/principal problem, with the people running the shows deciding to exploit their position to advance their personal politics at the expense of the stockholder. That's my diagnosis.

[Malika la Maize]

One problem with your analysis is it seems SNL has had increasing ratings for the most part in the last decade and you can’t say they haven’t gone political, and as has been pointed out here Fallon’s ratings seemed to fall after he was seen as being less political. Also look at John Stewart’s success with the Daily Show which was a bit political.

[Sarcastr0]

he used to appeal to everyone. It is not hard.

Or, MAGA had not yet discovered the clickbait goldmine of picking broadcasters to get mad at week after week.

Are you arguing his humor has changed? I don't follow the guy, but clips make their way to me and have been since the 2000's, and I don't see it.
I could be wrong! Random clips and vibes are not a slam dunk. But you'll need more support for your 'he used to be cool and then he got leftist; thesis.

[bernard11]

Basically an agent/principal problem, with the people running the shows deciding to exploit their position to advance their personal politics at the expense of the stockholder. That's my diagnosis.

As always, it's a conspiracy. Your diagnosis!! Good thing you're not a doctor. You'd always give the same diagnosis.

[not guilty]

"Late night TV doesn't HAVE to be political. It went many years not being political. Becoming political and ticking off half the audience was a choice."

Actually, taking note of who Johnny Carson ridiculed in his Tonight Show monologue was a pretty accurate barometer of public opinion back in the day.

[Brett Bellmore]

In 2015, Kimmel was drawing 2.1M vs Gutfel's 1.2M
Pretty close to monotonically, (Kimmel recovered 30K viewers in 2025 relative to 2024.) they swapped places, and by 2025, it was 1.58M for Kimmel, and 3.1M for Gutfeld.

[Sarcastr0]

You. Are. Not. A. Business. Genius.

If it seems simple to you, that's a clue you're missing something not that there's some vast conspiracy in the media networks to do leftism.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't see how I have to be a business genius to notice Kimmel's market share dropping and Gutfeld's rising.

[Sarcastr0]

Thinking that answers all is where you special brand of genius comes in.

As noted you're not comparing like with like.

As also noted you're defending some indefensible shit.

The worst libertarian.

[Joe_dallas]

Another worthless snarking retort .

A lot of people know how things work in the real world without being a genius. Sarcastro obviously doesnt

[Bwaaah]

Brett: Your stalker is flailing wildly now. Don't try to tie him to the thread.

He. Is. A. Pea-brained. Lowlife.

[wvattorney13]

Gutfeld is on at 10pm instead of 11:30. That captures a lot of the old bastards who don't stay up late and skew right (so they are watching Fox News).

If the complaint is that Kimmel is losing half of the country with his political bent, then the same should be true for Gutfeld (from the opposite side).

[Frank Drackman]

Are the Old Bastards as old as you, who apparently isn't aware that on this Invention they call Television they have this Invention called a DVR (is that what its still called? the thingie where you can record shows you want to watch at a more civilized time).

[Brett Bellmore]

I think that it's possible to appeal to almost the whole country, but that once the dominant market providers decide to stop doing that, and only serve half the country, it becomes economically rational for somebody else to try to serve the other half.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett thinks.

Amazing how is expertise always ends up covering for right wing big government authoritarians.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, Brett thinks. I highly recommend it, you might try it some time.

[Sarcastr0]

The issue is, of course, that you don't trust anyone but your gut. It makes for an incredible amount of unearned overconfidence. And an utter blindness to how your thoughts always think out towards defending MAGA.

You and I consider things. But you don't have the humility and internal controls. Those are useful if you want to live a life that interfaces with reality more than what you want reality to be.

So your reality is what you want it to be; your ideals are never challenged by the world; and so you get ever more extreme without even realizing it.

[not guilty]

The issue is, of course, that you don't trust anyone but your gut. It makes for an incredible amount of unearned overconfidence. And an utter blindness to how your thoughts always think out towards defending MAGA.

You and I consider things. But you don't have the humility and internal controls. Those are useful if you want to live a life that interfaces with reality more than what you want reality to be.

So your reality is what you want it to be; your ideals are never challenged by the world; and so you get ever more extreme without even realizing it.

Spot on analysis! Brett gloriously illustrates the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[Frank Drackman]

I guess you really don't watch much TV
1: It's "Gutfeld"
2: in 2015 Gutfeld's show was called "Redeye" and was on from 2-3am Eastern (don't ask how I know that) in May 2015 he got "Gutfeld" which was on weekly, Saturday Nights at 10pm. It didn't go to weeknights at 10, and hence, competing with Colbert etal until 2021

[David Nieporent]

Gutfeld is not in the same timeslot that he was in in 2015, and they're not in the same timeslot as each other. Why are you comparing a primetime show to a late night show?

[windycityattorney]

I can't even count the number of places that have a tv (or lots of tv's) set to fox and never change it. Waiting rooms at various doctor offices; workout gyms/YMCA that have tv's by treadmills or wherever. Just randomly on background noise.

I don't know the reason for it - other than it makes old people comfortable?? Maybe they get a discount if they keep it to 1 channel?? Baffling. But very common in the midwest.

[David Nieporent]

Kimmel alienated almost half of HIS audience.

[Citation needed.]

[damikesc]

Dems tried to get cable carriers to drop FNC, OAN, and NewsMax.

Tell me more, please, oh patron saint of free speech.

[Brett Bellmore]

"But you also shouldn't have to stick to "just" being funny in order to keep your job."

If your job is to be funny? Yeah, maybe you should.

"Being able to annoy the Regime is kind of the point of the First Amendment."

But it's kind of NOT the point of being a late night TV host. Bringing in eyeballs and ears to expose to your advertisers is the point. Instead driving them away is the exact opposite of the point of being a late night TV host.

Just because the 1st amendment protects an activity, doesn't mean your employer wants to pay you to do it.

[Martinned]

If your job is to be funny? Yeah, maybe you should.

If that's what you think the job of a late night host is, you clearly haven't watched TV in years.

Just because the 1st amendment protects an activity, doesn't mean your employer wants to pay you to do it.

But it does mean that the Regime should avoid leaning on your employer to get you to shut up.

[Brett Bellmore]

I have not, in fact, watched TV in years. Our TV stays off for weeks at a time, used only for watching the occasional movie, rocket launch, or car repair video.

But I can look at viewership numbers, and hosts who eschew politics in favor of being funny perform better. Because once you get into politics you're automatically ticking off half your potential audience.

"But it does mean that the Regime should avoid leaning on your employer to get you to shut up."

Fair enough, and pointlessly this time, they were likely to fire him anyway.

[Martinned]

Fallon lost his number 1 spot because viewers were annoyed at his uncritical attitude towards the Regime.

As others have said, viewership is declining anyway.

The situation in October 2023:

Colbert has held the number one spot among the 11:30 late-night shows for seven consecutive years. He took over the show in 2015 from David Letterman and quickly became a late-night favorite, in large part due to his criticism and frequent ridicule of former President Donald Trump following his 2016 election win. But late-night shows—which were once culturally dominant and helmed by figures like Letterman, Jay Leno and Johnny Carson—have faced sliding viewership in recent years, as streaming services lure many viewers away from linear television.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mollybohannon/2023/10/10/stephen-colbert-easily-tops-late-night-ratings-war-in-first-week-back-after-writers-strike-report-says/

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, you're way behind, you not pay your Carrier Pigeon Bill this month?
Greg Gutfeld's had the #1 Latenight show pretty much since it went from weekly to week-nightly in 2021
"In August 2021, Gutfeld! overtook The Late Show in the nightly ratings, becoming the highest-rated late night talk show in the United States. In January 2022, it averaged 2.12 million nightly viewers, more than The Late Show, The Tonight Show and Jimmy Kimmel. Since the start of the new weekday format, the show has seen a 23 percent increase in total viewers and a more significant 25 percent increase in the key demographic of adults aged 18-49.In October 2022, the show had its highest rated episode ever with a record 2.5 million viewers, beating every show in late night TV"
Amazing thing is Colbert and Kimmel lasted as long as they did.

Frank "You're next Fallon"

[Malika la Maize]

Gutfeld is on at 10, deranged dolt.

Make America Half-Witted Again!

[Jazzizhep]

Malika,

Gurfeld! was winning when he went head to head for 1/2 hour. He is also only available to a fraction of the viewers because he is not on broadcast tv.

Gutfeld! only reaches about 38% of the viewing public.

[Riva]

“Uncritical attitude”? Strange way to describe despicable lies but to each his own.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, Vincent Vega, you "don't watch TV" but you are aware there is this invention called "Television" and on this invention they show Shows?
Funny how so many people who "Don't watch TV" miraculously know all about the current popular shows.
Just busting balls, I watch TV all the time, but 90% is Sports, MeTV, Grit, TCM, AMC (3 Stooges only)and Fox Bidness (Love when Lizzie Claman gets her feathers all ruffled, and that Curmudgeon of Curmudgeons, Larry Kudlow (better when he's drinking), got the Amazon Prime/Netflix when I need some "Mad Men" "Breaking Bad" or "4 Blocks" (sort of a German Sopranos except the Mobsters are Turks and it's in Berlin instead of Newark) and got the DVD Player entirely to watch "Prisoners of War" (The Israeli series "Homeland" was based on, much better in the original Hebrew)

Frank

[Jazzizhep]

Grandpa? Is that you? Do you get to watch "M.A.S.H." in heaven? When did you start watching sports?

That was his line up. Died in 2023 three months shy of 99 years old. He was trading stocks and watching "Gunsmoke" two weeks before he passed. Miss him. Thanks for the post that turned my thoughts to him.

[Frank Drackman]

Somebody must be watching MeTV, almost every Hotel I stay at carries it.
The TV "M*A*S*H"(Jeez-us, you can't even get the title correct) was only watchable for the first season when Hawkeye was more like the Movie version (the always Great (and sadly "Late") Donald Sutherland.
In Residency I once volunteered for a really tough Pediatric Case only because I wanted the chance to say "Tray-Kee-Oh-E-Soph-a-Geel Fist-Ula!" like Hawkeye does in the Japanese Whorehouse Scene (Trouble with the TV Version, not enough Japanese Whorehouse Scenes)
Good for your Dad, that's how I want to go, 99 years old, sipping an Old Fashioned, watching Matt shoot that guy in the Opening (you'd think the bad guys would learn to avoid Matt in an Opening) with Moe Eye-Gouging Larry in PIP.

Frank

[Jazzizhep]

To set the record straight, that was my grandfather. If it was my dad I would be a lot older. Which is the only reason I am bringing it up.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — For someone who assures us he never watches TV, you show a fine-grained appreciation for programming political nuances. What I notice about Kimmel is that I have not watched him even once, and would not recognize him. That means I recognize I have zero insight into his appeal, his lack of appeal, or any changes in his appeal. How can you as a fellow non-watcher garner so much more insight?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Leno was careful to annoy both sides:
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/jay-leno-criticizes-modern-late-night-comedy-alienating-half-audience-partisan-politics

Leno got pushed out because HALF of his jokes annoyed Obama.

[Joe_dallas]

Leno was good at poking fun at both sides, but he was funny in the way he did it, so even if you like the person he was poking fun at, it was still funny.

The clips I saw of kimmel were more of the variety of just insulting and demeaning. The only way someone could find them funny is if the person disliked the person Kimmel was insulting.

Huge difference

[David Nieporent]

Leno did not get pushed out, you retard. Why do you lie about everything?

[not guilty]

"Leno got pushed out because HALF of his jokes annoyed Obama."

Supporting facts?

[Moderation4ever]

Like you ever watched Jimmy Kimmel in the first place. Glad he is gone, what baloney.

[Riva]

I can see, based on the responses here and other commentary, that the left has finally found an issue to focus their outrage. Not the cancel culture they created and celebrated. Kimmel himself praised Tucker Carlson’s firing. Not the left’s general embrace of political violence. They’ve revealed for years in sick assassination porn. Shakespeare in the park ring a bell? Kathy Griffin? Now the left has found their issue. Jimmy Kimmel. Until they circle back to more Epstein lies, more antisemitic embrace of Hamas’ cause, more defense of violent illegal aliens and drug traffickers, and of course more Russian collusion fraud lies are probably on the table.

[Bob from Ohio]

"left has finally found an issue to focus their outrage"

Political assassination, mild concern. TV host gets suspended, its THE END OF THE REPUBLIC!

Pathetic people.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah. If ONLY democrats showed the level of concern republicans do over politically motivated murders. Not like we have incredibly recent examples of prominent republicans them 1) not caring 2) lying about the circumstances 3) making jokes about it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"incredibly recent examples"

What examples of murders?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Melissa Hortman and her husband. You know this. I think you’re asking this in bad faith because you’re a bad person, but in case you need reminded of the depravity of the American right I’ll remind you again:

1. Trump didn’t care and didn’t even
remember who she was when asked
recently.

2. Prominent republicans are still
straight up lying about the alleged
perpetrator. Ted Cruz was going on
about how he was a Walz supporter.
This is false and contradicted by
everything that is publicly known
about the man and the investigation.

3. Mike Lee made a JOKE about it the
day after the murder! Only took it
down after a fellow Senator got in his
face about it. Never publicly
apologized.

Like you can’t be this obtuse so I think you’re just deliberately trolling.

[Bob from Ohio]

Oh, sorry, like Trump and most Americans, I forgot about her. Local story.

Your opinion on the shooter is not fact.

I already said Lee was bad for doing that.

Plenty of respectful statements at the time from GOPers on her murder. Unlike some here, no blasting of out of context quotes to say she deserved it.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"Oh, sorry, like Trump and most Americans, I forgot about her. Local story."

Yeah. This makes you and him a shitty person, you know that? You can't call people "pathetic" for having "mild concern" over Charlie Kirk when you yourself are being incredibly dismissive over a double murder, a dog slaying, an another shooting that left another couple in critical condition. Do you have ANY idea what a piece of shit this makes you? Like you truly do only care about murder victims when you like them!

"Your opinion on the shooter is not fact."

The same goes for Tyler Robinson right? So you will refrain from ANY characterization of him right? You'll hold yourself to this standard right?

But here are the facts we know:

He shot 2 democratic legislators and their spouses. He targeted the home of a third. He was found with a list of democrats and abortion providers. He has public videos of him announcing anti-abortion and anti-LGBT views. The "No kings" fliers in his car were
sharpy drawings with no actual information on them (i.e. not a flier) the US Atty believes his "letter" saying Walz (who was also on his hit list) told him to do it was deliberate misdirection.

"I already said Lee was bad for doing that."

So? Lee didn't apologize and Republicans didn't bother to condemn him. Not even a censure resolution. So presumably they didn't actually think she and her husband and kids were worth all that much huh?

"Respectful statements" followed by lies, conspiracy theories, and outright dismissiveness (like you're doing here) isn't actually respectful at all.

[Bob from Ohio]

Thirty-eight Democrats voted “present,” and 58 voted “no" on a harmless resolution about Kirk today so spare me the usual "GOP sucks" diatribe. Take the beam from your own eye.

[LawTalkingGuy]

If I have a beam in my eye you have a whole lumber yard.

I will not be lectured on respectability by a man that is constantly dismissive or downright celebratory of violence when it suits him.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I will not be lectured on respectability "

Yet you will be.

[Nelson]

Why would anyone do anything to laud a bigot, misogynist, transphobe, and homophobe?

Kirk was a shitty person. He shouldn’t have been murdered and he didn’t deserve to be murdered, but being murdered doesn’t change the fact that he was a shitty person.

[LawTalkingGuy]

By whom? A noted POS like yourself? Do you really think the guy who stands Pinochet, can’t decide if the Cave of the Patriarchs Massacre was good or bad, and thinks that “need a tissue?” is the appropriate response to describing a child being shot, is in any position to lecture someone about respect for life and human dignity?

[damikesc]

The same resolution for the dead MS legislators passed, what, 424-0?

We would not care if people did not know who Kirk was.

The CELEBRATIONS of his death are a bit much. And the Dems won't condemn it without plenty of "...but..." comments in their "condemnation"

[David Nieporent]

There were no "dead MS legislators," and it wasn't the "same resolution." If this resolution had simply deplored the murder and expressed condolences for the family, it would have also passed unanimously. But instead it decided to include praise for Kirk. De mortuis nihil nisi bonum is one thing, but that principle doesn't require that people falsely compliment the deceased.

[Riva]

There’s some sick equivalence in your broken mind between the multitude of vile leftists defaming Charlie Kirk and a comment from Ted Cruz identifying a Walz appointee as a Walz supporter? Nothing any Republican has said, including Cruz or Lee remotely compares to the gross remarks of Omar and AOC (and AOC speaking on the House floor). Nothing any Republican or conservative has ever said remotely compares to the leftist cowards lying about Charlie Kirk and many celebrating his assassination.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Ted Cruz identifying a Walz appointee as a Walz supporter?”

He’s lying. Just like anyone saying Tyler Robinson is a groyper is lying.

Mike Lee posted a snuff photo and made a joke. The day after the murders. It was bad. You just don’t want to admit it.

[Riva]

No, he wasn't. And Lee did not post a "snuff" photo. Spare me your childishly absurd attempts to excuse the leftist disgraces with false comparisons. Nothing compares to the scope of the sick, disgraceful commentary and lies coming from the left. There is no moral equivalence between identifying a Walz appointee as a supporter (and it should be noted that the facts are not all in yet as on that matter) and the actions of those celebrating a political assassination and defaming the victim. And as far as democrat politicians go, 58 House Democrats voted against a resolution condemning political violence and honoring Charlie Kirk. 38 voted "present." 22 skipped voting. Before the vote, AOC notably took the opportunity to accuse Charlie Kirk of being a racist, an antisemite, and someone who endorsed political violence.

[bernard11]

A couple of things about that resolution:

1. Whereas Charlie Kirk personified the values of the First
Amendment, exercising his God-given right to speak free-
ly, challenge prevailing narratives, and did so with honor,
courage, and respect for his fellow Americans;

Too bad MAGA, and Trump, don't do the same.

2. I would support the resolution, except for item #4:

honors the life, leadership, and legacy of
Charlie Kirk, whose steadfast dedication to the Constitution, civil discourse, and Biblical truth inspired a generation to cherish and defend the blessings of liberty;

[Riva]

If you oppose item four of the resolution Bernard11, why ? Do you concur with the sick and disgraceful commentary and lies coming from the left, prominently on display in AOCs tantrum on the House floor?

Here’s the full relevant text of the resolution, so others can decide what exactly should be opposed:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) condemns in the strongest possible terms the assassination of Charles “Charlie” James Kirk, and all forms of political violence;

(2) commends and honors the dedicated law enforcement and emergency personnel for their tireless efforts in finding the suspect responsible for the assassination of Charlie Kirk and urges the administration of swift justice to the suspect;

(3) extends its deepest condolences and sympathies to Charlie Kirk’s family, including his wife, Erika, and their two young children, and prays for comfort, peace, and healing in this time of unspeakable loss;

(4) honors the life, leadership, and legacy of Charlie Kirk, whose steadfast dedication to the Constitution, civil discourse, and Biblical truth inspired a generation to cherish and defend the blessings of liberty; and

(5) calls upon all Americans—regardless of race, party affiliation, or creed—to reject political violence, recommit to respectful debate, uphold American values, and respect one another as fellow Americans.

[bernard11]

why ?

Because I would not honor the "life, leadership, and legacy of
Charlie Kirk."

Because I don't think he was dedicated to the Constitution or civil discourse, and I think dedication to "Biblical truth" has no place in politics.

Further, while he does seem to have inspired many people to become conservatives, it was not a "whole generation," and there are many who disagree with Kirk who also "cherish and defend the blessings of liberty."

I think item #4 is an attempt to identify virtue with Kirk's views, which I do not endorse.

Look, Kirk was a partisan, and an effective one. I fully condemn his murder, as I would condemn political violence in general. But since I do not share his views, I am not willing to honor him for promoting them.

I don't think Kirk was an admirable person.

[Riva]

Biblical truth has no place in politics? I guess there are some truths in the Declaration of Independence that are not quite self evident to you.

And the resolution didn’t require anyone to subscribe to his point of view, but simply to acknowledge his commitment to civil discourse and sincere religious faith. You couldn’t muster the class or intellectual courage to do that, just like the contemptible democrats in the House. Although it’s obvious you didn’t know very much about him beyond some one dimensional caricature parroted by various vile leftists. He dedicated a large part of life to civil discourse and engagement. He was in fact assassinated during the course of just such an engagement.

And based on your comment, it appears you actually do concur with the despicable commentary of AOC, although again you lack the intellectual courage to directly address that. I will take your defamation of Charlie Kirk’s character as more projection.

[damikesc]

"1. Trump didn’t care and didn’t even
remember who she was when asked
recently."

Sent condolences the next day and not remembering her name is hardly a fault. I do not remember her name. She was not relevant to me in any way, shape, or form.

I also, it should be noted, did not CELEBRATE her death. Not a single conservative did.

"2. Prominent republicans are still
straight up lying about the alleged
perpetrator. Ted Cruz was going on
about how he was a Walz supporter.
This is false and contradicted by
everything that is publicly known
about the man and the investigation."

It's what he said. I will be willing to say he's batshit insane.

But clowns like you claim he is conservative with no evidence behind it.

"3. Mike Lee made a JOKE about it the
day after the murder! Only took it
down after a fellow Senator got in his
face about it. Never publicly
apologized."

AOC just outright slandered Kirk in the House. Slandered him.

Fuck your professed outrage.

[Nelson]

“ I also, it should be noted, did not CELEBRATE her death. Not a single conservative did.”

Apparently you are blind and deaf. My condolences.

“ But clowns like you claim he is conservative with no evidence behind it.”

One of the favorite schticks of you Paleocon Ignorance Brigade fools and their polestar, JesseAZ, is claiming that the Trump assassin wasn’t ideological conservative because even though he expressed conservative ideas to everyone, he donated $15 to a get-out-the-vote effort (which they lie and call ActBlue). So please spare me your selective outrage.

“ AOC just outright slandered Kirk in the House. Slandered him.”

I sincerely doubt it, but I also have no idea what you’re referring to. Charlie Kirk was a provable misogynist, transphobe, theocrat, and homophobe. Pretty much any negative thing that could be said about him has some sort of basis. He was a terrible person.

Also, whataboutism is a drug you are clearly addicted to.

[shawn_dude]

Not to mention Don Jr making fun of Mr Pelosi's assault by a Trump supporter with a hammer and grudge. Don Trump Jr posted a picture of tighty-whity underwear and a hammer and said that was going to be his Halloween costume.

*not a murder, though. Just an attempted murder and 100% political violence.

[damikesc]

An illegal alien who had voted exclusively for Socialists his entire life and had BLM and LGTBQ flags on his property and was dating a gay guy himself --- CLEARLY a conservative.

[Nelson]

Holy shit, you’ll believe anything that confirms your priors, won’t you? He was an illegal alien with a traceable voting record in a country with a secret ballot, eh?

Dear God, you paleocons are the most credulous rubes on the planet.

[DeAnnP]

Why did Fox fire Tucker?

[Frank Drackman]

They'll never admit it but I think it was his girlish giggle.

[not guilty]

"I can see, based on the responses here and other commentary, that the left has finally found an issue to focus their outrage. Not the cancel culture they created and celebrated. Kimmel himself praised Tucker Carlson’s firing. Not the left’s general embrace of political violence. They’ve revealed for years in sick assassination porn. Shakespeare in the park ring a bell? Kathy Griffin? Now the left has found their issue. Jimmy Kimmel. Until they circle back to more Epstein lies, more antisemitic embrace of Hamas’ cause, more defense of violent illegal aliens and drug traffickers, and of course more Russian collusion fraud lies are probably on the table."

Riva, the issue here is Brendan Carr's thuggery and Disney/ABC's craven knuckling under to it.

[damikesc]

We told y'all you'd hate the rules you set up.

Suck it up, buttercup.

[Riva]

No NG, at issue is Kimmel's disgraceful lies. Stations have a responsibility not to mislead the public. Also at issue is the sick attitude of a left that was not outraged over a political assassination (as noted some revel in defaming Charlie Kirk's memory and celebrate his death) but only becomes energized when a prominent leftist disgrace is finally held accountable for his lies. As Donald Trump jr. noted in a X post: They’re not losing their jobs to cancel culture, they’re losing them to Consequence Culture. Consequences and accountability are something Democrats haven’t had to face in a long time.

[not guilty]

Riva, what do you claim that Jimmy Kimmel lied about? Please quote the particular word or group of words that you contend are false.

IOW, break out your track shoes.

[Riva]

You really are disgraceful. Jimmy Kimmel: “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”

I actually do move away from flatulence. Which is what I’m now going to do to your comments.

[David Nieporent]

There are three assertions in that quote:

1. "We hit some new lows over the weekend." Opinion, not false.

2. "the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them." True; MAGA was saying that the killer wasn't one of them.

3. MAGA was "doing everything they can to score political points from it.” Also true.

So, as always, the bot isn't programmed to say anything substantive; it's just going to repeat a talking point.

[Riva]

In case you wanted more NG, here are some disgraceful follow up remarks from Kimmel: During Monday night's show, he spoke about flags being flown at half mast in honour of Kirk and mocked US President Donald Trump's reaction to the shooting. "This is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he calls a friend. This is how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish," he said. Now, not really lies in these remarks, just more evidence of what a classless hack Kimmel is.

[Estragon]

“two to go”

Oh come on. You can find more people than two.

[Dr. Ed 2]

“It is a vast domestic terror movement,” said Stephen Miller. “With God as my witness, we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy these networks and make America safe again for the American people,” he added.

I T 'S
A B O U T
T I M E!!!!!!

[NvEric]

Domestic violence will be troubling to counter without further oppressive tactics. Countering violent contrary views will be an on going enterprise. Some issues may be solved, but once anger turns to hate and backed by its greater impact to our modern world, there can be Hell on Earth which can drive all parties to further extremes.

Only the most sane solutions infused with a certain determination can survive, otherwise many will be consumed by their hate no matter their 'side'.

[Dr. Ed 2]

????

[Commenter_XY]

We are nowhere near the level of domestic political violence of the 60's and early 70's.

Much of the pig-like squealing you hear on BlueCry and the MSM is because the rules that Team D established over the last decade are now being enforced by Team R. One can almost sympathize.

If you want to shut down that effort we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy these networks then start by repealing the Patriot Act.

[not guilty]

"We are nowhere near the level of domestic political violence of the 60's and early 70's."

I agree. The prospect of being drafted and being sent to a war to prevent free elections being held was a strong motivator.

[Malika la Maize]

This is the guy who regularly talks of shooting unarmed migrants, throwing “trannys” off roofs, using snowplows on protestors, etc. Disingenuous, lack of self awareness or both.

It doesn’t mean anything with these people, it’s just a chance to go after people they don’t like.

[AmosArch]

Since its apparently okay and maybe even heroic for Kimmel to repeatedly lie and claim that MAGA assassinated Kirk can we refund Alex Jones and that MyPillow guy's money?

[Martinned]

You're welcome to sue Kimmel for libel on behalf of a class of all Trumpists.

[kramartini]

Kimmel slandered the assassin by calling him MAGA...

[Nelson]

I agree that calling someone MAGA is a terrible insult. But that’s not what slander is.

MAGA media folks keep saying that the 2020 election was stolen. Does their irrational belief mean the FCC should go after them, too? That lie is far, far, far more insidious, dangerous, and corrupting than believing (with some basis, unlike the stolen election nonsense) that the Kirk killer might have been conservative.

[David Nieporent]

1. No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.
2. When did Kimmel "repeatedly" say anything?
3. When did he say that MAGA assassinated Kirk?

[Michael P]

This is what Kimmel said that got him in so much trouble:

We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it.

If you didn't know that, or don't read it as saying that Kirk's murderer was "one of them" (them = "the MAGA gang"), you have no business commenting about Kimmel's firing.

Not that ignorance or perverse takes have ever stopped you before.

[Martinned]

...and that makes it OK for the Regime to get Kimmel cancelled how?

[Brett Bellmore]

Kimmel and the Regime can't BOTH be in the wrong?

[Martinned]

They can, but that seems like an unlikely position for Michael to take.

[Michael P]

Yeah, I think Carr went too far in what he said, although precedent doesn't say that the government has to be afraid of deterring cowards or snowflakes. Conversely, Kimmel was going to lose his job anyway. Sadly, there are a bunch of idiots here who pretend that Kimmel didn't say what he did, or that this is worse than anything the Biden administration did.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I think Carr went too far in what he said, although

Ayep. As expected.

[wvattorney13]

What am I missing? How is what he said wrong?

When the details were coming in, was there anyone on our side that didn't hope that the shooter turned out to be a furry transgender child molester who works for the Department of Education? Or was that only me?

[Michael P]

The key word was "desperately". A strong second was the one-sided focus. Desperately literally means without hope or in despair of success.

Before last weekend, there was ample evidence that the shooter was at least furry- and trans-adjacent: https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/charlie-kirk-shooting-suspect-what-we-know-about-assassin
Similarly, there was evidence that the shooter's *family* was MAGA but that the shooter rejected that.

By the time Kimmel's show aired on Monday, ot was abundantly clear that the shooter was not MAGA, and so it was dishonest for Kimmel to present it as he did. There was some modicum of technical accuracy, but really Kimmel was the one pretending the killer was something other than he was. Someone driving the message "so-and-so desperately continues to deny raping a sheep" would be liable for defamation if the available evidence was strongly against the rape having happened.

[Joe_dallas]

Worth noting that the fox report MP linked to was about 48 hours after the event and about 10 hours after the arresting tyler robinson.
That information was reported on fox, ny post and several other news sites.

Yet a google search as of that saturday/sunday provided very little of those facts from nyt, or any of the other left leaning news sites.

[jb]

"Before last weekend, there was ample evidence that the shooter was at least furry- and trans-adjacent"

There's nothing in that article that says anything about "trans adjacent". There is a reference to furry, and to fascism, and even about Trump being gay. But the terms "trans" or "transgender" appear nowhere in the article.

This actually exemplifies what Kimmel was talking about. There was a bunch of evidence-free attempts to pretend that not only was the killer "trans-adjacenr", but actually trans himself. And somehow that didn't completely stop even after he was caught.

I do think folks on the left (including Kimmel) tried to project right-wing views onto the guy when it turned out his family was pretty MAGA, but there's been at least as much if not more wishcasting from the right throughout the conversation about this guy and other recent ideological killings.

[not guilty]

"By the time Kimmel's show aired on Monday, ot was abundantly clear that the shooter was not MAGA, and so it was dishonest for Kimmel to present it as he did. There was some modicum of technical accuracy, but really Kimmel was the one pretending the killer was something other than he was. Someone driving the message "so-and-so desperately continues to deny raping a sheep" would be liable for defamation if the available evidence was strongly against the rape having happened."

Mr. Kimmel's commentary was not about the shooter's proclivities -- it was about the reaction of the MAGAts to the shooting. "Technical accuracy" is accuracy. Full stop. Period. End of paragraph.

[Michael P]

Don't you have racist, sexist nicknames to desperately spew in an attempt to distract from your track record of being absolutely wrong on all the significant questions?

[Life of Brian]

As I said yesterday, I think "new lows," "desperately," and "anything other than one of them" work together to communicate that the gray-cloud phase was over but "the MAGA gang" was still denying that reality.

If he was just talking about people hoping it was the other side before the information crystalzed, 1) both sides were doing that in spades, so "new lows" doesn't fit; 2) Occam's money was on an anti-right shooter from the start, so if anyone was "desperately trying" to point at the other side it certainly wasn't the right; and 3) unless "the MAGA gang" has now just become lazy shorthand for anyone not left of center, "anything other than one of them" doesn't make sense either.

[wvattorney13]

What you are describing is a unfair political hatchet job. Something that is par for the course for late night "comedians" and commenters on MSNBC. It's never been a termination level offense and frankly, it is what some viewers like and expect.

But our side has treated this as an attack on Charlie Kirk, as if it somehow disrespected the dead. Nothing in Kimmel's language was disrespectful to Kirk.

[Life of Brian]

I understand what you're saying here and generally* agree, but my post was responding to your question: "How is what he said wrong?" Sounds like we pretty much agree on that much.

* I'm not sure I agree with the idea that it's "par for the course" for a late-night comedian** to belt out a really-not-funny-at-all "those people" barb within days of one of "those people" having just been murdered in broad daylight in the middle of a crowd, apparently just because he was one of "those people." That's one of those gee-golly-read-the-room moments where it's not clear it really matters whether it was rooted in malice or incompetence.

** I agree this has been both par for the course and never a termination-level offense for MSNBC talking heads, but I'm hopefully optimistic there are still segments of the rest of the media that don't see that as an acceptable standard for civility.

[damikesc]

"What am I missing? How is what he said wrong?

When the details were coming in, was there anyone on our side that didn't hope that the shooter turned out to be a furry transgender child molester who works for the Department of Education? Or was that only me?"

Steven Crowder had a link from the ATF the day after the incident that spelled out the engravings on the casings. His investigations team is rock solid. They were, of course, 100% right.

By that time --- no, there was not even a slight reason to assume he was conservative. At all.

[Don Nico]

"doing everything they can to score political points from it."
Indeed doing exactly what he criticized in people he despised.

[David Nieporent]

I know exactly what Kimmel said that people had a tantrum about. He said — as you quote — that MAGA were desperately trying to convince people that the shooter wasn't a 'member' of MAGA. That doesn't actually say, but could be read to insinuate, that the shooter was a 'member' of MAGA. But even accepting the latter interpretation, that is not saying that "MAGA assassinated Kirk." It is saying that one 'member' of MAGA did.

(I put the quotes around 'member' because of course (like Antifa) MAGA is a movement, not an organization, and doesn't have literal members.)

[Joe_dallas]

DN - intentionally lying about kimmel's statement - Are you proud of your distortions ? do you get a merit badge in your echo chamber?

“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,”

[David Nieporent]

Everything I said was accurate. Which is why you accuse me of "lying" but don't actually identify anything as false.

[Joe_dallas]

DN - I provided Kimmel exact quote, compare and contrast your statement against kimmel statement. Your denial is humorous.

[not guilty]

No one disputes what words Jimmy Kimmel spoke during the monologue in question. What inferences can be drawn from what he said are considerably disputed.

But nothing that Kimmel said was false.

Please recall Daniel Patrick Moynihan's famous observation about opinions and facts.

[bernard11]

Your stupidity is not at all humorous.

If I say, "The killer was a member of the First Baptist Church," that doesn't mean I think all the other members were complicit, or part of a plot to kill the victim, or that they approve of the killing.

That's true whether the killer did in fact belong to the First Baptist Church or not.

[David Nieporent]

And yet you still didn't identify a single word of mine that was false.

[wvattorney13]

"That doesn't actually say, but could be read to insinuate, that the shooter was a 'member' of MAGA. But even accepting the latter interpretation, that is not saying that "MAGA assassinated Kirk." It is saying that one 'member' of MAGA did."

I see the interpretation. But even if the shooter was the left's dream, a beer drinking country boy Jew-hating Trump voter who shot Kirk because he mistakenly thought he was Ben Shapiro, that still doesn't inform the character of the whole movement.

There are 330 million people in this country. There are kooks on each side. Just because one person who happened to align with a political affiliation did something horrible does not inform which side is right and which is wrong. The fact that it somehow does in 2025 shows how far we've gone downhill as a society.

I see the complaint about what Kimmel said: Despite knowing (or should have known) that the shooter was not a MAGA supporter, he implied that he was. To me, that seems like a cheap political ploy, not an insult to Charlie Kirk and nothing that should cause him to be taken off the air.

[AmosArch]

Also he was only fired after he planned to double down on it and advertisers started rolling.

https://x.com/LizMacDonaldFOX/status/1968837993797665085?t=63AI-t_2O5UZ3Ad455UWFg

[David Nieporent]

Almost all of the instances of this claim trace back to this MacDonald tweet. Trouble is, her source doesn't actually say that, which is probably why she posted a screenshotted headline and not any actual content, let alone a link to that content.

[Moderation4ever]

Except that Kimmel did not say MAGA assassinated Kirk, so the premise of your comment is wrong.

[Swede425]

Gaslighto taking a break today?
Or are you his sock puppet?
Retarded is also an acceptable answer, and probably more apt.

[Don Nico]

No, he has already been on and in the usual form.

[Moderation4ever]

Show me where I am wrong. Kimmel did not say MAGA assassinated Kirk. Or is this a believe what I say and not your eyes and ears.

[Josh R]

In the strictest sense, Kimmel did not say a MAGA person was the assassin. But, I agree with Michael P that a fair reading of his statement is he implied it was a MAGA person. And if Robinson's Discord chats were released before Kimmel's comments, his comments were off base (I think the chats were publicly released after Kimmel's comments).

All that being said, assuming the worst for Kimmel, it's not a firing offense and Carr, Trump and the right's outrage was not based on these comments. They don't like him because he takes a nightly dump on Trump. The storm against Kimmel is the mark of a classic authoritarian leader attempting to control the media.

Don't spend too much time staring at the Kimmel tree to miss the authoritarian forest.

[Bob from Ohio]

"not a firing offense"
He has not been fired.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Howie Carr being Howie Carr: https://howiecarrshow.com/monica-bit-off-more-than-she-could-chew/

Why do Black people support this?

[Kazinski]

Howie Carr is great, his book "The Brother's Bulger" is a fantastic look at Whitey and Billy Bulger. Howie Carr lived in the same neighborhood as Whitey operated in the 70's, from Wikipedia:

"Whitey knew what Carr looked like, from Carr's job on television. "Plus, I was in his neighborhood every day. But I never ventured into Whitey's package store." The store in question was South Boston Liquor Mart (also known as Stippo's; now Rotary Liquors), at 295 Old Colony Avenue, which Whitey had extorted from its legitimate owner.[20]

The anchor at my TV station was the son of a former mayor of Boston. He lived in Southie, and patronized the Liquor Mart. One night the clerk struck up a conversation with him. "How come Howie never comes in here?" he asked. My friend shrugged. "You tell him," the clerk said, "that if he comes in, we got a fresh dumpster waitin' for him out back."[20]"

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/columbia-student-judge/2025/09/18/id/1226970/

Bye, bye Khalil, the hamasnik POS.

[Martinned]

Free speech FTW!

[Frank Drackman]

You’re welcome to have Khal-Kill stay at your place. Might want to put your Charlie Hebdo magazines away first

[Jazzizhep]

I guess you missed the part where he lied and misrepresented himself on the visa application.

But hey, if you weren't intellectually capable of ignoring facts you wouldn't be who you are today. Amiright?

[Martinned]

Yes, that's definitely the reason why Commeter wants him out of the country! Can't have people lying on formal documents!

[Kazinski]

Being an terrorist supporter doesn't confer immunity for other offenses.

Are you arguing Al Capone should never have been prosecuted for Income Tax evasion?

[Jazzizhep]

If you think it is wrong to use the law to achieve a specific, non-stated goal such as deportation, how do you feel about taking a dead misdemeanor and turning it into 34 felonies?

[Don Nico]

What about those >12,000 arrests in the UK for "speech crimes." All politics is local.

[Martinned]

What about them? Are you under the impression that I support those?

[Joe_dallas]

the extensive history of your commentary would suggest that,

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ann Coulter: Blame Social Media, Guns, Vacuums — Anything but Transgenders.

https://anncoulter.com/2025/09/18/blame-social-media-guns-vacuums-anything-but-transgenders/

OK Team Tranny -- how DO you explain your high rate of violence?

[Frank Drackman]

Duh, imagine the worst case of PMS ever(the correct term is “Late Luteal Phase Dysphoria” more accurately describes the Pathophysiology and saves you from flying frying pans)
Take PMS, except in a Dude, who’s had his Dick and Balls cut off, I’m surprised the violence level isn’t higher

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

She's in her mid-60s, she's gotta be postmenopausal.

[Frank Drackman]

Ya Think?

[Martinned]

How do you explain your obsession with trans issues? Did you accidentally hire a trans prostitute once? It's OK, if you liked being blown by a trans woman that doesn't make you gay.

[Frank Drackman]

You explain your obsession with boys sexual organs first. Did an old Queen molest you when you were a boy? Father Light N Loafers play a little pocket pool? Coach Sandusky take you in the boys room for some “Oklahoma” drills? And getting blown by a man is OK, or at least you get a “Pass” (ht Tony Soprano) IF, you’re in Prison*

* Yeah, right, you tell Phil Leotardo he’s a Fag

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

Make America Half-witted Again!

[Frank Drackman]

The Old Queen speaks!

[David Nieporent]

OK Team Tranny -- how DO you explain your high rate of violence?

How do you explain your repeated use of a hate slur? Or the fact that you lie about everything?

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose he explains it by saying that hate slurs are an equal opportunity pastime.

[Sarcastr0]

This is such a pure tu quoque I don't even know what the quoque is that you're pointing at.

[Malika la Maize]

What does that mean?

[Brett Bellmore]

It means the obvious: Insults and slurs are not reserved for one side in any conflict.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you once of those 'cis' is a slur people?

Because you're not going to make that a thing. It's a chemistry term. Musk is an idiot, and the rest are the usual right-wing weird yearning for oppression.

[Don Nico]

"Musk is an idiot" but a shitload smarter and more successful that you.

[Malika la Maize]

Silly me, i would have thought a better position is not to use slurs against anyone.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, it is.

The problem is that there's basically no way to refer to 'transgenders' that isn't going to be a "slur"; It's the euphemism treadmill, no matter what term you use for something that's disliked, it BECOMES a slur.

Eventually people get tired enough of the treadmill that they hop off it, and stop caring if somebody is offended.

[Malika la Maize]

You could say “transgenders,” that’s not hard. Tranny has only ever been a slur.

I mean, really, it’s like your saying “I went from sand ni**er to towel head and people still think I’m racist against Arabs!”

[Brett Bellmore]

"Tranny" is shorter. And funnier if you work on cars. And I'm only going to expend so much effort to avoid offending people who are guaranteed to be offended anyway.

[loki13]

The f word is shorter. And funnier if you're a smoker who has been to the UK. Guess you're going to add that to your vocabulary?

No?

So you might as well admit it- you are happy using slurs against people .... because in your mind, you don't even really think of them as people. So using slurs to further dehumanize them (and it's funny to compare them to other objects, like cars!) is just dandy.

Glad you cleared that up.

[Mr. Bumble]

tranny
noun

1. A transsexual, transgender or transvestite person, usually a transwoman.
2.Short form of transistor radio.
3.Short form of transmission in the automotive sense.
Just another noun.

[Kazinski]

But Tran-wreck is definitely a slur.

[not guilty]

"'Tranny' is shorter. And funnier if you work on cars."

Brett, do you call your wife and son "gook"? It's shorter than Filapina and biracial.

[damikesc]

I'd be more concerned about offending them if they were not so anxious to be offensive to me.

Also, they do have a murder problem. A pronounced one.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett thinks if he doesn't want it to be a slur, it becomes not a slur.

[Don Nico]

And you think that if YOU think it is a slur it becomes a slur. That is not convincing. Now get back to work,

[Mr. Bumble]

"Now get back to work,"
Hahahahahaha.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s pretty funny to see a bunch of ostensibly straight men try to make violence a trans issue. You do know about 90% of violent felons are men when they are only 50% of the population?

[Sarcastr0]

Transgender Ideology-Inspired Violence and Extremism?
︀︀What happens if it is designated as domestic terrorism by the @FBI?
︀︀Read this guide from us and @Heritage!

This is more stupid than terrible, but it sure signals who the outgroup is!

[Martinned]

Sure, but haven't you heard that all trans people are terrorists?

https://oversight-project.revv.co/urge-the-fbi-to-designate-transgender-terrorism

The Oversight Project and Heritage Foundation strongly condemn the domestic terrorism perpetrated by adherents radicalized by transgender ideology-inspired violence and extremism.

It’s time for the FBI and our government to put political correctness aside and do what needs to be done. Join us in urging the FBI to add a new designation to their list of domestic violent extremist groups for Transgender Ideology-Inspired Violent Extremism or TIVEs. This designation would allow for the FBI to access a new suite of tools to counter this threat and monitor this threat.

TIVE is based on the belief that violence is justified against those who do not share radical views of transgender ideology. It has led to an increasing trend of TIVE domestic terrorist events across the country. In recent years, TIVE has played a role in the majority of mass shootings at schools. Early evidence indicates TIVE also played a role in the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

We have been calling on the FBI to make this designation for years. It will allow our government to detect, disrupt, and dismantle TIVE cells in the United States in order to mitigate against the ongoing domestic terrorism threat. This designation does not mean that all transgender individuals are domestic terror threats, but instead narrowly focuses on those who adopt the worldview that violence is justified against those who disagree with transgender ideology.

Sign the petition and show your government that the American People have strength in numbers. Our government can only confront the threat when it is ready to name it. It is time to do what needs to be done to keep us all safe.

(Maybe if I quote the whole thing someone will notice the complete lunacy of these guys.)

[Frank Drackman]

Sort of like how Black Males commit 30% of Violent Crime while only being 7% of the Population?
But lets go to the Video Tape! (remember Video Tape?)
In a January 2021 statistical brief, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics addressed the issue of the race and ethnicity of perpetrators of violent crimes in 2018.

Based on data compiled by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program, it found that while Black Males make up 7% of the U.S. population, they were 33% of persons arrested for non-fatal violent crime (NVC), which includes rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and other assaults. Black Males were 36% of those arrested for serious non-fatal violent crimes (SNVC), including rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

[Malika la Maize]

Of course a deranged dolt who Writes like This ( can’t get that he’s making the point he’s trying to object to (if the disparity for black males means there’s something wrong with them what does the disparity for males in general mean is wrong with men).

[Frank Drackman]

Duh, in General, Men are more violent than Women, Black Men are more violent than White Men, and Black Women are the most violent, but like with Great White Sharks, most creatures wisely avoid them.

[jb]

Other than people desperately trying to make life hard for trans people, why would anyone be discussing the rate at which transgender people are involved in mass shootings in a case where the killer was not transgender?

[OpinionsVary]

The news is Trump is going to fire U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Erik Siebert. Trump tasked Siebert with prosecuting NY AG Letitia James with mortgage fraud. Siebert invested but didn't find enough evidence, so didn't bring charges. That wasn't good enough for Trump, so reports are he's going to fire Siebert possibly as early as today and bring in someone else who will bring charges.

[Frank Drackman]

Good

[OpinionsVary]

You support prosecuting people in the absence of sufficient evidence? This seems a strange position to hold. Can you explain?

[Frank Drackman]

As many DemoKKKrats have said about many Repubiclowns, sometimes you need to Investigate to find the Evidence.
And didn’t stop multiple DemoKKKrat Prosecutors from charging “45/47” (without evidence? Without actual crimes) I believe the legal term is
“Paybacks”
And they’re a Hilary Rodman

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

The guy is, like many MAGAns, literally deranged as you can tell by how he “writes” here.

[Frank Drackman]

The deranged one is Captain Ahab here making me his own personal Moby's Dick (How's the Leg?)

[Malika la Maize]

I make fun of lots of deranged and doltish people here Francis, as your mom told you so much you’re not special (except in the short bus way).

[Frank Drackman]

Like a QB reading his progressions, Queenie finds all the Receivers covered and goes for the safe "Yo Mama so Fat!" option.

[Malika la Maize]

Francis would be used to being the great check down in life but no one throws to the waterboy.

[Martinned]

Isn't it great having an independent criminal justice system?

[Brett Bellmore]

It would be great. Haven't had one in decades, but it would be great.

[Martinned]

Have you considered voting for politicians who favour such a thing?

[Brett Bellmore]

The last one of those I voted for got about 2% of the vote. I decided to settle for voting for politicians who'd at least leave me and mine alone.

[Martinned]

How is that working out for you? Are you confident that you've kissed enough Regime ass to avoid the gulag?

[Brett Bellmore]

Don't need to kiss any ass at all to accomplish that.

[bernard11]

Not yet.

[CountmontyC]

"dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe,"

[Sarcastr0]

We can't legitimately make that claim these days.

Oh, MAGA will make it. But that's because freedom and supporting worldwide white nationalism are kinda the same thing to them now.

[Sarcastr0]

Whoever you voted for, you support Trump to the hilt. So don't pretend you care; you evidently do not.

Cynicism in service of supporting what you claim to hate is a sign of bad character, lack of principles, and cowardice.

We all can see what you really want from your comments here.
Like your recent hilarious roud of 'Trump was just being super cool with the Georgia governor' yet again.

You may not see it; everyone else does.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastr0, you just interpret anything but a full bore attack on Trump as supporting him to the hilt. Typical "you're either with me or you're against me" thinking.

I criticize the guy all the time. I just don't criticize him as much as you want, and you take that as unqualified support.

[Bwaaah]

His BDS has become a pathology. His incessant wayward comments now reflect that. He's blind to it.

I suspect there's some envy deep down in there. Yes. Envy. That you vocalize, with an indisputable measure of dignity, opposition to his received faith. What kind of god would permit you that, Brett?

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, you've got a reputation here. You say 'I don't like this' and then roll in with insane pretzel facts and logic defending Trump.

Everyone sees what you are except you.

[bernard11]

I criticize the guy all the time.

You are deluded. You don't criticize him. What you do is bend yourself into a pretzel to defend pretty much everything he does or has ever done. And if you don't do that you come up with some whatabout to deflect attention from Trump.

Your statement is an outright falsehood.

[Don Nico]

More of his mind-reading and vibes at work.

[Sarcastr0]

Paranoia to fuel cynical not caring about your own side’s open corruption.

[Bwaaah]

"your own side"

[LawTalkingGuy]

Okay, so if the career prosecutors in EDVA don’t think they have or can even find anything to take to a grand jury, there is no reason to think an even dumber party hack lawyer will manage this. They still have to get a grand jury to indict, which could be challenging.

[shawn_dude]

If you try repeatedly, though, you can probably seat a grand jury that will meet Trump's demands. Freedom has to win every attempt while authoritarianism only has to win one.

[Bob from Ohio]

"authoritarianism only has to win one."

James campaigned on punishing Trump and brought a suit to try to accomplish this. History did not begin yesterday.

Taking a person's money or business may not be prison but is is pretty authoritarian.

[Kazinski]

James's white whale pursuit of Trump, along with Braggs insane election fraud theory completely trashed the mythical norm of the disinterested prosecutor.

It's too late to cry crocodile tears over norms.

[Sarcastr0]

"Siebert invested but didn't find enough evidence, so didn't bring charges."

I see you don't care about actual justice, just scalps.

[Jmaie]

Don't you just hate it when people come here and shit post and call people names?

[Sarcastr0]

Kaz responded to Trump firing a prosecutor because his investigation came up empty with Kaz himself just trying the target in absentia, and associated grievances.

I made an argument the conclusion of which is Kaz here is not caring about actual justice, just scalps.

[Frank Drackman]

Whats the delay in trying Charlie Kirk’s Assassin? They have the body, the weapon, the bullet, the suspect, motive, opportunity, DNA, emails that are a confession. Shouldn’t take the Grand Jury more than an hour, Jury Selection not much longer, an afternoon for the Trial, I’ll even accept a month for the appeals (Appeal what?) and as the Murder weapons still in State Custody shouldn’t be a problem having one of the Firing Squad use it.
Only possible complication is that Poof Governor commuting the sentence.

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

I assume they're hoping to nail some co-conspirators, and try them together?

[Frank Drackman]

An intelligent cogent answer. Are you AI??

[Kazinski]

Which is a possibility. You had some people here commenting on the stilted, and allegedly artificial wording of the texts between Tyler and Lance, but a more plausible explanation might be that Tyler was trying to give Lance a defense if he were charged as a co-conspirator.

I don't know whether that's the case or not, but it certainly would explain why he would purposely incriminate himself that way at the same time possibly quashing foreknowledge and accessory before the fact or conspiracy charges.

[Martinned]

Today (well, technically yesterday), in totally not-fascist news:

Opposition politicians arrested by the Department for Homeland Security

I guess DHS and ICE didn't want any prying eyes while they denied the detainees their basic human rights: https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-ice-improve-conditions-detainees-nyc-holding/story?id=125678387

[Frank Drackman]

Oh Dearie! Sleeping on Thermal Blankets! It’s literally Treblinka!!!
Problem is all the 5 Star Hotels are filled with the Homeless.
Seriously, don’t you have an Image of the Prophet to defile?

Frank

[Jazzizhep]

Shouldn't break the law (obstructing law enforcement) if one doesn't want to be arrested. They didn't go to his home. They went to the ICE facility and demanded access for "oversight." NYC officials don't really have oversight of federal agencies. At least I don't think they do.

Bench summons and sent home.

Yes, the prisoners must be horribly mistreated in the air conditioned building. If you can't believe a criminal they aren't being fed enough or have enough room who can you believe?

[Martinned]

If the press and the people's elected representatives aren't able to go in and check, I guess we're going to have to trust the judge on his word when he held that the detainees were being mistreated...

[Jazzizhep]

Elected reps can. Reps of the federal govt--not the local city council. Did the judge go check or did he just decide Trump bad.

I can just imagine this Mayor thinking it has jurisdiction over the federal gov.

[David Nieporent]

Opposition politicians arrested by the Department for Homeland Security

Um, come on; that's pure clickbait. You should be embarrassed to have posted it with that headline.

[Martinned]

They were all Democrats, arrested by agents who work for a Republican regime. What else was I supposed to call them? Just because Americans think they are special, and use euphemisms to delude themselves into thinking that fascism won't happen to them, doesn't mean the rest of us have to play along. If this is how we would describe it in, say, Brazil or Russia, why not the US?

[Jazzizhep]

Only the Democrats showed up and broke the law. I guess thy should be arresting people who didn't break the law to make it fair?

[Martinned]

No, the people who broke the law are the people who were running that facility. See my link above to the report about the judge's ruling. But the DHS and ICE agents don't have to worry about being arrested by the Regime.

[Jazzizhep]

Both things can be true.

I don't accept they are. Just that they can be. Why do you think they are mutually exclusive?

[David Nieporent]

They were all Democrats, arrested by agents who work for a Republican regime. What else was I supposed to call them?

You were supposed to call them "trespassers" (or whatever). Your framing is the same false one as the MAGA one that Biden was prosecuting his "political opponents" by appointing Jack Smith.

[Martinned]

I guess the Regime only cares about drugs when they want to blow up Venezuelans or put tariffs on Canada.

https://www.wsj.com/world/americas/mexico-drugs-cartel-oseguera-trump-586f0cec

Or maybe this is part of the Regime's clever plan to combat inflation? Get the BLS to include cocaine in the inflation basket, and then:

Cocaine prices have fallen by nearly half to around $60 to $75 a gram compared with five years ago, said Morgan Godvin, a researcher with the community organization Drug Checking Los Angeles. “The price of pure cocaine has plummeted,” Godvin said.

Very clever...

The president’s campaign to deport immigrants in the U.S. illegally has taken federal agents away from drug-traffic interdiction. In Arizona, two Customs and Border Protection checkpoints along a main fentanyl-smuggling corridor from Mexico have been left unstaffed. Officers stationed there were sent to process detained migrants. A senior administration official said the U.S. border is more secure than it has ever been.

[Frank Drackman]

Despite living 5 time zones ahead, you’re apparently living in the 80’s, can I get that “Loverboy” Cassette back?
We Conservatives are helping bring Cocaine IN to the US, in order to get as many Blacks addicted as possible, and thanks to the “Enhanced” Sentences for the “Crack” Cocaine (HT Sleepy Joe) even the ones who don’t OD will get decades in prison.
Mwahahahahahahahah (HT Mr Burns)

[SRG2]

That is actually very funny. If one has a good sense of the ironic, of course.

[Martinned]

I guess Rand Paul is back to not being a libertarian.

“I was assaulted six, seven years ago, attacked from behind, had six ribs broken and part of my lung removed, and still online, on a daily basis people say they wish that it would happen to me all over again,” Paul said Tuesday on Fox Business. “And by sort of making light of what I suffered, they are encouraging other people to do it. That oughta be taken down, and social media oughta be able to take that down.

“People say, ‘Oh people have a right to say things.’ Well, actually, they don’t necessarily have a right to say things; many people have in their contract what we call a morals clause … or a conduct clause,” Paul continued, as he compared the First Amendment to a military conduct code. “I think it is time for this to be a crackdown on people.”

https://newrepublic.com/post/200500/libertarian-rand-paul-free-speech-charlie-kirk-reaction

[Frank Drackman]

1st Amendment isn’t a free ticket. I can’t threaten the President or piss on Floyd George’s grave(actually is it guarded? Security Cameras? Maybe I CAN piss on Floyd George’s grave, watch this space!

Frank

[Jazzizhep]

So now you guys are against private entities censuring speech? Damn, I need a program with the scorecard.

[Martinned]

Yes, that's definitely what Paul is talking about. Keep deluding yourself.

[Jazzizhep]

Umm, what part of "morals clause … or a conduct clause" are you not quite grasping?

[Martinned]

The part where it's not OK for the government to lean on a company with the view that criticising the government violates the morals clause.

[Jazzizhep]

Stating a fact isn't "leaning on anybody." He is allowed to state facts.

BTW, Kimmel wasn't fired for criticizing the govt. He was fired for stating falsehoods about an assassination and wouldn't retract.

[Malika la Maize]

Are you being disingenuous or ignorant in eliding his threat of taking action against ABC?

[Jazzizhep]

More info keeps coming out. Kimmel was given a chance to retract and apologize, but he was going to double down on Wednesday. I guess that is Carr's fault as well.

[David Nieporent]

As noted above, no such "info" has come out. (Again, "apologize" to whom? The only person Kimmel slandered was the shooter, and after one commits a murder one is really no longer entitled to an apology.)

[not guilty]

"BTW, Kimmel wasn't fired for criticizing the govt. He was fired for stating falsehoods about an assassination and wouldn't retract."

It wasn't a firing. His show was suspended indefinitely, but he remains employed by the network. He presumably will draw the balance of his contractual salary, although it may not be renewed.

And he stated no falsehoods in his monologue. He lampooned Donald Trump and the MAGA cult.

[kramartini]

Actually, he slandered the assassin by calling him MAGA...

[Brett Bellmore]

They do say that a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. Rand Paul has been mugged a LOT.

[Martinned]

So have a lot of other people in the US. Yours is a violent society.

[Frank Drackman]

Thats the price we pay for having a "Diverse" population, as you're finding out.

[Frank Drackman]

Only "mugged" once by his neighbor actually, although the guy did break alot of Paul's ribs and dropped a lung. Randy sort of deserved it, dropping his lawn clippings on his Neighbors yard, I'd have responded in kind, but it wouldn't be lawn clippings.

[Sarcastr0]

What an endorsement of Rand Paul having no principles.

Way to go Brett. Really showing your true colors are rationalizing being a bog standard MAGA, while pretending to think independently.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've noticed you can't seem to distinguish "understanding" and "approval".

No, scratch that. You can't even distinguish "failure to attack exactly as much as you would" and "approval".

The guy has been beaten up too much, literally, and he's probably in continuing pain as a result, and it's eroded his principles a bit, and left him cranky. I sympathize.

He falls short of sainthood, as do all but saints. He's still more principled than 99 44/100ths percent of politicians.

[Martinned]

Yes. Endorsing Trump and voting for all of Trump's neo-fascist nominees is definitely the same as "falling short of sainthood". Way to go!

[CountmontyC]

"dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe,"

[Sarcastr0]

At the moment, there are fewer folks in the Democratic Party who brand themselves principled idealists, vs. pragmatists.

That's arguably part of their branding problem.

Rand Paul set up his own standards. He's falling way short. You're setting a very very low bar. But you've never been one for consistent standards.

[Sarcastr0]

“For all the concerns about the First Amendment, the First Amendment… what about all the amendments Charlie Kirk lost, because Charlie Kirk has no amendments right now.” -

-Kayleigh Mcenany

The right's so far up their own asses on this Kirk stuff they're openly saying the authoritarian stuff people on here are working hard to deny is happening.

[Riva]

From Victor Davis Hanson on the assassination of Charlie Kirk:

It was a political assassination because when you think of people under the age of 35 on the conservative side who combined photogenic ability to speak to people without notes, to do a podcast, to have the administrative skill to create from scratch a huge organization, to be politically savvy, and to know which states to go in and how to approach the electorate to help the conservatives. And you put all that together, he is irreplaceable. He really is…. This was a political assassination, but it was also journalistic. Usually, we don’t see attacks on reporters or journalists or podcasters, and so this is new … then it’s a not just a political act, but it’s also trying to thwart the dissemination of knowledge.

[Sarcastr0]

Up your own ass.

He wasn't a secular saint. You're not going to make him one, other than in your own weird circles.

Unless you get off this ridiculous train, there will be more overreach by your side. Which is bad for everyone.

[Riva]

You missed the point. This is the "overreach," if you want to use that euphemism: "This was a political assassination, but it was also journalistic. Usually, we don’t see attacks on reporters or journalists or podcasters, and so this is new … then it’s a not just a political act, but it’s also trying to thwart the dissemination of knowledge."

[Don Nico]

"Up your own ass."
Poor guy, he has become such a hater. I guess it was Brett who pushed him over the brink into the cesspool.

He actually thinks that by trying to delegitimize all with whom he disagrees that he is improving democracy. In fact, he is tearing it down by that tactic

[Martinned]

Not everyone "with whom he disagrees". Just the fascists. There was a time when the Volokh Conspiracy wasn't teeming with them. That was the whole point of coming here, being able to discuss the law with people "with whom [one] disagreed".

[Riva]

Now we're fascists again? Well at least the vile left showed some pretend restraint for a few days before reverting back to norms.

[Riva]

And I have seen an impressive number of trollish insults and other nonsense posed by you Martinned. I've yet to see a serious discussion of the law with those with whom you disagree. I'm sure it's there hiding somewhere, just difficult to see between all the unhinged rants of "fascist."

[CountmontyC]

"dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe,"

[Sarcastr0]

The President and FCC have threatened networks because they don't think they're nice enough to him.

In America.

We nationalized part of Intel.

Your sloganeering looks more like desperate willful blindness at this point.

Hows about we reject the fascism and then we can go back to being smug at Europe, eh?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslight0, it was a declaration of war.
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2025/09/18/charlie-kirk-vigil-draws-thousands-to-boston-common-ends-suddenly-due-to-safety-concerns-organizer-says/

[Kazinski]

He wasn't a secular saint until Tyler Robinson made him one.

[Sarcastr0]

For fuck's sake he's still not a saint.

Fell free to pretend he is; it just reveals you as one of those weird MAGAs who kinda wants to be in a cult.

[bernard11]

many people have in their contract what we call a morals clause … or a conduct clause,”

Maybe entertainers or professional athletes do. I don't know. I do know I've seen a fair number of employment contracts, and have not seen those terms. And as for "many people," no. Most people don't even have employment contracts.

[Martinned]

Speaking of very clever, it looks like the Regime is cooking the books on right-wing violence in the same way that it is cooking the books on climate change: by literally destroying the evidence.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/17/justice-department-study-far-right-extremist-violence

I wonder whether anyone in Project 2025 knows what the Streisand effect is. Trump must know, even if he doesn't know the name. It happens to him every time he sues someone for saying he has a small penis.

[Jazzizhep]

As opposed to the Biden admin that put out the report to begin with. Ya know, the same FBI keeping tabs on traditional Latin Mass and soccer moms.

The same FBI that originally said the Republican baseball practice shooting was not politically motivate. That said the Ft Hood shooter was not religiously motivated when he was shouting "Allahu Akbar" nad it was just work place violence. That FBI?

[shawn_dude]

The report along with its methodology are available. You could always critique it substantively rather than this empty ad hominem. Aside from the date it was publish and who was in office at the time, what about this report looks inaccurate to you and what evidence can you point to that others, such as myself, might read that would support your opinion?

[Jazzizhep]

When a guy with a list of Republican congressmen shoots up a Republican baseball practice, for example, and the FBI decides it’s not politically motivated, I don’t need to know what method they used to not count it. It started with a subjective determination that was farcical.

The FBI also used the ADL which is notorious for assigning things like violent prison breaks as right-wing violence if the criminal has white supremacist tattoos. The subjective shit is a joke.

I don’t think you know what ad hominem means. Unless you can point to the person I attacked.

[Life of Brian]

the ADL which is notorious for assigning things like violent prison breaks as right-wing violence if the criminal has white supremacist tattoos.

One wonders (actually, one really doesn't wonder much at all) if their rigor in determining whether a given tattoo really is "white supremacist" starts from the same default position of extreme skepticism and mockery we were treated to with respect to Abrego Garcia's MS-13 tats.

[Sarcastr0]

They call this appeal to incredulity. It's a fallacy. You use it to leverage your ignorance into outrage. That's dumb as hell.

And for all that, you had to reach back to 2017 to find your grievance.

And nice job attacking the FBI by attacking ADL. Really, they're all against you, eh?

[Jazzizhep]

Well, not me personally. I haven't gone to a school board meeting in decades and I have only attended one Latin Mass. That was at Notre Dame on Christmas just for the experience.

The report included that time frame (2017). If you don't like how far I go back, take it up with the FBI.

The FBI shouldn't use the ADL if they don't want me attacking them for using such a discredited organization.

[loki13]

In fairness, his hands make his penis look almost normal....

Sized. Just talking about the size. Can't do much with the shape.

*I mean, assuming the accounts are true. Who are you going to believe, a trustworthy individual like Trump who has never cheated on his multiple wives and paid off women and had to pay court judgments involving his sexual assaults and sent birthday cards about his shared secrets to his good friend Epstein and regularly called the tabloid press under an assumed name to brag about his sexual exploits and bought a teen beauty pageant to watch teens undressing and was taped saying that the advantage of fame is you could just grab women by the you know what, or, you know, other people?

[Riva]

The “Regime” again? It’s so hard to find a decent substitute for the usual Nazi bullshit isn’t it? Pretty soon you might get so desperate that you actually attempt to make an honest argument. As soon as you can find something to be honest about.

[Frank Drackman]

Right, hiding the attacks by all those Right Wing BLM guys

[Riva]

And, just to clarify Martinned, was this post a serious discussion of the law with those with whom you disagree?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Prior to Trump's media censorship activity, social media publishers had already grown far too large and irresponsible to serve the public life of the nation. Their giantism crowded out variety, and starved legacy media for income. That harshly winnowed news gathering nationwide. Digital media giants have not themselves proved a useful source of news, nor have they tried to do so.

Add Trump's media censorship to the mix, and every publishing organization which comes under oligarchical control becomes a potential menace to public life and political freedom. At least from the moment that audience surveillance and individualized content feeds were added to Section 230 legal impunity, all this was predictable. It remains notable that when the predictable happened, it happened so suddenly, and all at once.

Need to reverse the present catastrophic onset of state-run media must get urgent political attention. The question I put to the commenters is, what non-censorship media policies should Trump/MAGA opponents propose and campaign on, to fix the mess?

It seems to me that policies which stay away from content regulation will be the only solutions possible. Counter-censorship will improve nothing. By contrast, policies which aim to break up media consolidation might prove both politically popular, and help to restore expressive freedom to its former status as an ornament of American expressive and political culture.

It is a daunting prospect to consider future elections, including the. next one, run under a media regime of all-in Trump/MAGA manipulation and lies. Whatever policies are proposed, they will require features to thwart media giants from retaliating to guard and reinforce the kind of corrupt influence they have lately initiated.

[Frank Drackman]

Jeez, Churchill would love your Prose
“Never in History has one man used so many words to say so little”
SEE? That’s how you do it, Wham, Bam, Thank you Ma’am,
Just “In and Out” a little of the old “In and Out.
Say what you’re going to say and leave, leaving only a memory, like a verbal SBD.
This is longer than it needs to be, still way more entertaining than your written Logorrhea.

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

Disney, a private company, made a business decision. Kimmel got whacked b/c he has lost his fastball and loses money. It doesn't help his case when he gratuitously insults half the electorate.

Don't like Disney's business decision? Establish your own media company, lathrop, and hire Kimmel.

[Martinned]

Holy self-delusion, Batman!

[Frank Drackman]

You're the Batman Villain who didn't make it past the cutting room floor, "Dick-Face"

[Ska]

Dick-Face would be better in Daredevil anyway. The guy who uses echolocation to "see" ends up perpetually disturbed by never being able to view Dick-Face optically.

[Kazinski]

Certainly not self delusion, Joe Rogan has 11 million listeners a week, he is is own media company.

Jimmy Kimmel had 1/10 that many viewers per week, with a lot more duplicates.

So no, it doesn't take billions and and FCC license.

And Kimmel may actually do better with his own podcast without ABC/Disney dragging him down, which is probably coming.

[Malika la Maize]

Eliding the FCC’s role: ignorant or disingenuous?

[hobie]

Watching the slow conversion of commenters here, XY's has been the most spectacular

[bernard11]

What flavor is that Kool-aid?

All this happened after Carr made threatening statements is just a blind coincidence, right, XY?

[Jazzizhep]

For the sake of argument let's assume Trump did call Disney and tell them to fire Kimmel. By your own admission (and the size of Kimmel's audience). legacy media is being crowded out by the gigantism of social media. Kind of puts in perspective Facebook, Twitter and other companies censuring at the behest of the Biden administration, eh?

Save the crocodile tears for my beer.

And no. This is not an endorsement of Trump calling Disney.

[Martinned]

This is not an endorsement of Trump calling Disney.

Isn't it, though? It's about as critical of Trump as Josh's post about the Kimmel case yesterday.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Jazzizhep — Not alike. Not even a little. You will have an equivalent example when a blue president publicly targets by name a political opponent for censorship, and censorship happens, and the blue president gloats in public about it.

That would be a like example. And I would criticize it alike if it were a president of any political persuasion.

Your complaisance shows only cynicism. Insight would notice the destructive effect on public discourse of the publicity Trump insists upon. That is an enormous force multiplier for the harm. It is what generalizes the sense of threat, with an eye to turning individual abuse into public intimidation.

[Jazzizhep]

"It's different when we do it. We went after large swaths of speech. You guys went after one guy. Quelle Horreur!!"

Yes I am cynical. Yes I understand how destructive it is. I wish it would stop. But I will be damned if I am going to sit here and think the left will stop if the Republicans don't start playing the same game. Remember the Senate, judges, and Harry Reid? How about congressional districting? You guys set really bad new rules. Don't piss on us because we are playing by them.

Again, I am just conceding the argument. I don't actually believe Disney genuflected before the FCC. They already had boycotts over a show losing money that has lost 40% of its target audience over the last decade. It is now losing by a WIDE margin in total audience to a guy on cable. The number one show was losing $40 million a year. It was dumb of the FCC to say anything. Kimmel would have been fired if he said nothing. Anybody who wants to step outside the bubble can see that.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s not just “dumb” it’s an abuse of federal government power. It’s interesting how easy you guys shrug this off when someone you like is in power.

[Jazzizhep]

Not according to Justice Barrett and the majority in Hines.

[Malika la Maize]

Hines?

[Sarcastr0]

“ I wish it would stop. But”

Yeah…we know what you are.

[Jazzizhep]

A progressive wanting to stifle speech I don't like?

[Sarcastr0]

Someone desperate to deflect, among other things.

[Don Nico]

The pot calls the kettle black.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Jazzizhep — That claim of losing $40 million per year. The critical thinking question is, "How do I know that?"

What's your answer? Please answer with a well-placed source, without biased motives, who cites specific information, and explains how it was compiled. In this case, distinguish actual loss from purported opportunity cost.

Don't have that? Stop arguing on the basis of what you don't know.

[Absaroka]

These won't satisfy you, but the WSJ and NYT both speak to the financial woes of broadcast TV.

The articles talk about declining viewers as people have other options. The NYT one quotes Jon Stewart: "Jon Stewart likened himself to the manager of a Tower Records store in an era with Spotify and YouTube. “People are always going to want music, but I’m still the guy who’s like, ‘Come into my giant building and let me show you the new CD rack,’".

...

[Absaroka]

...

NYT's source for that is some entertainment rag called 'latenighter.com'. I have no idea if they are a reputable source, but since the Grey Lady thinks they are worth quoting, here is what they say about Colbert's profitability:

"Sources inside CBS have suddenly become much more forthcoming about the sobering economics of late-night television in 2025—go figure— revealing that The Late Show with Stephen Colbert has recently been running at an annual shortfall of $40 million."

FWIW, I think that the Trump admin absolutely threatened the networks, and that is despicable, and the timing sure suggests those threats were a factor in the cancellation. Which in no way means the show wouldn't have been cancelled anyway for financial reasons. That doesn't mean what the admin did was OK - shooting someone in their hospice bed is still murder - but pretending the show was profitable seems pretty silly.

[Sarcastr0]

An intervening cause means 'show woulda been cancelled anyway' doesn't matter much (YMMV - it is an open philosophical question known as Smullyan’s Paradox)

But more universally, the future cancellation is a lot more speculative.
You and I are not privy to the reasoning much less the full information behind network programming decisions. We are privy to the threats and governmental ability to cause trouble for ABC/Disney.

[bernard11]

The Late Show with Stephen Colbert has recently been running at an annual shortfall of $40 million."

Maybe. I'd like to see the numbers in some detail. Show business accounting is notoriously unreliable. The critical question is the marginal cost of the show versus its revenue.

I mean, if you are going to allocate all sorts of fixed costs to the show, that doesn't mean it's actually losing money.

Now, I have no idea what that accounting looks like, but I'd like to see it before I come to any conclusion as to how profitable or not the show was.

[Absaroka]

Sure, I actually took a couple semesters of accounting, and learned that accounting is a very dark art. I had assumed it was straightforward arithmetic like balancing your checkbook, and it sure isn't. It's something I'll leave to the professionals.

To be explicit, my point is this: the two poles of the discussion seem to be "the financials were fine, the only reason it was axed was admin threats" and "the show was in the red so far it was getting cancelled anyway".

It's possible that both are true - that the execs had been wrestling with what to do about the red ink, but with contracts still running weren't in a hurry to do anything about it. Then the host makes a comment that many Americans find offensive, and the admin leans on them, and they say 'enough, pull the plug'.

N.b. I don't have much sympathy for the admin here. One way to not be accused of having shows cancelled because of veiled threats you make is ... to not make veiled threats. Politics is big boy rules. Don't like that, don't run for office.

[Jazzizhep]

Nobody has disputed the claim except Kimmel. And what he knows about another network’s finances is anybody’s guess.

[Jazzizhep]

I know that because the NYT reported it. I am sorry you are woefully ignorant of current reporting. It has been quoted several times on this blog. You can damn well google it yourself. Try "NYT Colbert $40 million." I did. I am not going to give you the satisfaction of me taking the time to create a link. It's the first result. Do your own light lifting.

Ya know, like when you asked your teacher what a word means and she says "look it up in the dictionary. You'll remember it better."

It's the first result. Do your own light lifting.

[Malika la Maize]

“It’s ok to burglarize that house because they were gonna build a mall there in a few years anyways!”

[Sarcastr0]

There was no censuring at the behest of the Biden administration.

But lets say there was.

It's got nothing to do with what Trump's doing here; it's just a deflection.

So what's really going on is you don't care about attacks on speech when it's your side doing it.

That's a terrible and unamerican way to be.

[Jazzizhep]

"There was no censuring at the behest of the Biden administration."

What's the point of going any further? Your fantasy world is not likely to be interrupted by anything I say.

I care about attacks on free speech. But I fear the only way the left will get the "it is bad" message is if they feel the sting. You are still defending the Biden admin while calling out Trump. Unreal.

[Sarcastr0]

This has been gone over a lot. Basically, the government requests were refused plenty of times. Enough to show there was no coercion.

I know it's right-wing conventional wisdom to believe otherwise. And to use that belief to rationalize being authoritarian dickbags.

But the thing about right-wing conventional wisdom is that it's been insane since I was in short pants and y'all were shooting pigs to show the Hillary Death Squads offed Vince Foster.

You're confidence does not evidence make.

[Bwaaah]

Adept coercion requires no commands.

"We've been watching your [social media] business very closely. And there are people out there watching us very closely. And when those people get angry, as you know, stuff begins to happen. Sometimes nasty stuff, like increased regulation of your industry or foot-dragging with necessary government approvals. Neither of us wants to be caught up in that."

"Now, we have some requests to make of you. How you handle them is your choice."

Your good leaders can be as transparently duplicitous as you, Sarc. They have been. We all got to see it.

Keep hunting that silly wabbit, Mr. Fudd.

[Kazinski]

So your point is government requests are not coercion.

Which is actually what the law is, at least to the point that a person with ordinary firmness would not feel coerced.

And just last year the Supreme Court said:
“To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek,” Barrett wrote. “Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.”

I certainly am not defending what Carr said, and I would be fine if he was fired, but it doesn't meet the legal standard Barrett set when reviewing the Biden administration's jawboning of social media companies:

“This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney,” Carr said on the Benny Johnson podcast. “We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

[Malika la Maize]

“I care about attacks on free speech. But”

The mantra of the principled!

[Don Nico]

The man was asleep for 4 years or he was kissing the ass of his bureaucratic masters. Take your pick.

[hobie]

Do you even recall exactly what the Biden requested of Facebook during the pandemic?

"Biden administration officials pressured Facebook to censor content related to COVID-19, including misinformation, satire, and humor. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has acknowledged this pressure, stating in an August 2024 letter to the House Judiciary Committee that officials "repeatedly pressured" the company for months in 2021. "

I know it had you hayseeds in a lather that you couldn't have your fun with facts during a pandemic. But I don't recall anyone getting canceled at FB over it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Where the definition of "misinformation" was, as usual, "anything we don't want people exposed to, regardless of truth value".

As a general rule, as soon as you permit suppressing speech as X, every bit of speech people want suppressed becomes X. Disinformation, misinformation, hate speech, doesn't matter what X might be.

[Sarcastr0]

Your reasoning nationalizes social media. Twitter was not a common carrier.

You are the worst libertarian.

[hobie]

To be fair Brett, Biden didn't do all that to score a second plane from Qatar; he was trying to save lives. Probably wasn't the best way to do it. During the pandemic FB's harsh policing and punishing for any perceived curse, or slight of another landed tons of people in FB jail and it drove me nuts at the time. So, at the time, having vaccine kooks' posts muted or having warnings slapped on them, was a just another drop in the bucket

[CountmontyC]

And Kimmel was disseminating misinformation about an assassination. If censorship of misinformation is okay then why isn't censoring Kimmel's misinformation permitted?

[Sarcastr0]

What misinformation? Be concrete.

[CountmontyC]

"We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it."

[Sarcastr0]

What information was willfully incorrect there?

The MAGA gang sure as shit did desperately try to characterize the shooter as anything other than one of them.

[CountmontyC]

He was declaring that Tyler Robinson was MAGA which has been proven as to be absolutely false.

"the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them"

[Sarcastr0]

He didn't declare that.
At best you could argue he implied that. And that's both arguable and brushes up against being opinion.

You're overplaying your facts here.

[CountmontyC]

I gave his exact quote.

"the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as ANYTHING OTHER THAN ONE OF THEM"

That is an outright declaration that the shooter was MAGA and is pure misinformation.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah and your interpretation doesn’t track.

It’s not misinformation if you just can’t do English.

[hobie]

"He was declaring that Tyler Robinson was MAGA"

He declared no such a thing.

'The chef claimed he made a cheese sandwich' is not the same as saying 'The chef made a cheese sandwich'.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The chef desperately denied making a cheese sandwich", OTOH, pretty much IS the same as saying "The chef made a cheese sandwich."

[not guilty]

"The chef desperately denied making a cheese sandwich", OTOH, pretty much IS the same as saying "The chef made a cheese sandwich."

Brett, is that as true as everything else you have said?

[Bob from Ohio]

desperately!

It turns out he was one of yours.

[Life of Brian]

It turns out it was horses, not zebras, yet again.

[Riva]

Trump’s censorship? That projection almost physically hurt it was so powerful. Unless you have one of those Men in Black memory erasers that eliminated the years long efforts of the democrats and their cancerous censorship and harassment of political opponents. That would be a useful tool in the leftist handbag.

[ReaderY]

Has Trumpism found its Horst Wessel? Horst Wessel was a fairly low-level Nazi whose death was blown out of all proportion for the propaganda value of having s martyr-saint.

Is it treating Charlie Kirk’s assassination as something of a low-level.version of the Reichstag fire? The President can’t unilaterally suspend habeas corpus. But he has very notably used the occassion to make clear it will be his policy to use the resources of the government to silence his critics in a much bolder and more open and direct way than before.

Is Charlie Kirk’s death being used as a moment where previous restraints can be loosened and significant change introduced? Hitler sought such moments to act. He waited for them.

Is Trump doing the same?

[hobie]

Well, you have to admit it's working. I'm the first person to mention Epstein this morning. That's pretty impressive, don't you think?

[Michael P]

You need help. Check yourself into a recovery program or an institution.

[ReaderY]

Couldn’t agree more. At this point, people who support the continuation of this country as a constitutional republic with checks and balances and constitutionally guaranteed rights including freedom to criticize the government need all the help they can get.

What program or institution will help us all recover from this?

[loki13]

I am increasingly of the opinion that we will not recover.

I mentioned this in passing in another thread, but I had a conversation with someone a few months ago about future plans when things started to look bleak, and I said that my "canary in the coal mine" would be the mid-terms.

I said that if the mid-terms were full and fair, then all would be well. If they weren't, then that was the canary.

...in the past two weeks, we've had to re-visit that conversation.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think at this point the two parties' idea of "full and fair", as with many other things, are just about disjoint. For instance, for a map to not be "gerrymandered" according to Democrats, it has to actually BE "gerrymandered" as Republicans define it. Republicans insist on ballot security, Democrats insist that ease of voting has to be maxed out.

[Sarcastr0]

Facts matter.

You're deluded. You may be very sure of your weird view. That'll drive some resistance to shame and some passion.

But in the end, actual real facts matter.

[Michael P]

Actual real facts matter, which is why Gaslight0 strenuously avoids pointing towards any and prefers to spout unsupported conclusions.

[not guilty]

Michael P, what specifically has "Gaslight0" said that leads you to question your own sanity, memories or perception of reality?

Merriam-webster.com lists two definitions of "gaslighting":

1: psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one's emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator

2: the act or practice of grossly misleading someone especially for one's own advantage

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gaslighting

The first is a useful gerund, true to the cinematic origins of the term, which fills a linguistic void. The second has unfortunately devolved into a go to insult hurled at someone a speaker simply disagrees with.

[Michael P]

Gaslight0 *tries* to psychologically manipulate people into accepting his warped view of the world rather than their own eyes. He's not competent at it, thankfully -- he's now fallen to the point where afactual ranting about how someone has a "weird view" is one of his better tactics.

You might learn a lot from reading Nineteen Eighty-Four. That's what's the left is trying to establish.

[Sarcastr0]

You think my plan is to manipulate you into becoming a liberal?

And the regime these days is Trump so not sure why you think 1984 support your side.

[Malika la Maize]

If you think in terms of geography and geometry instead of democracy I guess you could say that.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, see what I mean?

What is "gerrymandering"? It is, classically, drawing squirrelly looking districts to get a particular election outcome. Where, originally, "squirrelly" meant looking like a salamander...

More generally, it's drawing districts, not according to neutral principles like compactness, equal population, and respecting natural boundaries, (Like waterways.) but instead to achieve a particular outcome.

And that's STILL how Republicans understand gerrymandering.

Democrats, OTOH, tend to define gerrymandering in terms of whether particular pre-defined outcomes are achieved. Tossing aside the whole geography and geometry roots of the concept.

So you get 'metrics' like vote efficiency, which make no reference AT ALL to the shape of the districts, but instead posit a particular political outcome as desired, and declare a gerrymander if it isn't produced! And typically it's an outcome that would never occur on any map generated without reference to voting patterns, and is most easily achieved by means of squirrelly looking, non-compact districts.

Literally, you could create a state map that consisted of an Escher style tiling of salamander shaped districts, and minimize 'vote inefficiency'! It would actually be EASIER to minimize it with such a map, than with compact districts!

So, LITERALLY, the Democratic definition of NOT gerrymandering is the Republican definition of gerrymandering!

Well, "gerrymandering" has a definition, and it's not "failing to minimize vote efficiency", so in this case the Republicans are exactly right.

[shawn_dude]

No one said Republicans don't understand Gerrymandering. They are far better at it than Democrats, as evidenced by the wonky districts in many Red states. The GOP is infamous for figuring out ways to disenfranchise minority voters, hence the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which attempted to directly outlaw this behavior.

Everything else you write here is just a "Wookie defense" of Gerrymandering.

[Brett Bellmore]

There, you see: You want to complain about "gerrymandering", but have no interest at all in honestly defining "gerrymandering".

You might as well be defining it as "Not drawing the districts to my party's advantage!"

[Sarcastr0]

No, his point was you're throwing out a ton of hot takes and think it's an argument. An argument for...I guess Dems bad?

It's not very effective.

[Voize of Reazon]

Gerrymandering is the drawing of districts to achieve an electoral advantage. It certainly isn't drawing them to achieve a "particular outcome", which could include almost any result including a fair election. And vote efficiency is just an attempt (admittedly not entirely successful) to quantify "fair" instead of leaving it up to feelz.

You recently argued that California is gerrymandered worse than Texas because the allocation of seats doesn't match the popular vote split, a definition that is no better than vote efficiency. In a state where voters split 55/45% but were evenly distributed, the 55% party would almost certainly win all the districts no matter how boundaries were drawn. Both you and vote efficiency would call that result heavily gerrymandered, but it isn't evidence of election rigging (except maybe to fans of proportional representation).

[bernard11]

"gerrymandering" has a definition, and it's not "failing to minimize vote efficiency", so in this case the Republicans are exactly right.

What is the definition, then? I would say it's designing districts so as to maximize one party's representation, without regard for any other criterion.

but instead posit a particular political outcome as desired, and declare a gerrymander if it isn't produced!

Yeah. The results should be a reasonable approximation of the breakdown of the state's voters. What's wrong with that? If a state is 60-40 one way or the other, what's so great about its representation being 90-10, even if the districts are compact. Looks like a problem to me.

Look, the House is supposed to represent the will of the people. That has zip to do with natural boundaries, compactness, etc. Who cares about the shape of a district?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Thought experiment for you Bellmore. No geographic districts at all. Virtual districts. Upon registration, everyone gets assigned at random to a virtual district. It has a number, a roster of voters. and it elects a representative. As always, the number of districts in a state gets allocated by census data.

All okay with you and the Rs?

I think incumbents of both parties would object. But wouldn't that be a system to maximize fair districting? See if you can answer that without subject changes.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Fifteen hours and no answer from Bellmore. I don't think he really wants to discuss fair districting.

While tyranny of the majority is indeed bad, that in no way implies tyranny of the minority is the intended alternative. The intended alternative is no tyranny. Bellmore advocates tyranny of the minority.

[Brett Bellmore]

V of R:

"You recently argued that California is gerrymandered worse than Texas because the allocation of seats doesn't match the popular vote split, a definition that is no better than vote efficiency."

I did not, in fact, argue that. I argued that the outcome in California is further from the outcome you would get from the median randomly generated map constructed without regard to voting patterns than in you see in Texas. Maybe the concept is too obscure for you?

Lathrop: "Fifteen hours and no answer from Bellmore. I don't think he really wants to discuss fair districting."

I have a life, Lathrop. My son has a tranny he needs to overhaul, and not the sort that gets surgery and hormone treatments, either. Moreover, this comment system doesn't exactly notify you when somebody uses your name. So, I didn't reply because I didn't notice your comment.

Your proposal has its merits. It has the downside that localized interests go unrepresented, but it's arguable that is actually a plus, that only local governments should care about local interests.

It would make running for office a bit fraught, because the only way you could reach out to voters in your district would be to be provided with a list of them, with accompanying email or social media addresses. And handling the votes would almost certainly have to be either mail in ballots or electronic, and both have security issues compared to in person voting using physical media.

I personally prefer a proportional representation with compact physical districts.

[Sarcastr0]

I am increasingly of the opinion that we will not recover.

Ain't no way we're going back to the way it was. The right doesn't understand the damage that's been done, because they're all comfortable housecats who find ignorant hate cozy.

But we can rebuilt. It'll be a long way. But the American project isn't over.
We do have some time to go in this admin, and it may get to the point we cannot contain the ruin. But that time is not yet.

[loki13]

Not that long ago, I shared your optimism.

But here's the thing. It's only September of the first term. What more evidence do people need to see?

The corruption isn't being hidden. They are literally conducting pay-for-play in the open.
They have announced a unilateral power of impoundment (don't have to spend what Congress appropriates), a unilateral power to move funds as they want, a unilateral power to tax (via tariffs), and the power to set aside laws that Trump disagrees with (the dispensing power, something even ol' King George didn't have).
They have attempted to make the Fed completely subordinate to the Executive- and are very close to doing so.
They have targeted political enemies with prosecution, and fired USAs who refuse to prosecute those claims.
They have produced false evidence to the Courts, and lied to those Courts.
They use government coercion, intimidation, and action to extort private industry- resulting in kickbacks or government ownership (including terms naming Donald Trump specifically as the decision maker for the 'golden share').
They send the military to blow up civilians in (maybe?) international waters, and still haven't provided any legal justification or facts ... either to the American People or to the Congress, that this isn't just murder.
They've announced that they will designate "ANTIFA" as a terrorist organization, despite the fact that there is no basis in the law for doing so (fun fact, you can look it up, but why bother).
Oh, and the First Amendment? The administration is "celebrating" (and I do mean it in all sense of the word) the death of someone I did not like, but was actually a fan of the First Amendment, by engaging in the biggest government crackdown on free speech that I can recall- and it's just begun.

That's just some stuff... I'm not even talking about the petty things which are just WTF but should have been giant warning signs (are we North Korea?), like putting up giant banners of Trump's face on federal buildings.

None of this ... none of this is the America that I grew up in and love. Any single one of these crises would have been a five alarm fire during the entirety of a prior Presidential term. Now? Any given crisis is a random Tuesday, and it's almost impossible to keep up with all of it. How can you stay outraged by, I dunno, the continuing lies and coverup of the Epstein files when so many other terrible things are happening at the same time?

So no, I don't share your optimism. Why? Because we already know how Trump feels about elections. We went through this in 2020. The only difference between now and then is that Trump has made sure that there are no people around him that will say no.

[Sarcastr0]

I guess I don’t see the momentum you do. Too much chaos for inertia to set in. In either direction.

It’s not at all clear to me that the admin is any kind of steady campaign. It’s lurching.
And they’re losing public support. And they’re infighting.

Yeah there’s been a ton of awful destructive corrupt shit. But it’s gonna get harder for them before it gets easier.

We will be in a very different country in 2028. Vastly worse off than in 2024. But I don’t know how much farther than where we are now, given the resistance. Resistant to ICE, courts calling the admin out on its lawlessness, polling, this most recent overreach.

Not saying America’s in the clear - posters on here sure seem to have embraced antidemocratic authoritarianism - but we’re not dead yet.

[Josh R]

I was hoping for a small step towards authoritarianism from Trump45. But indeed instead, we have a full-throated attack on our liberal democracy as you have catalogued.

That being said, I still have the mid-terms as the milestone for whether we can recover. I also remain hopeful much of this shit cannot continue without Trump's persona. Vance is angling to be the next flag bearer, but I (am again) hopeful most Americans think of his persona the way Trey Parker and Matt Stone do.

[David Nieporent]

I also remain hopeful much of this shit cannot continue without Trump's persona.

I was going to write a longer post, but it got eaten, so I'll just say that I agree. Trump is sui generis. Of course there are others who want to continue his agenda and behavior, but so far nobody has shown any ability to cultivate the cultlike following that enables Trump to get away with it. The Congressional GOP is not going to be scared of (e.g.) JD Vance riling up the mob and primarying them if he doesn't get his way. Doesn't mean that they're suddenly going to become liberal, but they will reassert their own preferences and prerogatives.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump is this century's Willie Stark, minus the idealism.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — Systematic destruction of democratic institutions is the problem. The wreckage is not going to go away with a personnel turnover. Especially given the fact that the destruction has been long-planned, comprehensive, and funded by all-but-invisible political participants who will abide long after an election or two.

Thought experiment: what happens if a political movement shows up and begins to gain support for getting dark money and corporate money out of American politics? How about a politics conducted only by natural persons on the basis of political equality for all citizens?

Could that happen unopposed? How about if economic breakdown made that kind of reform indispensable? Would the indispensable happen?

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/09/19/tear-gas-protesters-broadview-ice/

Photo goes hard.

[ThePublius]

"The President can’t unilaterally suspend habeas corpus."

Dig up Lincoln and ask him about that.

[Frank Drackman]

Actually back in 1876 some guys did dig Lincoln up, hoping to steal the casket and hold it for ransom. Thankfully they were caught by Secret Service (and since then, Dead POTUS's have had Secret Service protection, all the way up to Sleepy Joe)

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

TP still mad about Lincoln.

Alongside thinking Haitians eat pets and blacks are inherently savage and criminal.

Yep. Checks out.

[ReaderY]

It’s long been understood that martial law applies in combat zones because courts can’t function in the middle of a battle. Lincoln just had an overly expansive view of what constitutes a combat zone.

At any rate Trump is no Lincoln. Lincoln came in promising peace but had a civil war thrust on him. He did not attempt to foment a civil war in order to seize power. Suspending rights was a regretted means, not a goal in and of itself.

[Malika la Maize]

There was a civil war going on then.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not in the places Lincoln was doing it. And it really didn't matter, because suspending the Great Writ is a power of Congress, not the President.

[Malika la Maize]

The country was at war. The circumstances are light years apart.

[Brett Bellmore]

The President couldn't suspend HC then, he can't now, and the only relevant "circumstance" is that it's a Congressional, not Executive, power, so the circumstances are, in fact, identically the same.

[Sarcastr0]

Weird you didn't call TP on this then, since he brought it up.

[ThePublius]

I just alluded to a fact, that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. I didn't mention that he also jailed editors and journalists, and destroyed printing presses. But despite the fact that there was a war, they still held a presidential election. So, the argument that a war justified the suspension is ridiculous.

To restate it, a war is no excuse for suspending the constitution.

[Sarcastr0]

You threw up irrelevant chaff.

[Sarcastr0]

I think it's wild you think it matters.

Lincoln may or may not have been in the right. It's debatable. But even if he was wrong, that doesn't change anything about today. The legal lay of the land is utterly different.

[Frank Drackman]

I love Horst Wessel's song, it's got a beat you can Goose-Step to.

[Riva]

Well that didn’t take long. Back to the Nazi name calling already. But you are just a lower level troll apparently trying to make a name for himself. But exploiting Charle Kirk’s political assassination to do it? If someone could be more despicable, I really don’t want to know about it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

“We were forced to leave out of safety,” Foley said. “That’s exactly why we needed to do it, because you can’t speak your mind in Massachusetts without fear of being hurt, and it’s time that we accept that I’m human and you’re human, and at the end of the day everyone is going to disagree on something but it’s not worth someone’s life.”

"https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2025/09/18/charlie-kirk-vigil-draws-thousands-to-boston-common-ends-suddenly-due-to-safety-concerns-organizer-says/"

These are terrorists.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The “it’s fascism” thesis is useful because it’s fairly predictive of how the bulk of the current American right will react to events.

[Estragon]

“Has Trumpism found its Horst Wessel?”

Yes. They were trying to do this with Babbitt. Her family is lucky they got paid before this happened to Kirk, because now she is old news.

[shawn_dude]

I think this is really just a "never let a good crisis go to waste" moment for Republicans. They'll ratchet the wheel a notch or two closer to Christian Nationalism during the frenzy and lock it in place until the next crisis. They may not need a single Horst Wessel if they can continue to manufacture them on an as-needed basis. Don't forget that our news cycle is far faster now--so fast that a story can run its course long before any real fact checking could throttle it.

[Kazinski]

Reader, maybe before embarrassing yourself again, you will correct your statement from Monday's open thread which you evidently made without even reading Pulte's referral letter to the DOJ:

"Because the administration never bothered to check any of her actual representations to the banks before rushing to fire her. It only checked THE GOVERNMENT’S ALLEGED RECORDS of THE BANKS’ representations to THE GOVERNMENT. Her representations to the banks were never checked.

The evidence makes clear she made no misrepresentations to the banks. Trump’s claims she did were complete bullshit. The government lawyers here filed papers with the courts that lacked any basis in fact."
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/09/15/monday-open-thread-123/?comments=true#comment-11206159

The referral letter had the original contracts Cook signed and was made public mid August.

https://www.creditslips.org/files/putle-criminal-referral-letter-1.pdf

[Sarcastr0]

lol Kaz can’t stop.

[Kazinski]

Well I was glad to see that you had enough sense to not jump in like Loki did agreeing with Reader, but of course you already knew he didn't know what he was talking about.

[ReaderY]

Let me clue you in on how commerce works here in the United States. Merchants here in the United States have a lot of discretion, and sometimes give customers discounts they don’t strictly deserve by the written rules. It happens all the time.

It happened here. Ms. Cook truthfully disclosed the use of her second house in her application. But the bank, on its own, decided to give her the primary residence discount anyway.

I don’t know how things work where you live. But here in the United States, mortgage contracts are written by the bank, not the customer. And what the bank writes up after receiving her truthful representations is on the bank, not on her. Like any other discount situation, if she tells the merchant her situation but the merchant decides to write up the contract so as to give her the discount anyway, that’s a discretionary decision on the merchant’s part, and not in any way fraud on the customer’s part.

The bank may have had reasons to give Ms. Cook a discount. It might have perceived her as going places in the banking world and wanted to keep her as a customer. Maybe such discounts are common in that neck of the woods and if the bank figured that if it didn’t give it, someone else would, and she go with the cheaper rate. Or maybe some clerk simply made a mistake with the paperwork. Why the bank gave her the undeserved discount doesn’t matter in the least.

[Malika la Maize]

Free speech warrior Elon Musk advocates sending rapper who mocked Kirk to prison

https://x.com/ElonAlertsX/status/1967202571925229895

[hobie]

Millions of Americans have been condemning Kirk online. I wonder how the Regime will get us all.

[Martinned]

They are already building the camps...

[hobie]

And because this group is not private, Palantir has already scooped up all our posts and classified us all on the Hayseed/Lib scale. For various reasons I won't go into, I'm fairly safe from reprisals in my black-ass hood. Most of you ain't, though.

[Martinned]

The already have the Invade The Hague law on the statute book, but I don't think they're going to bother just for me.

[Frank Drackman]

Like the ones your ancestors worked at?
You do know the only thing standing between you and the Roosh-un Army are the Poles (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH) the Germans (noch mehr Lachen) and the Frog Eaters, of course Putin's smart, he'll just cut off your gas.

Frank

[shawn_dude]

This is the same guy who posted BS about Paul Pelosi after the attack.

"The claim that big names like Elon Musk, Donald Trump, Jr., and Dinesh D’Souza have promoted to millions of their followers: Paul Pelosi and the man who attacked him were gay lovers who had gotten into a fight." CNN

[Armchair]

Some thoughts on the Kirk assassination and the liberal response.

1. Charlie Kirk was assassination. It's a tragedy that has promoted a lot of support and vigils. The method of assassination - long range with a rifle - in particular strikes some sympathetic chords with people.

2. The liberal response here should have been simple. It's a tragedy, no one should be killed like this. Full stop. Don't have to mention anything about Kirk's values....but, perhaps it was the number of people who were honestly saddened by it that drove some liberals a little nuts....because, there were one of three ways many of them responded.

3a. "It's a good thing Kirk is dead. He deserved it. He was a bad man in some way. He had it coming"
--This most reminds me of the response in some Arab countries to 9/11. In response to the death of 3000 Americans is a terrorist response, there is cheering with the concept "They had it coming." It's a sign of an unhealthy hatred that borders on pathological.

3b. "It was a MAGA/other people who did it."
-This is a cognitive dissonance going on. These individuals cannot rationalize the fact that some of the hatred that was part of 3a caused the individual to do the murder. So...they need some rationale...any rationale...to say "it wasn't them".

3c. "Whatabout...this and that and that"
-This just seeks to divert attention. It's a variation of the cognitive dissonance in 3b.

I would suggest the best response by liberals here is simply to be civil and respectful. A tragedy occurred. You don't need to embrace Kirk's values to be respectful of those who mourn his death.

[hobie]

Well FJB and all that. You must be joking if you think I should be respectful of Charlie Kirk.

[Frank Drackman]

Well Hobie-Stank, you are a joke, a particularly Obscene and not so funny one, you don't see me disparaging Floyd George, his death from a Self Inflicted Fent-a-nol overdose was a shame (that it didn't happen years earlier in private)

Frank

[hobie]

"you don't see me disparaging Floyd George"

Does anyone wanna field this one for me?

[Frank Drackman]

Oh a game of "Pepper" I loved playing "Pepper" (do MLB players still play "Pepper"?)
What's incorrect with saying that FG was a woman beating drug addict?
Maybe if someone had told him that while he was alive, instead of "enabling" him (I still want to know 1: How did he afford a Mercedes when he's trying to pass Counterfeit Jacksons? and 2: Is it available on Autotrader? "Low Miles, only OD'd in Once!")
He'd still be alive making Pornos (notice that I didn't include "Porn Actor" in my (constructive) criticism, hey, Dudes got to make a living, supposedly he had quite a "Stage Presence"

Frank

[hobie]

When Frankie was asked to assist in the Kirk autopsy, he pulls out the bullet that says: "If you read this, you're gay." He looks around furtively for a moment then slips it into his pocket

[Frank Drackman]

My youngest daughter actually used to pull that one on me doing her Hebrew homework.
אם אתה קורא את זה אתה הומו!
Seems like "You're Gay" has become the "Nerd!" of this supposedly "Woke" generation.

Frank

[hobie]

If you raised her, then I suspect gay means gay in the most pejorative of senses.

[Frank Drackman]

No, I encouraged both daughters to try eating at the "Y", I'd much rather have an Anna Paquin or Portia Rossi over for Thanksgiving than the Firefighters/Cops/Pilots they usually date. But yes, "That's Gay" has become the "That Sucks" of this Millenium.
See, when I was in High Screw-el, if you said somebody was "Gay" (actually I don't even recall hearing the term, it was (Redacted) or (Redacted) the most acceptable in Polite Company was "Homo")
You really meant they were Homosexual, then you'd beat them up.

Frank "Anyone up for a game of "Smear the Queer?!?!?!?!?"

[hobie]

Here in the hood, 'Nigga' means 'guy'. You should try it out there at the free clinic

[Armchair]

You can be respectful of a funeral or vigil without needing to approve of it.

Or you can be a dick like these people.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/universitys-charlie-kirk-tribute-defaced-students-hurl-insults-his-supporters-lost-souls

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hobie, we were respectful of Jimmy Carter's death.

[hobie]

As well we should be. And if Carter had a history of hateful rhetoric, I wouldn't begrudge you if you sprinkled some of that in

[Sarcastr0]

So most of the MAGA apologists are pretending there was no government strong-arming it was all a coincidence.

Not Armchair. He’s full on endorsing libs are evil.

Doesn’t even bother with taking revenge; just the get angry part.

Thanks for the advice on how to be Armchair! Not gonna listen to a fucked up always angry wanna be bully, but your thoughts sure do show how entitled to other people’s speech you think you are!

Again, you’ve used hotter accusations against me than anything your fragile ass got sad about here.

[Armchair]

Well that made no sense. Looks like Sarcastr0 has been driven a bit insane.

[Michael P]

He is constitutionally incapable of making a coherent point or backing up the arguments in the direction of which he flails his arms. It's better to just mute him and move on with life. Every time I unmute him to check, his comments are just as angry, stupid and generally worthless as I remember. On top of that, he typically exhibits the same pathologies he accuses others of.

[CountmontyC]

More insane. He was already a bit insane before recent events

[Michael P]

This was a previous case where Antifa tried to get Charlie Kirk because they are two-bit thugs who can't stand one bit of dissent: https://x.com/JackPosobiec/status/1635821322826665984

[Sarcastr0]

You linked to a neo-Nazi liar.

[Life of Brian]

OK, here's the same video, posted by the targeted speaker himself: https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1635821908964036609

Care to address the substance now?

[ThePublius]

Sarcastr0 never addresses the substance. He either attacks the speaker or attacks the source, regardless of the substance (or the truth).

[Sarcastr0]

I don't believe a word Posobiec says. He's not to be trusted on facts. He's a neo-Nazi liar, as I said.
And someone that posts him for truth reveals themselves as being pretty into some terrible, immoral, unamerican, racist shit.

So no, I don't care about whatever deep cut conspiracy bullshit you're pulling out of a white nationalist's ass. I'm more interested in how the MAGA supporters on this blog have a trend. A trend where they've begun to rally around white nationalists.

And fuck you all for doing so. That's backsliding on one of America's most inspirational stories. You support Posobiec, you're about as unamerican as you can get.

[Life of Brian]

I responded to your ad hom on Posobiec by posting an alternate source for the video. Seems pretty chickenshit just to ignore that and go back for round 2 on Poso.

I await your substantive response.

[Absaroka]

If you prefer, here is FIRE's take on the incident.

[Sarcastr0]

“ I don't care about whatever deep cut conspiracy bullshit you're pulling out of a white nationalist's ass. I'm more interested in how the MAGA supporters on this blog have a trend. A trend where they've begun to rally around white nationalists.”

[Life of Brian]

[Narrator: But he did not prefer. Not in the slightest.]

[Absaroka]

I generally don't consider FIRE to be an unreliable source, and in this case other media - the local CBS station was the one I watched - confirmed the gist. People did try to shut down one of Kirk's appearances, breaking the glass in doors. Fortunately the police inside held their fire. Two protestors were arrested and one officer injured. You may wish it hadn't happened - I certainly wish it hadn't happened - but the evidence that it did in fact happen seems pretty strong.

[CountmontyC]

It's video. It doesn't matter the political views of the poster. So unless you have some evidence that the video has been altered you are simply denying reality.

[Sarcastr0]

If someone cites Hitler for something, I'm going to not be as interested in the thing as what the fuck they're doing citing Hitler.

This is that writ small.

Maybe we can talk about 'Antifa tried to get Charlie Kirk' later, but for now I can't drop how this a neo-Nazi fucker keeps making his way into people's comments around here.

[CountmontyC]

You are deflecting. The video has been widely disseminated. Do you claim that the video has been altered somehow?
Here is the local ABC affiliate reporting on what happened that day

https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/uc-davis-violent-confrontation-investigation-turning-point/103-53d79dad-90f1-47cd-8a68-a29c0d2f3234

[Michael P]

He doesn't care about the actual substance, he just wants to call somebody Hitler so that he doesn't have to watch yet another video of his side being totalitarian thugs.

[Life of Brian]

Maybe we can talk about 'Antifa tried to get Charlie Kirk' later, but for now I can't drop how this a neo-Nazi fucker keeps making his way into people's comments around here.

Stand back and give him space, folks. Can't you see Sarc's the one hurting here?

[jb]

You're right that it would have been better if the conversation ended at #2.

But don't pretend that the gross takes are limited to one side of the political divide here. Scroll up a little and you'll see Dr. Ed posted something by Ann Coulter trying to link Kirk's murder to violence committed by trans people. I don't see that as any different from the folks on the left trying to make Robinson into a MAGA figure.

Similarly, there might be less people denouncing Kirk's views if folks on the right weren't engaged in so much hero worship for such a divisive figure. Trump orders flags flown at half mast for this killing but not for Hortman's murder a few months back*; the Vice President goes on his podcast. We should denounce Kirk's killing and all political violence, but we're also allowed to point out that his views don't match ours when he's being treated as a national hero.

* He now claims he hadn't even heard of it?!?

[Life of Brian]

* He now claims he hadn't even heard of it?!?

They were human lives no doubt, but comparatively speaking the Hortman murders were a pretty local affair. If you can find more than passing mention of it around here at the time, post it up. Beyond a bit of sniping about the potential political affiliation of the shooter (history doesn't repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes), I actually don't see where anyone on the left brought it up here until they needed a whatabout for Kirk.

[jb]

As John McEnroe would say: you cannot be serious.

Even if you only ever paid attention to Fox News, there's dozens of stories on it and it was prominently featured in national news for a couple of days while they searched for the shooter. Bernie Moreno, Mike Lee and Elon Musk tweeted about it. A reporter asked Trump about it and he knew at the time that it was "a terrible thing".

I can't include more links, but if you go back to the Open Threads at the time you will see a robust discussion of the topic here as well.

It's only a "local issue" because Republicans consistently downplay political violence from your team so y'all try to ignore incidents like this.

[Life of Brian]

Breathe. I twice specifically scoped it to comments here, not the news. And let me know if any of that "robust discussion" here is outside the parameters I mentioned -- it doesn't appear that way to me.

[jb]

Unless you think Trump is a regular reader of the Conspiracy, how does the discussion here relate to whether or not Trump remembers the event?

[Life of Brian]

Nothing to do with Trump's knowledge per se. Just a fairly objective measure of how much relative attention the two events got.

[Sarcastr0]

I actually don't see where anyone on the left brought it up here until they needed a whatabout for Kirk.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/06/16/monday-open-thread-110/?comments=true#comment-11090199

comparatively speaking
You're kind of a low-key partisan sociopath, eh?

[Life of Brian]

"Beyond a bit of sniping about the potential political affiliation of the shooter"

Your opportunistically selective reading continues apace.

[Sarcastr0]

You're yada yada-ing a murder, because of the politics not lining up with you.

You're also vibing so you can argue no one cared back then and it's just being weaponized now.
It's not true, you're wrong. You want it to be the same as you lot and Kirk. It's not. Y'all are the ones who are so stoked you have a martyr.

What a gross set of comments you made minimizing some other murders because the politics were bad for you.

[Life of Brian]

Sticks and stones, brother. As far as I can tell, you yourself said not one solitary word about the Hortmans back in June, but are shamelessly parading them out now because they're useful to you. Just like LTG, Loki, Hobie, and I'm sure others I've overlooked, who apparently just figured out how to spell "Hortman" when they read it in last week's talking points.

[Magister]

Life of Brian apparently worked not to tell; the June 16th open thread linked above contains two comments by Sarcastr0 on Boelter's murders, and the June 13th open thread contains at least six comments from Sarcastr0 in the comments about those murders. Between the two open threads, LTG had several comments, as did hobie, but Loki did not comment in either thread on any subject.

[Life of Brian]

Hey, look -- Mr. I refuse to even pretend to debate in good faith has tagged in. There's a reason you didn't actually quote any of those posts you tabulated, and we both know why.

If I've somehow overlooked something and a single one of those posts actually does express the slightest sentiment toward the Hortmans as opposed to political barbs and fervent speculation about the latest potential opportunity to Get Righty, please do paste that text here, in full. Many thanks.

[Sarcastr0]

You: "I actually don't see where anyone on the left brought it up here until they needed a whatabout for Kirk."

No new goalposts.

[Life of Brian]

Once more, for the now clearly disingenuous ones: "Beyond a bit of sniping about the potential political affiliation of the shooter"

Paste the actual text from an actual post that runs counter to what I've clearly said at least half a dozen times now, or buzz off.

[Magister]

Life of Brian, lamenting a shortage of sackcloth and ashes. None of the people you named objected to the original post that simply reported the murders and characterized it as "despicable" which was quite accurate. They replied to the subsequent comments that went off on rather hateful tangents regarding the killer's motive, which were indisputably words about the Hortmans.

Since you bring it up, you quibbled that Vance didn't explicitly name prosecution as a tool to "dismantle institutions", while ignoring the other three named by Randal and disregarding that Vance implicitly accepted Miller's broad threats that you offered no objection too. Sure, maybe they both meant extrajudicial murders or extortion or organizing an attack like January 6th, but that hardly makes it better.

[Life of Brian]

Yup, just a spew of awkward post-hoc characterizations and not a single word from an actual post, because they don't say a word that's helpful to you. Exactly as I thought.

You are the weakest link -- goodbye.

[Magister]

It is unfortunate that discussion of the murders was preempted by baseless insistence on a leftist being responsible, from Kazinski and others.

I will note that nobody did such derailment in the recent threads with regard to Charlie Kirk; plenty of people who thought he was a terrible person lamented his death. I expressed my feelings on the Hortman murders to friends from Minnesota, not in front of a large number of commenters here who are even worse than Life of Brian.

I will take note of and commend Sarcastr0's sincere and sympathetic responses to a conservative commenter in a recent thread. Perhaps some of you who only name-call Sarcastr0 should ponder those.

[Kazinski]

Had you ever heard of Hortman before she got shot?

I am sure you knew about Charlie Kirk even if you were not a fan.

Nobody outside of Minnesota had ever heard of Hortman before she got shot, and its not surprising she would slip from memory easily, and she was certainly not the kind of national figure Kirk was. And Hortman not a political assassination, it was mental illness pure and simple.

Charlie Kirk was the President's personal friend and extremely influential. In fact BBC reports it was Charlie Kirk who first introduced JD Vance to the Trumps and proposed him for the VP slot:

" One of the first people JD Vance called before deciding to jump into politics was Charlie Kirk.

"[Kirk] introduced me to some of the people who would run my [Senate] campaign and also to Donald Trump Jr," the vice-president wrote in a powerful tribute he penned hours after Kirk's death.

"Don took a call from me because Charlie asked him."

Three years after that winning Senate run, when the elder Donald Trump was pondering his choice of presidential running mate, Kirk argued the case for Vance "in public and private", Vance wrote."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c33r4kjez6no

[Sarcastr0]

What kind of measuring contest are you getting into?

None of that matters.

Quit throwing chaff, apologist.

[Kazinski]

I am not the one who made the comparison, it wouldn't even occur to me, you'd be better off policing JB for bringing it up.

But I won't hold my breath.

[Magister]

In fact, I did not know anything about Charlie Kirk before he was shot; it turns out his name appeared in a South Park episode I saw, but it did not register at all with me.

The murder of a legislator for political reasons is quite significant, even if "only" a state legislator. Plenty of people who were unknown before being killed have been the subject of torrents of comments on these threads in support of right wing causes.

[jb]

Well, I guess if the President is running the country for the benefit of his friends and family you're right that when one of his friends gets murdered, that's the time to make an official recognition of political violence. I had thought we were still at least pretending that we still had a government trying to act in the general populace's best interest, though.

You're missing the point, anyway, if what you want to debate about is how prominent Kirk was vs Hortman, or if anyone actually cared about political violence if we couldn't tag it to a MAGA shooter. We should all decry political violence regardless of which team the victim or assassin was on, but if we're going to go beyond that to actually valorizing Charlie Kirk, then people who disagreed with him get to point that out too, and without the implication being we think it's okay he got murdered.

[Bob from Ohio]

"3a. "It's a good thing Kirk is dead. He deserved it. He was a bad man in some way. He had it coming""

The Estrogen view.

[shawn_dude]

You can think Kirk was a bad person (he was) and also that he didn't deserve to be murdered (he didn't.) The "3a." line seems like an attempt to shame people into not quoting Kirk's own words.

If you think Kirk was a saint even knowing his views, then why be upset when people post his words and actions? You should be proud to have your hero remembered for his life's work. Attempts to shame people into not posting Kirk's own words are a tell.

[SRG2]

You're omitting all the times non-cultists deplored the assassination and the cultists responded "we don't believe you" - because many of the cultists themselves know they would not have deplored the equivalent on the other side. And then there is also the cultists' insistence that "de mortuis nil nisi bonum" with the accompanying idea thar if you correctly suggest that Kirk was a racist and a bigot, you are partly responsible, or at least, support the assassination - again, because they're projecting their own responses.

[Estragon]

“This most reminds me of the response in some Arab countries to 9/11”

I don’t know why you went for that example when “Muslims dancing in the streets in NJ” was right there.

[David Nieporent]

2. The liberal response here should have been simple. It's a tragedy, no one should be killed like this. Full stop. Don't have to mention anything about Kirk's values....but, perhaps it was the number of people who were honestly saddened by it that drove some liberals a little nuts....because, there were one of three ways many of them responded.

The liberal response to the assassination should have been, and was, "This is a tragedy. Full stop."

But the MAGA response to the assassination was "This is a tragedy; Charlie Kirk was the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life," and the liberal response to that was, "I agree this was a tragedy, but that doesn't mean Charlie Kirk was a good person."

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, no. At least some of the response was, well, that’s what happens when you say hateful things.

[wvattorney13]

Nah, you have some prominent commentators on the left saying that he had it coming and that the shooter acted chivalrously by protecting his girlfriend/boyfriend's honor because Charlie Kirk said bad things about transgenders.

If it was just weirdos on Tik-Tok, then I wouldn't comment, but these are people who have jobs on national television (Van Jones).

[Sarcastr0]

Van Jones! lol.

[Frank Drackman]

Van Jones of "White-lash" fame, I don't think he'll be attending the Oregon/Penn State "White-Out" game next weekend

[Armchair]

"and the liberal response to that was, "I agree this was a tragedy, but that doesn't mean Charlie Kirk was a good person."

And it should have been, yes it was a tragedy. Full stop.

But...no...they had to get all "He had it coming"

[Sarcastr0]

They didn't do that. Not in any large numbers. I mean...Van Jones?

You can't create reality by repeating bullshit over and over.

[Malika la Maize]

Musk: The media and educational institutions are programming people to murder
1:02 PM · Sep 11, 2025

Musk: Fight or die is what it comes down to
4:48 AM · Aug 30, 2025

[hobie]

Fight who?......over what?

[Dr. Ed 2]

This: https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2025/09/18/charlie-kirk-vigil-draws-thousands-to-boston-common-ends-suddenly-due-to-safety-concerns-organizer-says/

[LexAquilia]

Fight the Democrat Supremacists who want us killed.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, maybe before Musk kicks the bucket he'll have his own country on Mars to run the way he likes. He's already got his own city.

[Martinned]

You don't need to embrace Kirk's values to be respectful of those who mourn his death.

I don't? You sure could have fooled me. Most of the thread above involves Trumpists arguing that the Regime was right to get Kimmel cancelled, and their only argument seems to be "he said mean things about Charlie Kirk and/or Trumpists".

[Frank Drackman]

Kimmel was fired for the same reason Colbert was, and why NPR/PBS will be "Fired" in a few months, they don't earn money for their Gauleiters, they're free to start a Podcast like that "Call me Daddy" Chick or go on Youtube and make even more money, if they can.

[Malika la Maize]

So, Francis, what’s today’s explanation for your deranged/illiterate writing style? Is it that you had a bad education in your professed decades of US upbringing and schooling (you wrote your papers like that at your professed undergraduate school Auburn and then later at your professed medical school)? Is it your “I’m left handed” whine (and this somehow makes you capitalize some things you shouldn’t but not others)? Is it you’re English as a second language (which kind of conflicts with the first story above)? Is it you’re putting on some kind of pathetic “performance” here of a deranged person? Which is it today?

Or, to make it easier for you:

which is It
(Today()

[Frank Drackman]

Sorry Captain Ahab, gotta do my Sperm Whale Thang, there's a cute little Orca down at the Coral Reef I've had my eyes on.
Break a Leg!

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

Make America Half-witted Again!

[Frank Drackman]

Thar he blows!
That Queenie always blowing something, and I do mean "thing"

[Sarcastr0]

The right acts like shits and then insists you endorse them or else you're a hater.

I first noticed it when the 5th Circuit upheld that Texas law that social media companies had to hang out with right-wingers.

It's the lonely bully trope made real.

[Armchair]

Regarding tariffs and the constitutionality of delegating (some) authority to them to the executive branch.

One of the objections to the Trump tariffs is that tariff authority is explicitly a congressional power. Congress and ONLY Congress can raise or lower tariff rates, under any circumstances. There's a fair amount of support for that position in the Constitution and history.

The problem is this. The last time Congress alone set tariff rates was 1930. The Smoot Harley tariffs. Every single time since then, the executive branch has played some role in setting tariffs.

If Congress, and only Congress, can set tariff rates, and cannot delegate any authority over it to the Executive Branch, that may take us back to those 1930's level tariffs.

[apedad]

FYI, the Court will hear the challenges on Nov. 5.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/supreme-court-announces-it-will-hear-challenges-to-trumps-tariffs-on-nov-5/

[jb]

First, I don't think the best argument is that only Congress can set tariffs. It's an argument, but I don't think any of the opinions so far have hinged on this point. The better argument is that Congress needs to be explicit about delegating tariff authority, and the authority to regulate imports under IEEPA doesn't extend to imposing tariffs. And in fact there are other statutes that explicitly do so, but they're more limiting and wouldn't allow indefinite broad-based tariffs like the ones that Trump has put in place so he is trying to work around those limitations.

Also, though: the fact that Congress is broken and doesn't do anything useful anymore isn't a defense to executive overreach. Biden didn't get to do his student loan relief just because Congress wouldn't do anything about it, and similarly every administration in recent years has been limited in its ability to change immigration policy despite the fact that Congress is unable to do immigration reform itself.

[loki13]

I disagree on your first point, in part if not in total.

Article I, Section 8-
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Now, I know that we have some people here who don't actually know what the Constitution says, but only in the Originalist Constitution that supports what they want to be true, so I will remind them that "duties" is "tariffs."

(Technically, it's a little more complicated, because this is a bit of over-explaining in order to cover all bases. Think of "taxes, duties, imposts, and excises" as an entire phrase- the ability to raise revenue. Taxes are taxes. Duties are taxes ... on imports and exports. Imposts are taxes ... usually on imports. And excises? Those are ... um, pretty much all taxes except income taxes. Like I said, it's complicated. I mean, this could be read as "tariffs, tariffs, tariffs, and tariffs" if you really wanted. But duties is close enough for these purposes.)

Okay, so when we talk about the enumerated powers of Congress, we really start with the taxing (tariff) power.

Now, while I think an argument might be made ... maybe ... that Congress could delegate the taxing power to the Executive, that almost proves too much, doesn't it?

Put another way, could Congress delegate to the Executive the ability to tax, at any amount, at any time, for any reason (including "leverage" in negotiations)?

Obviously, this hasn't really come up before because no one has ever considered that the Executive could simply set all tariffs against all countries unilaterally. It would be crazy- just like if the Executive were to unilaterally set all tax rates.

And now I regret typing that because ... there's nothing that's too crazy for these days, is there?

[jb]

Like I said, there's an argument to be made. My point was simply you don't need to get anywhere near that far to conclude that the IEEPA doesn't authorize Trump's slapdash attempt to tariff the whole world.

I'm too lazy to try to figure it out, but I'm curious when Congress first started to do this sort of delegation. If we go far enough back to the tariffs of the 18th and early 19th century, those were often devised by the Executive but then sent to Congress to turn into a law (e.g., Hamilton proposed the increased rates in the Tariff of 1790, but Congress still passed a law to put them into effect).

[loki13]

I agree with you that there are numerous other reasons that you shouldn't need to get that far. But I think that it helps to understand just how breathtaking the assertion of power is.

Whenever people speak about Executive overreach, in addition to the possibility of impeachment, we are always reminded not to worry because of one important thing- Congress has the "power of the purse."

But does Congress have the power of the purse when-
1. The Executive can unilaterally impose taxes; and
2. the Executive can unilaterally not spend money that has been appropriated (impoundment); and
3. the Executive can unilaterally shift money around as needed?

As a reminder- the Trump administration has asserted all three powers, in addition to the power to unilaterally suspend laws.

[Armchair]

But does Congress have the power of the purse when-
1. The Executive can unilaterally impose taxes; and
2. the Executive can unilaterally not spend money that has been appropriated (impoundment); and
3. the Executive can unilaterally shift money around as needed?

See FDR. He did all of those things. And more.

[Sarcastr0]

No, FDR did not.

And even if he were to have that doesn’t excuse Trump.

[David Nieporent]

First, I don't think the best argument is that only Congress can set tariffs.

I'm not sure whether by "the best argument" you mean "the one most likely to convince SCOTUS" or "the most accurate" argument, so I really can't respond. I think the most accurate argument is that only Congress can set tariffs. Whether one should take a more minimalist litigation tack, I am less sure of. Usually, that's a good idea, but here Trump's position is so radical and extreme that it might require extreme pushback.

[Armchair]

" I think the most accurate argument is that only Congress can set tariffs. "

If that's the argument, you have to ask what happens to the last 90 years of trade law, where Congress has not been the only one setting tariffs.

Do you have an answer for that?

[bernard11]

Whatever the Constitutional arguments, letting the President unilaterally set and change tariffs is one of the worst ideas ever. Of course Congressional cultists Republicans are all for it.

[Armchair]

"Whatever the Constitutional arguments, letting the President unilaterally set and change tariffs is one of the worst ideas ever. "

That's just ignorant of history. It started under FDR, with the Reciprocal Tariff Act of 1934. Congress delegated part of its authority to set tariffs to the President.

I'm sure you think what resulted from that was actually amazing.

[Michael P]

What broke Ken White?

https://x.com/BlueskyLibs/status/1968751928004743627

[Sarcastr0]

Better lock him up!

[Michael P]

What crime do you believe he committed that would justify his incarceration? In the alternative, what mental illness do you think he has that would justify his involuntary commitment to a mental institution? Please be specific (to coin a phrase).

[Sarcastr0]

He has a lot of hate in your heart.
Trump says that's enough to go after someone.

If the President commands it, that means it's not illegal.

[Michael P]

You greatly misunderstand me, Mr. Projection. I don't hate Ken White at all. I feel sorry for him, and sad that he isn't as relevant, interesting or funny as he used to be.

[LexAquilia]

Here is where Sarcastr0 gaslights and diminishes violent political rhetoric from his tribe.

Next he will claim his side NEVER does it and he'll pretend PopeHat data is "nutpicking".

[John F. Carr]

Fani Willis broke him when she charged Trump with RICO.

[David Nieporent]

What broke your ability to read? He is not saying that you should kill MAGA; he's saying that it's better for you to resist MAGA than to become one.

[Bunny495]

I suspect I am one of the oldest peeps commenting. I can still remember as a freshman the crowds in the TV room when the Adam West's Batman came on. Later Star Trek and to a lesser extent The Prisoner drew crowds.

Fast forward to current day and with the exception of college sporting events the TV rooms are basically empty. The most recent TV show I can recall with a dedicated audience is Game of Thrones and truth be told that dwindled in the last season as the show turned to shit.

Trump's super power is making liberal heads explode. He says stuff that obviously is out where the busses don't run and the liberals take it to heart. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows TV is dying. Back in the day the courts ruled "time shifting" (recording TV shows and watching them later while fast forwarding past the commercials) was OK. Now you can watch many TV shows on Youtube when you want, not when they originally aired.

Bottom line is late night TV (and TV in general) is losing eyeballs as entertainers like Kimmel and Colbert demand big bucks and their shows have excessive production costs. None of this is related to any 1A stuff. It is simple economics.

Whatever anyone thinks about Kirk and Trump both of them were dialed into the death of TV and the rise of streaming and leveraged it to their advantage. Any 1A crap is just that, crap.

[Malika la Maize]

Do you think the President of the United States should be constantly saying things that are “out where the busses don't run?”

Your argument is basically “well, yeah, the President was fucking that goat in the Rose Garden in front of the press, but look how it triggered so many people, superpower!”

[Bunny495]

You totally missed my point. It use to be a given that the big three networks would get lots of eyeballs and there were certain shows that got massive eyeballs. This is no longer true. Once CNN was playing on every monitor in airports, but this is no longer true, so they get less eyeballs. All anyone needs to look around and see how many peeps have their nose stuck in their smart phone. Kirk realized this and his streams got lots of eyeballs.

Whatever you think of Trump he does have a history of understanding how to make money with TV shows in the past but now has switched since TV is dying. It is not a question of if but when TV will go the way of the telegraph.

One of my favorite examples is how many peeps got taken in hearing 'Trump could shoot someone of 5th Ave and get away with it'. While this made liberals' heads explode most peeps realized Trump was not going to shoot anyone.

Bottom line is the dems are still stuck using a dying media while guys like Kirk and Trump have embraced the brave new world.

[Martinned]

Any 1A crap is just that, crap.

That's the spirit!

[Bunny495]

Kimmel if free to say almost anything he wants anytime he wants. But ABC is under no obligation to pay him and the production costs of his show if it is not showing a profit and affiliates are declining to air it. Trying to blame an economic decision on 1A stuff is a fool's errand.

[Krayt]

I suspect I am one of the oldest peeps commenting. I can still remember as a freshman the crowds in the TV room when the Adam West's Batman came on. Later Star Trek and to a lesser extent The Prisoner drew crowds.

The highest praise I can give an American: Thank you for your TV watching service.

I have a bud who loved The Prisoner and got a vanity plate same number as the kar in the TV show.

[John F. Carr]

People have been writing recently about the death of shared culture. In those batman days you had three new shows to choose from during prime time. A review of the Naked Gun remake reminded us that everybody knew about the police procedurals the original referenced. Now you've got a hundred new shows to stream and a screen for every pair of eyeballs in the house.

When three networks turned to four, I read a newspaper article about "The Simpsons" being an "appointment show". People would gather every week to watch it together. Those early seasons were part of our shared culture. I knew the basics even though I didn't watch.

[shawn_dude]

I remember when Star Trek: The Next Generation aired for the first time. I was working nights on the flightline (military base) and I was in-between sorties and I watched the opening episode (Farpoint Station) with all of my co-workers huddled around an old CRT bolted to a wall in a trailer.

[shawn_dude]

"Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows TV is dying."

This is about the strangest statement I've seen today on Reason. Absolute bonkers.

I have a TV in my pocket. I sit down to work and I type directly into a TV to send this very comment. I have a massive TV bolted to a wall in my den. I have a mid-size TV that I carry around with me in the house to read books. TV isn't dying or even slightly ill. TV has expanded and become interactive. What we used to call "channels" have multiplied into innumerable choices that can get so super-niche that we need massive computing power to let us know when our next episode of "Swedish Dwarves that Knead Bread with their Elbows" is released. Reality TV now lets us follow our favorite personalities in every aspect of their daily lives like the fictional "Truman Show" but it's in every language and gender and ideological bend that exists. We have democratized all of the tools to make TV such that fifth-graders can do it in their spare time between school and watching even more TV.

The monopolistic cable television model is shrinking as the rest of the market is growing exponentially.

Kimmel and Colbert were making huge dollars for their parent corporations due to cable television broadcasting in additional to all the other ways it was monetized on the internet. I'm thinking the two of them could easily step out of cable and into YouTube or a similar venue and continue to make those of us that watched them happy and continue to make a ton of money.

[Armchair]

Some further thoughts on discrimination laws and how they apply today.

Discrimination laws are an interesting concept. They make it illegal to discriminate against someone on certain given characteristics. Religion or skin color, or national origin, etc.

But why "those" characteristics? Why not make it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of eye color or height, or whether or not they are Yankees fans?

The short answer is, because typically people didn't discriminate against people on the basis of eye color or height or being Yankees fans. They might not like them, or might prefer other items. But they were perfectly willing to serve them in restaurants, perfectly willing to let them marry their daughters, etc. But the other items...religion and race and such. That promoted real conflict. People were excluded based on their religion. They were denied service due to their race. They were "hated" because of their beliefs or skin color.

So, why does this all matter today?

Because we're on the verge of needing a new discriminatory class, political belief.

[Sarcastr0]

On the verge of some big government authority forcing everyone to act like they love conservatives?

That's not an enforceable law. But it is telling how you want to force everyone to hang out with you.

Again, the right is the bully with no friends.

[Armchair]

Several states have versions of it. It's not hard.

[Sarcastr0]

Again, the bully that has no friends can't use force to make people their friends.

[Don Nico]

Indeed, and gaslight0 loves to distort reality to conform with his worldview. And if Brett posts something. That must be wrong.

[hobie]

I guess we'll have to see if anyone is dumb enough to amend the civil rights act in that way

[Armchair]

Several states already have

[hobie]

Political activity vs. political belief

Many states ban adverse employment discrimination based on political activities outside the workplace. Only New Mexico, DC, and Missouri have done what you describe

[wvattorney13]

"Because we're on the verge of needing a new discriminatory class, political belief."

That would be a nightmare to enforce. People would claim that any belief they hold is a protected political belief.

[Martinned]

They already do that with religion. What's the difference?

[Malika la Maize]

They already are closing in on that with religion

[Michael P]

In an employment context, how often are people fired for beliefs rather than job performance?

In a public accommodations context, excepting the recent conspicuous examples of leftists trying to enforce orthodoxy, are people turned away or treated poorly based on beliefs?

In an education context, wouldn't this mostly imply that in-class content should focus on the curriculum and the course description?

It would certainly increase the current scope of civil rights law, but some states already have similar laws (I think EV has cited CA as being one), and I don't think the difficulties would be any greater than those relating to race- or religion-based discrimination.

[hobie]

"In an employment context, how often are people fired for beliefs rather than job performance?"

Happens to gays all the time. Schools, Hobby Lobby. Sincerely held beliefs lets you do all sorts of things to all sorts of people.

[Frank Drackman]

Like how Common-Law admitted she didn't pick Booty-Judge because the "People" weren't ready for an openly Gay VP pick. So she picked the (barely) Closeted Tampon Tim, who's way more flaming than Petey ever has been.

[Malika la Maize]

Francis has a thing about tampons given he never saw one growing up ( his mom and sisters being constantly knocked up).

[Frank Drackman]

Are you kidding? in Pubic Screw-els? we'd play Hacky-Sack with them, toss them around in Class like the Harlem Globetrotters, drench them with Catsup and pretend to be a thirsty Vampire, I knew Tampons, Tampons were friends of mine,
You, Queenie, are no Tampon!!!!!
You're more of a Douche Bag, or, hmmm what's something you'd be familiar with?
A Condom (Soiled)

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

Spoiled condoms? I guess you’d know having had to pick so many up from your mom’s bedroom. Is that why you capitalized it, past trauma?

[Frank Drackman]

It's a "Blues Brothers" Reference, a Movie any True Heterosexual Male has seen, oh, a few hundred times.
In the opening, Jake's being released from Joliet State Prison, getting his property, the Screw (the great Frank Oz ("Bert", "Miss Piggy" "Fozzie Bear") says
“One pair Suit Pants, Black, One Suit Coat, Black, One Hat, Black.
One Timex digital watch, broken. One unused prophylactic.
[looks disgusted, picks something up with his pen]
One soiled.”

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

OK, bringing up my Mom again? (I was just texting her BTW, it's a Jewish Thang)
I DID see Tampons growing up, because 1: Mom grew up in East Germany, women weren't as hung up on normal physiological processes like periods(or shaving their legs) like Amuricans, I was breast fed (OK, at 13 it got some rude comments), and when I got kicked by a Pony and my balls swelled up, she checked them out before deciding I didn't need to go to the Hospital (last Summer actually)
OK, it was when I was 12, and it wasn't that weird, because 1: She's a Nurse (RN) and 2: the USAF Hospitals back then were only marginally better than a Haitian "Doctors without Borders" Aid Station.
and Zweitens, She wasn't constantly "Knocked Up" because she got her Tubes tied after my sister, and my sister wasn't "Knocked Up" because she got put on Birth Control at 15 (which I did with my Daughters also)
Not that my sister was a (Redacted) but Pistols tend to find Holsters, Nome Sane?
Except for me, my Pistol only found a Holster by accident.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

Two responses to one comment, and long ones! Looks like I hit a nerve.

[hobie]

Go play with your dreidel, Frankie. The menfolk are talking.

[Frank Drackman]

OK Vern (Schillinger, not the "Hey Vern" guy) thanks for not inviting me to shower with you.

[Don Nico]

Nice anti-semite slur

[hobie]

Thanks. Although it wasn't a slur. Frankie enjoys referencing Jewish things a lot, so I felt like being hospitable

[Malika la Maize]

We have a President who regularly goes after funding, projects, relief, etc., because the places that are involved are “Democrat run” and this fan of his posts this. Disingenuous or ignorant?

[Brett Bellmore]

"The short answer is, because typically people didn't discriminate against people on the basis of eye color or height or being Yankees fans."

The short answer is, because you need to leave people SOME little bit of freedom, and so you need a damned good reason to take any little bit of it away. And I am far from convinced that there was good enough reason to take away people's freedom to discriminate in ANY area, so long as they refrained from acts that would be crimes entirely apart from discrimination.

The government's freedom to discriminate? Sure, take that away, it was banned back in the 1860's, it just took the courts a while to reconcile themselves to it. But not in the private sector.

That fight was lost before I was old enough to vote, and anti-discrimination law has grown like a cancer since, but I don't have to endorse expanding it still further.

[Sarcastr0]

“ you need to leave people SOME little bit of freedom”

Not a thing actual libertarians say.

More a thing apologists say.

[apedad]

"But not in the private sector."

But that's where the problem comes in because a shop owner operates in the public sector and we as a society deem that owner must serve to all covered customers (age, sex, etc.).

Now - admittedly - there's a robust debate about who should be considered "covered," e.g., gays, transgenders, etc.

But there's no debate that "private" shop owners who sell to the public must serve all of the public.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, a shop owner operates outside of government, which is the only thing that is properly "the public sector".

"But there's no debate that "private" shop owners who sell to the public must serve all of the public."

And by "no debate", you mean, "There is a debate, but I don't care to dignify the many people who disagree with me."

[Sarcastr0]

No, Brett, there isn't a debate. You may not like the Civil Rights Acts, but that's you and your BrettLaw.

[Brett Bellmore]

A debate is like a war. You can unilaterally decide to lose one, but you can't unilaterally decide that one isn't happening.

[Sarcastr0]

Cranks like to insist you gotta teach the controversy.

You don't really. In the marketplace of ideas, yours long ago lost.

[shawn_dude]

"What do you mean I'm being sued for discrimination? I didn't vote for that sorry sack of shit because he's a member of the Wobbly Party."

"Yes, Sir. That's exactly it. You discriminated against him because he's Wobbly."

[loki13]

This summed up exactly what I've been feeling, so I'll quote the end.

From:
https://www.hamiltonnolan.com/p/getting-yelled-at-by-dumbasses

The shoddiness of their work, their love of spectacle, their constant speechifying, their disproportionate reaction to all setbacks, their dishonesty, their prejudices, their disdain for expertise, their willingness to trust quacks, their scapegoating of the less powerful, their embrace of performative gestures at the expense of substance, their misogyny, their ill-concealed social awkwardness funneled into needless displays of aggression—yes, this is all very much in character. The good news is that it is easy to diagnose this disease. The bad news is that if we don’t get it cleared up, our nation’s 250-year history will culminate in the same sort of recriminatory meltdown as an internet comment thread that spirals from “What did you do today?” to full Nazism with stunning speed.

The weapons of fascism—the masked secret police, the corruption, the crackdowns on civil society, the mocking disregard for law—are but the emboldened physical manifestations of Getting Yelled at By Dumbasses. You may object that this takes things too lightly. Isn’t it absurd, even grotesque, to draw a line from idiots typing out enraged and error-riddled arguments to the profound real-world oppression we are now experiencing? Yes! Oh, yes it is! This absurdity, in fact, is at the very heart of fascist violence. It is the final twist of the knife, the head-shaking feeling of disbelief right before you are tossed in the prison van. It’s not just that we are being destroyed, it’s that we are being destroyed for incredibly stupid reasons. There lies the ultimate triumph of the dumbasses!

[Michael P]

The left insisted that the right sit quietly while the left kills the right. Unsurprisingly, the right is not sitting quietly.

The left is Very Concerned that's this means the right is being unreasonable.

[hobie]

Here's an idea. How about the right try and preserve itself without all the fascism. It can be done.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s interesting how few MAGAns participated in the thread yesterday about the Great Replacement motivated shooter in Buffalo. They have to memory hole that guy, and the shootings of the Democratic representatives in Minnesota, the near fatal attack on Paul Pelosi (which Trump and many MAGAns mocked) to put on the act that Mikie is putting on here. The question is, is it actual ignorance from being in a bubble or willful disingenuousness as some type of perceived rhetorical strategy?

[Frank Drackman]

Paul Pelosi's case was horrible. Gay Domestic Violence is the worst.

[Malika la Maize]

Thanks for making my point (that’s point, not period, like the punctuation you don’t know how to use or the biological thing your mom and sisters never had).

[hobie]

See, Frankie. Making fun of the victim is awesome. That's why we're giving Kirk his roast. Can't see why you hayseeds disapprove

[John 4]

His nAMe iS pAuL pELoSi

[SRG2]

As far as memory-holing goes, none can beat Cesar Sayoc.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The left is Very Concerned that's this means the right is being unreasonable."

Yes, Loki thinks he is the Last Reasonable Man but in fact has become insane with hate.

[shawn_dude]

Here's an interesting and depressing take: https://youtu.be/e9NnQt_eQ0I?si=Qvx8TjWzeoOJ64fF

Tad Steormer, PhD in History

[Martinned]

In non-Kimmel news, I see a big purchase of Trumpcoin in someone's future: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/19/republican-mega-donor-trump-china

[Martinned]

Gee, who could have seen that coming?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/19/active-clubs-charlie-kirk-killing-new-members

The same American-born neo-fascist fight clubs surging in numbers across the US and around the world, have capitalized on the assassination of far-right commentator Charlie Kirk, to entice new recruits with promises of vengeance and racist camaraderie.

These so-called “active clubs” are a loose collective of neo-Nazi mixed martial arts groups that gather at local gyms and parks to train, tapping into existing gangs of white nationalists or adjacent organizations. Global authorities view them as perhaps one of the most organized and pernicious domestic terrorism threats, emanating from far-right political ideologies.

[Frank Drackman]

You just broke the First Rule of Neo-Nazi Fight Club you Neo-Nazi

[LexAquilia]

Agreed.

Heidi Beirich, the executive vice-president of Global Project Against Hate and Extremism (GPAHE) and a longtime expert of American white supremacists, agreed with Fisher-Birch.

Who could've seen some Democrat Supremacist smearing and attacking her political enemies.

Hopefully she gets held accountable and faces righteous justice for putting so many lives at risk.

[shawn_dude]

I was wondering how we'd see the brown shirts rise this time. I was thinking they'd likely come from US right-wing terrorist groups like the Proud Boys, but perhaps I'm wrong and these red-pilling "fight clubs" will absorb our right-wing militias first.

[Martinned]

And, in actual legal news, last week in the High Court Linden, J. refused a US extradition request because the Home Secretary had insufficiently considered the importance of “proximity to family and friends, his connection with the respective legal systems, his rights and the likely outcomes in the criminal process, and his rights to support in relation to his mental health bearing in mind that he has been found to be a victim of modern slavery”.

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2025/2293?court=ewhc%2Fadmin#lvl_4

[John F. Carr]

Judge Timothy Kelly (D.D.C.) has all but accused Justice Department lawyers of lying to Judge Sparkle Sooknanan in the case about minors being removed to Guatemala.

At a hearing later that day, counsel for Defendants explained why it was “fairly outrageous” for Plaintiffs to have sued: all Defendants wanted to do was reunify children with parents who had requested their return. But that explanation crumbled like a house of cards about a week later. not even track down parents for most of the children whom Defendants found eligible for their “reunification” plan. And none of those that were located had asked for their children to come back to Guatemala.

L.G.M.L. v. Noem, https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71240524/lgml-v-noem/
Many have observed recently, the Justice Department spent a long time building credibility in the courtroom.

[loki13]

That's the same DOJ attorney, btw, who lied to the judge in the injunction case many months ago about the plane.

The DOJ has imploded. As has been noted, the DOJ attorneys that have any integrity have either resigned or been fired when they refuse to bring .... trumped-up charges ... that have no basis in law or fact.

[David Nieporent]

That's the same DOJ attorney, btw, who lied to the judge in the injunction case many months ago about the plane.

It's Drew Ensign. Let's not do the court thing of criticizing a prosecutor for misconduct in an opinion but keeping the prosecutor's name out of the opinion. If he can't be disbarred, he should at a minimum be named-and-shamed as often as possible.

[David Nieporent]

But also, where are the people here who ranted about the first judge and said that the DOJ was just trying to reunite families?

[shawn_dude]

That was so last week! Now they're ranting about people who don't agree that Kirk was a saint.

[jb]

Not to make light of the underlying subject, which is awful both in terms of the administration trying to sneak kids out of the country in the middle of the night and then lying about it in court...

...but Sparkle Sooknanan is quite a name!

[Swede425]

LOL!
Kamala Harris NOW tells us that Elmer Fudd, I mean Tim Walz, wasn't her first choice for her ticket. Pete Buttplug was.
But, alas, America just wasn't ready for a strong black woman and a gay guy to be running the show.
Princess, who are you talking to?
The right wasn't going to vote for you, regardless of who you included on your train wreck.
So, what she's REALLY saying is that Dems weren't ready for a Slay Queen and Gay Queen. Did she get that right? Despite all the boxes getting checked?
How disappointing.

[Martinned]

Twice the American electorate had the opportunity to elect a capable woman, and opted to elect Trump instead. I would argue that's pretty strong evidence that Harris was right to go for an inoffensive white guy as a running mate.

[Swede425]

So that's one for "Dems just talk the talk, but don't walk the walk".
Got it.
Anybody else?

[Frank Drackman]

I know you wouldn't understand, coming from a Continent that specializes in losing wars, but quite a few Amurican's found Tampon Tim's deserting his Unit "Offensive" as well as his claiming to have carried an M16 in Combat (in that killing field of Vicenza Italy). His Forest Fairy Dancing/Prancing, Flailing Arms, and Fag-Hag Wife didn't help matters.

Frank

[loki13]

...I know several people who voted Trump-Biden-Trump.

All of them have ... reasons ... for doing so. Weirdly, almost all of them talk about how terrible Clinton and Harris would have been, and how that forced them to vote for Trump.

I feel like there is some common denominator there. Look, I don't want to make too much about this (you can look at the margins in all the votes) ... but ... yeah, I think it matters.

[Brett Bellmore]

I do find it a bit weird voting Trump-Biden-Trump, given that about the only thing Biden had going to recommend himself was that he wasn't Trump.

But, look, part of equality of the sexes is that you don't treat not voting for somebody who merely happens to be female as presumptively sexist.

There's nothing even a tiny bit weird about thinking that Clinton and Harris would have been terrible Presidents.

Clinton had a decades long reputation for corruption that you had to be deeply partisan to ignore or wave away, and a charisma deficit that was almost off the charts. It was a tribute to her grandmaster level political chops that she was able to root the DNC and arrange to be handed the nomination, but she would have been an absolutely hideous President; An organizational genius with the morals of a snake, who literally despised about half the population.

Harris couldn't even make it to the primary in her home state! She had nothing to recommend her except for being slightly swarthy, lacking a Y chromosome, (Literally the two criteria she was picked on.) and not looking like she'd cause any problems. The only reason she ended up with the nomination was that by the time the coverup over Biden's mental condition fell apart, it was too late to have primaries and pick somebody else.

[Sarcastr0]

One of the ways sexism works is it effects your opinions. So Harris is dumb. Hillary is somehow more corrupt, and a cold calculating Lady M type to boot.

Come on man, we've all seen it.

I'll allow you, with your utterly insane 1990s collection of deep cut Clinton conspiracies, probably weren't a gettable voter. But not everyone got as brain poisoned as you back then.

[Brett Bellmore]

" a decades long reputation for corruption that you had to be deeply partisan to ignore or wave away,"

I was referring to you, obviously, when I said deeply partisan.

[Sarcastr0]

Between the two of us, you're the weird one. No one else around here is bringing up cattle futures and travelgate.

I learned what those were in political history class, BTW. Your takes are...slanted.

[shawn_dude]

At best, this argument is saying that electing someone who attempted a coup and is a convicted sexual predator was better than a milquetoast woman that didn't excite anyone. Do people really demand change, even if that change means losing our democracy, over someone who had experience as an AG and VP (Secretary of State) but might be more of the same neo-liberal boringness? The one thing Clinton/Obama/Biden all had on common was their version of neo-liberalism was good and stable even if it wasn't perfect. But no, we rolled the dice and got golden set of snake eyes.

[Bob from Ohio]

"convicted sexual predator "

Oh, when was the conviction?

[shawn_dude]

E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump

You know, the case where the judge said the common person would understand Trump's conduct to be rape.

[Kazinski]

The weird thing is they thought Biden would be better.

But Biden always tried to position himself as the common sense center, even though he had no center and was a weather vane.

Hillary and Harris even more so always positioned themselves as pushing progressive change.

You don't have to look further than that.

[Moderation4ever]

I am not as sure as you are about Harris's choice. She was at a disadvantage and a bold move probably would not have hurt her campaign any more than it already was hurt.

[Don Nico]

" elect a capable woman"
That was Hilary Clinton, not the know-nothing Harris who was a buffoon.

[loki13]

" the know-nothing Harris who was a buffoon"

I'm not going to go into Harris in detail, but I am going to say that if you think she is buffoon, that says a lot more about you than it does about her. She is definitely not a buffoon.

But do you know what she isn't? She's not a very good politician. Being smart and capable (which she is, although that's true of quite a few people) doesn't make you a good politician. If you look back at her career, the one thing you will notice is that for various reasons, she almost never had a serious political race. Maybe (maybe....) her 2002 DA race? But for a multitude of reasons, she was able to capitalize on her capabilities (which were good) in terms of networking within the Democratic party and with donors, but never had to hone or show any real skill as a politician in general.

I think that this was amply shown when she ran in 2020. It was the campaign that started with a bang, and almost immediately began the process of collapsing.

She's not a buffoon. She's just not a good candidate. You can't win a race by just trying not to lose.

[Mr. Bumble]

"A buffoon is a person who behaves in a silly or foolish manner, often to entertain others. This term can also refer to someone who tries to be funny but is perceived as ridiculous or incompetent."
Sounds like she is a buffoon.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, being lousy at Presidential level politics doesn't make one a buffoon; She got far enough that she obviously had SOME chops, she was just well out of her league in running for President.

[Mr. Bumble]

Being a buffoon makes one lousy at Presidential politics and everything else.

[LexAquilia]

A variant of the ol' "fake but accurate". Don't trust your eyes, trust his 'hot take'.

[Bob from Ohio]

"That was Hilary Clinton"

C'mon man. She never showed any sign of being capable.

Bungled her health care task force, do nothing backbencher nepo baby in the Senate, no accomplishments as Secy of State*, blew two lay-up presidential races.

Don't confuse credentials [Yale!] with talent.

* John Kerry of all people successfully got his boss's [misguided IMO} Iran policy done. She bungled her "reset" with Russia.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, come on, the way she rooted the DNC and took over the nomination process to guarantee that she'd get the nomination was masterful. Her and Bill made for one incredible politician, he had all the charisma, she had all the smarts. Domestic politics smarts, not foreign policy smarts, but they were still smarts.

And neither of them had the morals, of course.

[Bob from Ohio]

She lost to Donald Trump. QED.

[David Nieporent]

She got a lot more votes than Donald Trump.

[Mr. Bumble]

Get back to us when Presidents are elected by popular vote.

[David Nieporent]

Why? How would that change the point, that she got a lot more people to vote for her than Donald Trump got to vote for him?

[Brett Bellmore]

In theory at least, (Or Hillary was more of an idiot than I suppose.) they were both trying to win the electoral college. One of them succeeded, the other failed.

If they'd both have been trying to win the popular vote? Who knows, maybe the same one would have succeeded, and the same one would have failed. We'll never know. What I do know is that they both would have run very different campaigns if the popular vote mattered.

[David Nieporent]

You do not, in fact, know that.

[Bob from Ohio]

"She got a lot more votes than Donald Trump."

Not in the states that mattered. She actually focused on big margins in California and other states instead. She famously never campaigned in Wisconsin.

Its like when she ignored caucuses in 2008 and Obama rolled up huge delegate advantages in caucus states. See https://www.npr.org/sections/watchingwashington/2008/02/caucus_strategy_bolsters_obama

Just ran terrible campaigns and blew two elections she should have won, not a capable person at all,

[shawn_dude]

Nice pivot!

More Americans voted for Clinton which shows she had more support that Trump. So, you pivot to "game rules" and the electoral college nonsense that lets the person with fewer votes move into the Whitehouse.

Not a good look, Bob.

[John F. Carr]

The first time the Democrats chose somebody who was as disliked as Trump. The second time they chose a nobody. There are female Democrats who are more capable than Harris and more likable than Clinton.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Twice the American electorate had the opportunity to elect a capable woman,"

When was that?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Pete Buttplug was."

She picked a "straight" man who acts like a gay stereotype instead of an actual gay. Ironic.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Then how come she picked a guy that’s gayer then Buttigieg?

[shawn_dude]

You and Bob. Sheesh. Homophobe much?!

You cannot be "gayer" than anyone. Either you are or you aren't.

[ducksalad]

What, you have some kind of one drop rule? New edition of the rainbow flag with only two stripes?

[Martinned]

Here is a story that I think we can all agree is objectively hilarious:

An extraordinary split has opened between Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana in the formation of their new leftwing party, with the former Labour leader confirming a referral to the Information Commissioner’s Office over an unauthorised membership portal promoted by his co-leader.
(...)
The split emerged on Thursday when Sultana revealed a new membership portal on X, urging supporters to “be a part of history”.

Within half an hour she celebrated “10,000 paid-up members” in a separate post and reassured her followers that the membership site was “safe and secure”, encouraging them to keep trying to sign up despite “issues due to such high traffic”.

By early afternoon, Sultana said numbers had hit 20,000, dismissing suggestions from those she classed as “rightwing bad faith actors” who were claiming “this link is fake”.

Sultana had posted about the new portal three times before Corbyn issued an “urgent message” telling his followers on X to ignore the site and indicated “legal advice is being taken”.

“This morning, an unauthorised email was sent to all yourparty.uk supporters with details of a supposed membership portal hosted in a new domain name,” Corbyn said.

“Legal advice is being taken. That email should be ignored by all supporters. If direct debits have been set up, they should immediately be cancelled.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/18/jeremy-corbyn-clashes-zarah-sultana-your-party-split

[Swede425]

Can hardly wait to see which one pulls the sword out of Das Kapital and becomes the next Commissar for Soviet Britain!

[SRG2]

Oft posted, but never gets old:

People's Front of Judea

Gotta love those old lefty traditions.

[SRG2]

I note that a number of the commenters on that YouTube link had made the same connection. Obvious, really 🙂

[SRG2]

My opinion of Corbyn
You've heard of "elf on a shelf...

[John F. Carr]

A lawsuit against Madison, Wisconsin seeks money damages for the city's failure to count plaintiffs' votes. I understand the essence of the claim to be negligence. Specifically, plaintiffs do not plead a conspiracy to miscount votes, which would be a criminal violation of federal civil rights law regardless of whether the outcome of the election changed.

https://www.lawforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Dkt.-006-Summons-Compl-202509.17.pdf

[Moderation4ever]

This was big news in Madison and it did cost the city clerk, Maribeth Witzel-Behl her job. The missing ballots were found and it was determined that the votes would not affect the election. As a Madison poll worker I can also tell you that we have made procedural changes to prevent this from happening again.

[loki13]

...I honestly just don't have the time or motivation to read through it, and don't know the vagaries or specifics of Wisconsin law ...

But how? How can you state a cause of action for money damages in that case?

Eh, whatever. Who cares about the law anymore. Certainly not here.

[John F. Carr]

The Data Act went into effect in the EU last week. "The Data Act gives individuals and businesses the right to access the data produced through their utilisation of smart objects, machines and devices."

In the USA the federal government tried to block a Massachusetts law giving car owners access to the same data manufacturers had. I believe the law is now in effect and manufacturers that don't want to share have to disable telematics features in cars sold in Massachusetts.

https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/data-act

One goal of the EU law is data portability. Take your stuff from the old service and upload it to a new service. I worked for a company that offered a cloud service. Customer data was really tied to our platform. As an analogy, imagine a document editor that only let you export as a PDF file with everything frozen.

[Moderation4ever]

I noted reading recently that one of the companies to be hardest hit by tariffs will be John Deere. Now as an urban dweller I don't use any of the company's products. I am the impact of the tariffs will fall on rural folk. Wondering why Republicans are so interested in socking it to rural America?

[Michael P]

You may want to double check how rural America feels about John Deere and their attempts to lock down farm equipment to prevent farmers from repairing or modifying it.

(I'm not sure whether the big concern is using third party parts, or enabling features that John Deere wants to charge more for, but they've made a lot of farmers very annoyed )

[Moderation4ever]

Well the rural people are likely to be even more annoyed when the prices go up for the equipment.

[Absaroka]

And then there are soybeans:

"American soybean farmers are heading into harvest season without a single order from China, historically their largest customer, raising alarm bells about the agricultural sector’s stability and broader implications for the U.S. economy."

[shawn_dude]

Two things:

1> you "use" John Deere every time you eat.

2> GE is shutting down all appliance manufacturing in the US due to tariffs, especially, but not limited to, steel and aluminum. I just bought GE appliances last year and part of that calculus was their facilities in the US that made their support services superior. So... ouch... hope my doodads don't die.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Breaking News -- ANTAFA -threatened violence forced the early termination of a Boston Kirk memorial -- and then tried to break into the organizer's home last night.

Paging President Trump, Paging President Trump...

[LexAquilia]

ANTIFA and TRANTIFA are a public menace.

Let's hope President Trump protects our democracy by ruthlessly pursuing these Democrat Supremacists.

[David Nieporent]

ANTAFA

Is Dr. Ed the least competent poster here?

[Keldonric]

Today marks the anniversary of Washington’s Farewell Address being published in the Daily American Advertiser in Philadelphia in 1796. It’s well worth a read — remarkably substantive, and still relevant.

This link is interesting it contains notes on thing including edits that were made.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-20-02-0440-0002

[Mr. Bumble]

What will become of TikTok?

[jb]

Where's the Follow. The. Law. crowd on this one?

[jb]

As expected: nowhere. They only care about enforcing laws that get rid of brown people.

[LexAquilia]

Although appeals to hypocrisy never work, it is still important to remind the Democrat Supremacists upset over Kimmel that Obama and Michelle personally called the head of ABC to get Rosanne cancelled.

[apedad]

Or not.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-michelle-obama-abc-fire-roseanne/

[jb]

Even if you took as truth the unfounded assertion that Michele Obama (not the former President*) called ABC, they were private citizens at the time. Not sure if Lex is dumb enough to think that famous people have the same influence over television networks as the head of the FCC, or if he's being intentionally misleading by trying to imply that it was while Obama was still President.

* That part Lex is just making up entirely.

[hobie]

Lex is the only one here I've given serious thought to blocking. It's not so much his hysterical neo-Naziism or the lies, rather he just makes up subjects out of whole cloth. Nothing he conjures up is ever relevant to anything...which makes his comments a waste of my reading time.

[LexAquilia]

You didn't even click the fucking link.

It doesn't say "FALSE". You just assumed a "snopes link" was a debunking without even looking.

Do you think you could block yourself?

[John 4]

What does it say?

[LexAquilia]

'Unconfirmed'.

[LexAquilia]

What's Snope's conclusion?

[jb]

First, it says you just made up the part about President Obama doing anything.

Second, it says that there's zero proof of the claim. There was a tweet from one random person who never substantiated it.

[apedad]

Not sure why Lex is so concerned about Roseanne's safety anyway since she's Jewish and Lex is . . . well . . . not really concerned about the safety of Jews.

[LexAquilia]

https://x.com/therealroseanne/status/1968684582493945979

Remember when you and your wife called Bob Iger to have me fired?

Your ignorance is not my failure or my lying.

HTH

[David Nieporent]

No, your lying is your lying.

[LexAquilia]

I'm lying by providing a link that supports exactly what I claimed?

Seriously, dude, e-friend to e-friend, are you retarded?

[David Nieporent]

Are you? You posted a link to something that Roseanne — not someone with actual knowledge — tweeted.

[jb]

Hey look, Lex posted a link and it actually supports what he's saying. Point to Lex.

Weird that she never mentioned it until yesterday, though, nor was there any discussion of his calling at the time. (And, as mentioned above, the Obamas were private citizens at the time; it doesn't even matter if this is true because the situations aren't comparable.)

[LexAquilia]

>Weird that she never mentioned it until yesterday, though, nor was there any discussion of his calling at the time.

More like, "Weird I hadn't heard of her mentioning this before today..."

You act like it's your act of observation that breathes something into existence.

Things happen even when you don't know about them, dude.

[jb]

Aaaaand we're back to Lex making totally unsubstantiated assertions. Just like Roseanne!

[LexAquilia]

Here is her talking about in 2019.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2019/03/12/roseanne-barr-blames-michelle-obama-getting-her-fired-roseanne-abc/3138703002/

Notice, this is ANOTHER fact that you were completely oblivious too. Yet you continue to attack me from a position of intentional ignorance.

Not an intentional choice by you, but by your mindmasters and braintenders.

[jb]

Hey, thanks for the article that makes my point for me! At no point in 2019 did she mention President Obama calling anyone or being involved in her firing at all.

[Life of Brian]

So after the dust finally settles, we're at "but it was just MICHELLE, yo."

I guess that's supposed to be comforting somehow?

[David Nieporent]

Hey, thanks for the article that makes my point for me! At no point in 2019 did she mention President Obama calling anyone or being involved in her firing at all.

Not only that, but the article makes clear that Roseanne has no idea what she's talking about and is just passing along gossip!

[jb]

So after the dust finally settles, we're at "but it was just MICHELLE, yo."

I guess that's supposed to be comforting somehow?

No, after all the dust finally settles we've got an unfounded assertion that Michelle Obama called Bob Iger to try and get Roseanne fired.

But as I pointed out above: even if you accept it as true, it means a year and a half after her husband stopped being President, she did something similar to what the current head of the FCC did. I'm sure Michelle Obama has more influence with Bob Iger than you and me, but it's not remotely the same for even a private citizen to call for a show to be cancelled and for the head of the FCC to threaten a network's license to make them do the same.

[Life of Brian]

Then I really don't understand the 3-4 post "it wasn't Barack" refrain. If you really believe in your "just a private citizen" argument, why does it matter one whit whether it was just her or both of them?

[David Nieporent]

Then I really don't understand the 3-4 post "it wasn't Barack" refrain. If you really believe in your "just a private citizen" argument, why does it matter one whit whether it was just her or both of them?

Facts matter.

[Life of Brian]

Relevant facts matter, of course. If all private citizens are indeed equal for this analysis, please fill us in on how two such private citizens calling their buddy at Disney to get someone canceled is materially different than one private citizen doing so.

[SRG2]

The Enhanced Games...basically, the Olympics for juicers.

This week, the top American sprinter Fred Kerley - currently suspended for a whereabouts* violation - announced he was going to participate, and he's the first big name to announce his participation.

I am disappointed that the state of athletics is such that a top US sprinter would make the decision to join the Enhanced Games. I am not going to condemn Fred Kerley for trying to earn as much as he can from his talent in the short window he has.

I always liked Fred as he seemed a no-bullshit kind of guy, who hilariously on live TV said that he'd fucked up when asked by that idiot Lewis Johnson why he didn't make the final of the US 100m champs. It was the precisely correct response.

* For those of you unfamiliar with the process, athletes who participate in the Olympics, etc. are regularly and randomly tested (at least, are supposed to be) and have to inform their national testing body where they will be over the next week so that the testers can find them. If you aren't where you said you'll be - to dodge being tested - you're guilty of a whereabouts violation, and three violations in 12 months renders you liable to suspension - and it's regarded as equal to a positive test. However, some athletes are smart enough to realise that if they actually test positive they could lose sponsors and fans, whereas a whereabouts suspension can be excused away as a technical matter - as happened with Christian Coleman, for example, who I have no doubt was juicing. In Fred's case, I don't know - he's not the sharpest tool in the box. It may have been the straw that got him to enter the Enhanced Games, or he was already intending to go, and so didn't bother complying.

[apedad]

Woman who blew boyfriend's head 'almost off his body' with shotgun while talking about her 'past trauma' with him learns her fate

Alyssa K. Roman, 31, was handed a sentence of six to eight years in prison on Wednesday by a Douglas County judge after she pleaded no contest last month for the shooting death of Alan Critser, 33, at a home they shared near Hanover Circle and Mormon Bridge Road in Omaha, according to court records.

Prosecutors downgraded Roman's original murder charge to manslaughter as part of the plea deal. Douglas County District Judge Katie Benson gave her credit for time served — 629 days total.

https://lawandcrime.com/crime/woman-who-blew-boyfriends-head-almost-off-his-body-with-shotgun-while-talking-about-her-past-trauma-with-him-learns-her-fate/

Only six to eight years with almost two years credit?!?

WTF. . . .

[jb]

If she's been in jail for two years, why shouldn't that count towards the sentence?

Six to eight years does seem light, though.

[ThePublius]

For blowing someone's head off with a shotgun? Yes. Should be life imprisonment, or death penalty.

[jb]

It seems like it's being treated like an accident since she was out of her mind on drugs. This seems roughly in line with the sorts of punishment people get when they kill someone while driving drunk, which seems like a reasonable analogy. But maybe that's more an argument in favor of harsher penalties for killing people with a car, not a defense for this one.

[ThePublius]

That's a reasonable position, but I disagree. The drunk driver is trying to get from here to there, and the victim of their drunk driving is unintentional and consequential to their negligence. However, a gun is made for shootin', and when you point it at someone and pull the trigger that denotes intent to kill or maim.

[jb]

Yeah, I'm just trying to get in the heads of the prosecutors/judge as opposed to agreeing with them. Like I said, the sentence seems light.

[John F. Carr]

That is close to the guideline for manslaughter in my state. Manslaughter would be the right crime in my state because there is reasonable doubt about intent to kill. Voluntary intoxication does not excuse reckless behavior resulting in death. Intoxication can negate the mental state required for a murder conviction.

Informally, we have three types of involuntary manslaughter all of which are identical in the eyes of the law. There's murder pleaded down to manslaughter due to evidentiary problems, which gets 15 years or more. There's workplace safety violation or an "oops" that turned deadly, which gets five years or less. And then there's ordinary manslaughter in the middle. Punch a man and he falls down and smashes his skull. Play with a gun and blow somebody away.

[Krayt]

Eating lunch at a Mexican restaurant. There's a chubby guy with a tank top on at another booth.

Put your fuckin' arms down, I'm eatin' here!

[Krayt]

Pardon me, I forgot what day it is.

Arrrr, ya disgusting manatee, put those flippers down.

[shawn_dude]

Wait... what?!

tap::tap::tap::clickety::tap!

Well shiver me timbers and crack open a barrel of rum, me boys! Alas, the many bells of rampaging I could have done today had I known.

[Estragon]

Jack Graham, pastor of Prestonwood Baptist in Texas, plays an AI fabricated clip of Charlie Kirk during a service this past weekend. It gets a standing ovation from those in attendance.

https://x.com/jackmjenkins/status/1968660015679525311?

[hobie]

Seeing American Protestant churches weave politicians and politics into church services, elevating them to equal status of Jeebus and God, reminds one of:

"The Nazi government ushered in key changes to the Protestant churches in Germany. First, the Nazi leadership supported the German Christian movement, a group of Protestants who wanted to combine Christianity and National Socialism"

https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/protestant-churches-nazi-state

Once again, I'm telling all the Jewish commenters here: they will eventually come for you. They've made it clear that American Jews are not really Jews. They are the enemy. Denying you your own religious identity should have been an obvious tell. But if owning the libs is even more important than the box cars...well...good luck

[Estragon]

“[some] Jews are not real Jews.”

I’m sure nobody around here believes that.

“Jews who find real Judaism icky” (Bob 9/16/25)

Oops.

[hobie]

Mar 2024: "Former President Donald Trump on Monday charged that Jews who vote for Democrats “hate Israel” and hate “their religion,”

Sept 2024: "“Anybody who’s Jewish and loves being Jewish and loves Israel is a fool if they vote for a Democrat,” Trump said, telling Harris supporters, “You should have your head examined.”

Kirk, Nov 2023: "“Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them,” and said that “the philosophical foundation of anti-whiteness has been largely financed by Jewish donors in the country.”"

Kirk's statement also insinuates that not only are Jews against the supremacy of whites, but that Jews aren't really white themselves. Thus making Jews even more 'other' to MAGA. Like I said...box cars

[LexAquilia]

Jews will tell you they aren't White.
wtf

[Commenter_XY]

Halakah provides the answer = “[some] Jews are not real Jews.”

[LawTalkingGuy]

Reactionary modernism

[Estragon]

The French have a phrase for this. Tres bizarre.

[Estragon]

“We are shocked by the testimony of FBI Director Kash Patel before the United States Senate and the House Oversight Committee. Director Patel stated that in the FBI's Jeffrey Epstein case file there is "no credible information, none... that he trafficked to other individuals." We are struggling to understand what this means. Even the limited information that has been made public includes accounts such as Virginia Giuffre's report that Epstein trafficked her to other individuals besides himself. We also understand, as Representative Thomas Massie pointed out during the House Oversight hearing, that there are FBI reports documenting witness interviews in which victims of Epstein and Maxwell named at least 20 other men they were trafficked to. Director Patel's testimony raises more questions than answers. For years he has railed about the incompleteness of previous investigations. He is right about that: previous investigations were indeed incomplete. So what is his plan to make sure that a thorough and unbiased investigation is conducted at last? He seems to acknowledge that the FBI FD-302 reports, naming other men to whom Epstein-Maxwell victims were trafficked, are real. So will he release those reports to the House Oversight Committee and to the public? He seems to imply that officials in previous administrations deemed those reports not to be credible. He has not read the reports himself; he has not spoken to the victims himself; and yet he plans to defer to unnamed officials from prior administrations who treated the reports as not credible? How can this be? Those previous administrations are the ones that Kash Patel spent years accusing of a cover-up. Now he will pass the buck to them to decide that information about other men in the Epstein-Maxwell trafficking ring is not even worth following up on? There are victims and witnesses who, to this day, have still not been interviewed. Will they continue to be ignored? Survivors deserve better, and so does the public.”

[jb]

They could just release the files and then we wouldn't have to speculate about what he means.

[ducksalad]

More specifically, we could switch away from speculating about what he means, and start speculating about how much of the file was fabricated, who did the doctoring, or what's underneath the acres of black redaction squares.

What reason do we have to trust anything that gets released?

[David Nieporent]

1) Please don't post random things without links.

2) This is pretty clear garbage. This is supposedly from Epstein victims, but rather than saying, "So and so sexually abused me," they say "We 'understand' … that there are FBI reports documenting witness interviews in which victims of Epstein and Maxwell named at least 20 other men they were trafficked to." If there were any such men, these people would be publicly naming them, not demanding that the FBI release information about other people talking about them.

[Estragon]

“If there were any such men, these people would be publicly naming them”

Gee David, you’re a lawyer. Can you think of a reason they might not want to do that?

[Michael P]

Gee Estrogen, it's not his job to come up with reasons that these accusers wouldn't name names. They're not government officials or grand jury members who have an obligation to keep quiet. The most obvious reason would be that ... "FBI FD-302 reports, naming other men to whom Epstein-Maxwell victims were trafficked" are in fact not real.

[David Nieporent]

Can you think of a reason they might not want to do that?

I assume you are talking about defamation.

1) Do you think that if multiple women were willing to testify that someone associated with Jeffrey Epstein abused them — let alone if the government had any corroborating evidence — that this would be a serious concern?

2) They could, of course, sue the people they allege molested them; the litigation privilege would protect them against any defamation liability.

[Sarcastr0]

New bill filed in Oklahoma that says every public university in the state must have a "Charlie Kirk Memorial Plaza" with a statue of Kirk and his family.
https://legiscan.com/OK/text/SB1187/2026

It's a messaging bill, of course, but it shows how much the right's up their own asses on Kirk being a saint.

[SRG2]

Performative bullshit

[Estragon]

I hope it passes

[hobie]

More Confederate monuments

[LawTalkingGuy]

Cardinal Dolan just favorably compared him to St. Paul, so we may be more cooked than we thought.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/charlie-kirk-assassination-spark-faith-revival-among-youth-cardinal-dolan-predicts.amp

[loki13]

...Charlie Kirk wasn't Catholic.

WTaF?

[ThePublius]

There are many non-Catholic saints.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Like who?

[LexAquilia]

George Floyd.

[Bob from Ohio]

Eastern Orthodoxy has a whole bunch recognized as such after 1054.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Which the Catholic Church wouldn’t recognize unless they were in communion with Rome.

[ThePublius]

Incorrect.

"Catholic Recognition of Non-Catholic Saints
Eastern Orthodox Saints: The Catholic Church has acknowledged the holiness of certain Eastern Orthodox saints, such as Saint Seraphim of Sarov, though they were not formally canonized in the Catholic sense during their lifetimes.
Non-Catholic Christian Martyrs: Pope Francis formally added the 21 Libyan Martyrs, who were Coptic Orthodox Christians, to the Catholic Martyrology, recognizing their sanctity and martyrdom.
Armenian Apostolic Church Saints: Saint Gregory of Narek, a member of the Armenian Apostolic Church, was declared a Doctor of the Catholic Church by Pope John Paul II, despite not being in communion with Rome." [emphasis mine]

[LawTalkingGuy]

Huh. Learn something new everyday.

[SRG2]

There are quite a few saints who never existed except in legend! And my favourite saint is St. Josaphat of India. Some Westerner came across the story of the Buddha, wrote a Christianised version, renaming him Josaphat, and the Church, not being much for historical rigour later canonised this Josaphat. IOW, the Church accidentally canonised the Buddha.

[shawn_dude]

Mary and all the disciples? Weren't they all jewish?

[SRG2]

Only in the early iconography and in the NT. After a while, they were all bleached white except Judas.

[Mr. Bumble]

Think you are wrong there.
There may be "saintly" persons who are not Catholic but no saints.

[ducksalad]

I think most of the early ones would not have considered themselves specifically Catholic. They're only Catholic in the sense that RCC claims continuous unbroken identity with the early Christian church.

If there ever was a single early Christian church, which isn't clear.

[ThePublius]

"Catholic Recognition of Non-Catholic Saints
Eastern Orthodox Saints: The Catholic Church has acknowledged the holiness of certain Eastern Orthodox saints, such as Saint Seraphim of Sarov, though they were not formally canonized in the Catholic sense during their lifetimes.
Non-Catholic Christian Martyrs: Pope Francis formally added the 21 Libyan Martyrs, who were Coptic Orthodox Christians, to the Catholic Martyrology, recognizing their sanctity and martyrdom.
Armenian Apostolic Church Saints: Saint Gregory of Narek, a member of the Armenian Apostolic Church, was declared a Doctor of the Catholic Church by Pope John Paul II, despite not being in communion with Rome. "

[hobie]

Kirk could be the patron saint of White Nationalists. Is it plausible that there are any other actual saints that are in hell? You'd think they would all be in heaven.

[Estragon]

… wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross…

[jb]

This shows the danger of filter bubbles. I can kind of see where someone who didn't really know much about Kirk (which Dolan said he didn't prior to the murder) might hear about how great he was at reaching out to young people and engaging them in ways that were faith centered. They might even conclude "we need more people like that, willing to take God's lessons to the people."

But this all falls apart when you learn about all of the mean-spirited and divisive things he said. Giving the Dolan the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he's not intentionally ignoring that stuff, it means that it's possible to live in an information ecosystem where all you hear is praise for Kirk and his message with no exposure to any of the negative. You see this over and over again with people who post here with seemingly zero awareness of awful things that folks on their side of the political divide are doing. Some of that is willful, and some people are dishonest, but a lot of it is just that as a society we've made it really easy to only hear stuff that makes you feel good about your beliefs and your team and you can just tune out the rest. That's a real problem, and certainly contributes to an environment where some people get it into their heads that people on the other team are so bad that the right solution is to murder them.

[Brett Bellmore]

You say, "mean spirited and divisive" things, but all we hear is "disagreed with us and disagreed with us" things.

[jb]

No. Linking Mamdani's primary victory to 9/11 is not disagreeing, it's gross. Saying that having Muslim areas of the country is a threat to America is divisive. Saying Kentaji Brown Jackson and Michelle Obama stole white people's jobs is mean spirited, as is calling people maggots, vermin and swine.

[Estragon]

Still waiting to hear from someone around here whose “slot” Michelle Obama “stole”. Charlie said it, so it must be true…

[LawTalkingGuy]

Charitably he could have meant her position as a Princeton and Harvard law grad.

Hilariously, he maybe meant that a white man should have been Obama’s spouse and First Lady, and that Michelle lacked the brain processing power to be his wife. (A compliment to Barack maybe?)

Contextually he was just listing prominent black women and saying they were dumb without thinking about it too much.

[Brett Bellmore]

What the hell does "divisive" mean besides "disagreeing"? I'm still hearing, "He disagreed with us, and disagreed with us!"

[Sarcastr0]

Really? You don’t know the difference between disagreeing and being divisive?

That speaks volumes.

Check out what he said about Muslims and how that differs from an opinion about, say, taxes.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the difference between "disagreeing" and "being divisive" is largely connotation, not denotation, that "being divisive" is just "disagreeing" that somebody disapproves of.

Say Charlie Kirk walks onto a campus that's 100% left-wing. He persuades some people. There is now division!

He disagreed with you, and was persuasive, that was his sin in your eyes. Naturally you think he disagreed with you in a bad way, because you agree with yourself, and don't think there's any GOOD way to disagree with you on anything non-trivial, and the universe of things that are trivial in your sight is pretty small.

[Sarcastr0]

I didn’t say any of that, Brett. Nor do I think it.

Your telepathy sucks.

[jb]

I think the difference between "disagreeing" and "being divisive" is largely connotation, not denotation, that "being divisive" is just "disagreeing" that somebody disapproves of.

At the limits this is true, because it's disagreeing about the way to disagree. But there are, for example, plenty of ways to criticize Mamdani's politics, and I'm critical of a fair share of them myself. But lumping him together with the 9/11 terrorists solely because of his religion is not saintly behavior and not even a substantive criticism, so I think it illustrates the point nicely that Kirk wasn't some great guy who I happen to disagree with. He was a guy who I happen to disagree with who was also willing to engage in religious stereotyping and make racist comments. St. Paul would have done a lot better, unless Dolan was referring to his pre-conversion persecution of Christians.

[shawn_dude]

A quick Google search on Dolan's politics shows a lot of overlap with Kirk.

[LexAquilia]

The George Floydians have some gall criticizing anything Charlie Kirk. It's like every Democrat Supremacist whose comment on this topic didn't exist in 2020.

[Bwaaah]

Democrats lost their minds in 2020, awakened to an emerging set of racial and cultural beliefs that they deeply believed to be MORAL AND JUST. They were so transfixed by those beliefs that they felt that all good people should adopt them.

To expand their awakening, they looked for non-believers. How would they spot them? Easy: all awakened leftists began to routinely signal their "side" with little passing affirmations whenever they would be with people...affirmations about the environment, or "Black" people, or America's past, or now so simply, Trump.

Their rule was and is pretty simple: if you don't affirm your support of their awakening, then you are undermining their efforts. Their efforts are moral and just. And their implication is clear: you who do not show fealty to their beliefs are immoral and unjust. If you lost your job, or were publicly ridiculed, or lost friends because of your failure to show like mind, that was not a problem. Because bad things happen to bad people, and oops, the world just became a better place.

Now we see so many Republicans, SANCTIMONIOUS AUTHORITARIAN DOUCHEBAGS LIKE SO MANY DEMOCRATS, are demanding expressions of respect from people...trying to compel speech (including compelled silence) in others.

FUCK ALL YOUR SANCTIMONIOUS AUTHORITARIAN DOUCHEBAGGERY.

Stand down, friends. This is not the American way. Leave people to their beliefs, lest we not be left to ours. IT'S SPEECH, GODDAMMIT!!! Don't be [too much of] a douchebag.

[Krayt]

Of course cancelling Jimmy Kimmel at the prompting of government is outrageous! Of course using a claim his statements are deliberate lies not in the service to The People's Airwaves is pure nonsense!

They're just playing your game! Rationalizations!

I get to complain about that. Small-el libertarians get to complain about that. Lovers of the Constitution as a knee to the nuts of the power mongers get to complain about that.

Most of you do not, especially "the left". You just spent 8 years rationalizing censorship initiatives.

You struggled and threatened social media companies with a liability risk by threatening section 230. You worthless shits even denied you were doing it. Bzzzt! Sorry, the Democratic candidates had a whole discussion unit on it in the 2020 debates. Some, like the eventual vice president, wanted to go further with direct legislation.

You relied on harrassment, oh noes, then immediately and loudly pushed for censoring, blocking, trigger warning political statements of your opponents as "harrassing". This was done. Right before an election.

I can complain about Kimmel's treatment. You worthless shits cannot.

You twisted arms about stuff like this, covering up your lies of abuse of government power. Once power shifted hands, freed, one of the hundred-billionaires said, yup, it fuckin' happened.

I can complain about Kimmel's treatment. You worthless shits cannot.

You created a setup, revisiting The Marketplace of Ideas. But not to buttress free speech, but I hypothisized an insidious attack on it. Sure enough, Radiolab 2 weeks later hosted a debate on The Marketplace of Ideas. A debate on The Marketplace of Ideas? What?

Yes! Some ideas are worthless, like harrassment, and therefore should not be protected!

I can complain about Kimmel's treatment. You worthless shits cannot.

As "harrassment" fell off as a rally point legally, thanks to people around here pointing out repeatedly it was protected, you shifted to "dangerous" speech, 'cause, you know, exhortations to imminent lawlessness and all that. But that was a lie, too. You just reprinted the labels to apply to your political opponents' speech.

That idiocy died a quick and deserved death.

I can complain about Kimmel's treatment. You worthless shits cannot.

And we all know. I know. Small-el libertarians know. Lovers of the Constitution around here know. Conservatives know. Liberals and Democrats know. Whatever the fuck MAGA and Trump are know.

When the shoe is back on the other foot some day, as it always is, As The World Turns, you will forget your put-upon, situational ethics theatrics, and get right back on that governnent horse, to trample your opponents once again.

Happy days are here again!

You profoundly worthless shits.

[shawn_dude]

That's quite a pedestal you constructed for yourself there. Careful, though, self-righteousness is brittle and can easily crumble. It's along way down from those heights!

The last time the Dems had control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress were the first two years of Obama's presidency. Please list the trampling that happened to Republicans at that time. Democrats have not held both houses since, so you're reaching way back to 2011 here.

[LexAquilia]

DEI merged from a time when Democrat Supremacy was at it's peak power and they capitalized on Floyd and BLM to get their tentacles into almost every aspect of our society with the moralizing and crusading.

Now we see Normalcy on the rise with the Great Pushback, how might a similarly Freedom & Liberty, F&L, movement look like?

Office trainings on the evils of Democrat Supremacy?
Course modules for Pre-K through secondary education on the evils of Democrat Supremacy?
Corporate Workshops with separate sessions for Democrats/Supremacists and then everyone else (for our protection of course)?
A public purging of all Democrat Supremacist symbols and other visible reminders of their evil?

[John 4]

Can someone toss this guy a tenner or something? This is the parking lot of a 7/11 right?

[Michael P]

So ... the would-be assassin of Brett Kavanaugh is now transgender. Is that just a coincidence?

[Bwaaah]

Excuse me, ma'am...is that a penis under your skirt or are you preparing to shoot me?

[shawn_dude]

As the government applies soft power to reign in the critics that gave Trump a hard time during his first term, and as we see Colbert and Kimmel lose their jobs due to preemptive obedience, one lone voice stands up and stands out:

https://youtu.be/_GXNJ3V9lzg?si=dHlxPpS1pcZRI7AH

Let's see how long Paramount lasts before it bends the knee and accepts limits on speech critical of Republicans.

[Michael P]

Lol, "preemptive obedience" ... or as most of us call it, common sense about having done something incredibly dumb or offensive.

[jb]

Wait, what did Colbert do that was dumb and/or offensive enough to justify cancelling his show?

[Bunny495]

Star in a show that loses more money in a year than you or I will ever make in a lifetime.

[David Nieporent]

What did either Colbert or Kimmel do that was offensive?

[Michael P]

Why do you ask stupid questions and then ignore the answers? And why do you then ask marginally different, equally stupid questions that were already answered in the comment before your earlier questions?

[jb]

You think Bunny meaningfully answered my question?

Being in a show the loses money is "dumb or offensive"? It may have made business sense to cancel Colbert's show, but it's dumb and offensive to lump it in with Kimmel's cancellation after the fact.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes and she didn't lump in Kimmel, you did.

[Michael P]

Well, shawn_dude did the original lumping, and jb asked specifically about Colbert.

But yes, losing your audience and not adjusting your budget to reflect your new audience size is very dumb. I thought the left was all about sustainability.

The stupid question that DaMN asked -- at least the one I was most referring to -- was "When did he [Kimmel] say that MAGA assassinated Kirk?". Long after that was answered, he popped in here with "What did either Colbert or Kimmel do that was offensive?"

[Mr. Bumble]

I won't shed a tear for either of them. Let them learn to code.

[jb]

You must mean the execs at CBS were dumb, then, because I'm pretty sure Colbert didn't set the budget for his show. (Also, this can't possibly be what you meant in your original comment, so not sure why you're trying so hard to fix the comment in retrospect.)

[Sarcastr0]

NPR: “Regarding Antifa…”
TRUMP: “Who are you with?”
NPR: “NPR.”
TRUMP: “You’re still here? Won’t be for long… does Antifa have anything to do with your network?”

Unamerican.
https://t.co/Oecnv9x3J5

[Bwaaah]

NPR is pretty American.

[Commenter_XY]

Are you sure you meant pretty; I thought you meant pretty. 😉

[Poxigah146]

https://wtop.com/national/2025/09/appeals-court-keeps-new-yorks-gun-restrictions-in-place-including-times-square-and-subway-ban

Another day, another unconstitutional gun law upheld by intellectually honest federal judges. They're not even attempting to follow Bruen anymore. They're back to the pre-Bruen standard of rubber stamping every single law based on the "two step" analysis in Breyer's dissent in Heller.

“Common-sense gun laws save lives, keep guns out of sensitive community spaces, and help address the gun violence crisis,” said James, a Democrat. “New York has some of the strongest common-sense gun laws in the nation, and my office will continue to defend them and protect New Yorkers.”

No, you fat bitch, what would save lives is subjugating the rights of your genetically violent "brothers."

[Frank Drackman]

Pretty sure James has a gun permit, like Comes-a-lot does in California.

[damikesc]

Might want to put Ilya on self-harm watch.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/economy/trump-signs-proclamation-imposing-100k-annual-fee-for-h-1b-visa-applications/ar-AA1MVibH?ocid=BingNewsSerp

Effectively kills the program, I would say.

[Ska]

Make indentured servitude great again.

[damikesc]

Never understood how the advocates could not see the borderline slavery in the program.

[David Nieporent]

Look, you can just say, "I'm a racist who hates immigrants"; you don't have to desperately latch onto any absurd pretext you can find. Are H1B workers kidnapped and dragged to the U.S. in chains? Are they kept in chains after they arrive? Are they told that they can never quit or they will be beaten or killed? Are their children also forced to work on pain of being beaten or killed? Are their children often sold to other employers?

There is nothing fucking "borderline slavery" about the program. It is as far from that "border" as New York is from the Chinese/Mongolian border.

[Mr. Bumble]

So there is only one type of slavery in your mind?

[damikesc]

Can H1B workers file any complaints about unfair or unsafe working conditions? No, they cannot.

David, you'd be telling blacks to return to their plantation in the 1860's. You're no better than that now.

I'm being nice calling it borderline. It is slavery. pure and simple. But you LIKE it --- lefties always seem to --- so that makes it OK to you.

[David Nieporent]

Can H1B workers file any complaints about unfair or unsafe working conditions? No, they cannot.

WTF are you talking about? Yes, they can. (Indeed, even illegal aliens can do so.)

I'm not a "lefty." And it is not slavery, in any form. The sine qua non of slavery is that the slave cannot quit his job. H1B workers can do so at any time. How fucking stupid are you?

[LexAquilia]

Good. It's been exploited to push Americans out of jobs.

[Moderation4ever]

Too bad the native people of this Country did not have a policy like that. It would a have prevent a lot of the problems they faced.

[damikesc]

Not sure you're REALLY making a solid point in defense of the H1B program.

Perhaps the natives should not have been committing massacres against one another for centuries before Europe ever touched their feet here and, well, made this continent something worth living in.

[Commenter_XY]

Effectively kills the program, I would say.

Maybe not. It makes companies far more discerning wrt who they are sponsoring. That is not bad. It probably helps us a lot too, in the long run.

If you want to export American jobs via H-1B, the price is 100K per position. Note to TresSec Bessent: Use the money to pay down debt.

[David Nieporent]

If you want to export American jobs via H-1B

That is not how it works. That's not how any of it works.

[Bunny495]

Right after I graduated I went to the employment office and got some leads for jobs. Since I had work/study experience doing remote sensing using the ESRI GIS stuff and there was a listing looking for that I asked about that and was told in no uncertain terms it would be a waste of time as the job was already filled by an HB1 visa guy. Thing is the job had to be advertised even though the employer knew no matter who applied the HB1 guy would fill the position.

Lets keep in mind India is pissing and moaning about this which says a lot about how HB1 works.

[David Nieporent]

I certainly believe this anecdote from a guy who doesn't know what the name of the visa he's talking about is.

But just to be clear, even if the anecdote is correct, it would not be accurately described as "exporting American jobs."

[Life of Brian]

Gavin Newsom's cagey contribution to turning down the temperature:

Kristi Noem is going to have a bad day today.

You’re welcome, America.

After looking around a bit, my best guess is that this refers to his signing of the so-called No Secret Police Act, facially designed to discourage ICE raids by making it easier to doxx the agents.

It's not hard to predict the counter-arguments that will come pouring in, but to me this seems like yet another example of the left trying to regain turf through (at the very least the threat of) violence that they lost via votes, wrapped in pleasantly Orwellian affronts to the English language. (To that last point, if anyone is familiar with any sort of remotely mainstream usage prior to this kerfuffle of "secret police" to refer to someone in a conventional law enforcement uniform but simply a masked face, please do bring it to the table.)

[David Nieporent]

but to me this seems like yet another example of the left trying to regain turf through (at the very least the threat of) violence that they lost via votes,

J6. J6. J6. J6.

conventional law enforcement uniform

Someone hasn't been following the news.

[Life of Brian]

J6. J6. J6. J6.

Whataboutery aside, I guess you're just officially abandoning any pretense that you're the good guys?

Someone hasn't been following the news.

Someone hasn't read the legislation I linked. It deals only with facial coverings, as I clearly said.

[David Nieporent]

Whataboutery aside,

It's not whataboutery; it's that you're literally describing something only done by MAGA. J6 is the only example since the Civil War of "trying to regain turf through (at the very least the threat of) violence that they lost via votes."

Someone hasn't read the legislation I linked. It deals only with facial coverings, as I clearly said.

The legislation is entirely performative, because the state can't tell federal law enforcement how to operate. But I'm not sure what you're saying here, because the claim to which I was responding wasn't about the legislation. Rather, you were complaining about the terminology 'secret police' being used for people who wear "conventional law enforcement uniforms." But the people being called secret police aren't wearing conventional law enforcement uniforms.

[Life of Brian]

The legislation is entirely performative, because the state can't tell federal law enforcement how to operate.

OH. So Newsom is strutting and preening himself and signaling to the public that they're going to be safer now because masked ICE raids will be illegal, but in reality he has no authority whatsoever to do that. Doesn't that seem just a touch.... irresponsible, and exactly the opposite of lowering the temperature and decreasing the odds that people will get hurt?

But the people being called secret police aren't wearing conventional law enforcement uniforms.

As I clearly said in my first post, the actual name of the legislation purporting to regulate face coverings (and only face coverings) for law enforcement is titled the "No Secret Police Act." Try again.

[damikesc]

"It's not whataboutery; it's that you're literally describing something only done by MAGA. J6 is the only example since the Civil War of "trying to regain turf through (at the very least the threat of) violence that they lost via votes.""

It was a mostly peaceful protest. Unlike the riots you adored in 2020 which killed over a dozen.

EDIT: And your side repeatedly justifying assassinations is going to be a move the lot of you will regret. Just sayin'.

[David Nieporent]

Every word of your comment is fiction. What is the point of this sort of gibberish?

[damikesc]

You keep hoping you can flog 1/6 more and more, but people do not care about a mostly peaceful protest. 2020's riots, that the Dems openly championed the entire time, killed about 20 or so and caused billions in damage. 1/6 would have been the most peaceful protest that the whole array of riots on behalf of he-who-cannot-be-criticized-George Floyd.

And Dems have slandered Kirk in the House. Justify his murder repeatedly (hint: If the word "but" is used during your condemnation, you aren't condemning anything)

[David Nieporent]

1. J6 was not mostly peaceful; it was entirely violent. Unless you're trying to rope in the morons who were at the Stop the Steal rally that didn't go to the Capitol to dilute the actual attack on Congress.

2. Democrats did not champion riots in 2020.

3. It's not slander if it's true.

4. No, saying that Kirk was not a good person is not justifying his murder.

[damikesc]

It's cute that you think state law has any impact, at all, on federal officials.

Trump might need to look at CA as being in open rebellion. They seem to be.

[SRG2]

"secret police" to refer to someone in a conventional law enforcement uniform but simply a masked face,

with no other identifying marks, no names nor numbers, in unmarked cars and vans, and who refuse to give their names when requested.

What phrase would you use?

[Life of Brian]

with no other identifying marks, no names nor numbers, in unmarked cars and vans, and who refuse to give their names when requested.

See my reply to David above. Again, the Cali legislation doesn't purport to address any of the red-meat headline stuff y'all are trying to chuck in here. It only prohibits facial masking.

[SRG2]

It only prohibits facial masking.

Indeed, but that is not an answer to the question I asked. What would you call police who have no identifying marks, no names nor numbers, operating out of unmarked cars and vans, and who refuse to give their names when requested?

[damikesc]

Well, they must just be an idea and not a group, then.

[Life of Brian]

What would you call police who have no identifying marks, no names nor numbers, operating out of unmarked cars and vans, and who refuse to give their names when requested?

Something that, if it's happening at all beyond whatever one-off hot takes you're referring to, is not addressed by the "No Secret Police Act." So at least we know what we can't call it without making Newsom a liar.

[JasonT20]

We'll see if it lasts. But I'm going cold turkey. I give up on both the articles and the comments on this whole fucking website. After being told that I should stop murdering people that disagree with me about my "support" for "child castration, debanking, and child abattoirs", the whole fucking social media human experiment has shown me what happens when people try and debate things that separate them into tribes while being anonymous or even semi-anonymous. The assholes and morons drown out anything remotely positive that could come from that.

Mute me, celebrate my departure, call me a beta, I don't give a fuck. If I don't succumb to my addiction and return, I'll never see what anyone has to say in response to this.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, I think I've said before that anyone who thinks the Volokh commenters are all that uncivil should check out the mosh pit that is Reason. Never saw the upside in jumping in with those sharks.

Be well.