US Politics Thread

[Federberg]

He wasn’t a saint. But this…

 

[Federberg]

Lots of interesting stuff coming out to explain....make of it what you will. I'm not sure it's been fully established who this guy was? Or has new stuff come out in the last 24/48hrs?



And this...

 

[Moxie]

I don't normally post over here, but this time I will...

First off, no one deserves to die. Second, you can't bring murder on yourself unless it's self-murder in the form of suicide.

As for Kirk, I won't call him a racist or a bigot because I don't profess to know what's in anyone's heart. I'll say he was pro white, pro male, extreme MAGA Christian radical and a card carrying member of the NRA. He said some polarizing things even amongst his own party.

His death is garnering a lot of attention. I normally don't care about such things as attention someone is getting, but I do take issue with some of the proposed actions in my country:

• Why did the VP skip the 9-11 service yesterday and use Air Force2 to transport his body back home?
• While I don't agree w/ celebrating anyone's death, why are people being stripped of their 1st amendment right to disagree, talk and post about it?
• There are talks of laying him to rest in the rotunda (that should only be for elected officials)

I do appreciate your weighing in on this, @kskate2. His death IS getting a lot of attention, and rather outsized, IMO, in terms of the administration. If this attention would lead to some change, I would be all for it, but I don't see what change will come of it. Specifically, because of the attitude of the President, who should be a unifier in moments of national crisis, but he is not even trying. His instinct is always combative, and he's not changing that now. Even on Fox News, when the commentator offered him that there was violent behavior on both sides, in the extremes, Trump was having none of it. He continues to make it an existential fight against the Left, and very "Us against Them." This is not calming the rhetoric, nor uniting the country in any way.

The other thing he is doing is raising up a young political commentator on the pretty far right of the spectrum, (at the very least he's a Christian Nationalist) to the level of statesman. As K says, the talk of having him lie in State in the Capitol rotunda is an honor reserved for distinguished public servants, such as Presidents, SCOTUS justices, members of congress, military officers. Lying in Honor is an option for civilians. (Past example would be Rosa Parks.) In either case, it requires approval of Congress.

Likewise, the President ordering the flags to fly at half-staff, which they are, I have noticed, as I recently drove across 5 states. I am not minimizing the horror of the murder of Charlie Kirk, but this is the equivalent of doing the same for Rush Limbaugh, or say, Jon Stewart, who is not dead, on the other side. This is not a person who made significant contributions to the good of America. He's a person who made significant contributions to the cause of the Right. It's deeply partisan. And the administration is using its power to elevate his status.

This is not unifying.

 

[britbox]

I recommend anyone who participates on this thread to watch this educational video from an ex-US military guy on how we get "programmed" for reactions.



This Charlie Kirk event "reeks of it", as did the George Floyd event to be honest.

 

[Kieran]

I do appreciate your weighing in on this, @kskate2. His death IS getting a lot of attention, and rather outsized, IMO, in terms of the administration. If this attention would lead to some change, I would be all for it, but I don't see what change will come of it. Specifically, because of the attitude of the President, who should be a unifier in moments of national crisis, but he is not even trying. His instinct is always combative, and he's not changing that now. Even on Fox News, when the commentator offered him that there was violent behavior on both sides, in the extremes, Trump was having none of it. He continues to make it an existential fight against the Left, and very "Us against Them." This is not calming the rhetoric, nor uniting the country in any way.

The other thing he is doing is raising up a young political commentator on the pretty far right of the spectrum, (at the very least he's a Christian Nationalist) to the level of statesman. As K says, the talk of having him lie in State in the Capitol rotunda is an honor reserved for distinguished public servants, such as Presidents, SCOTUS justices, members of congress, military officers. Lying in Honor is an option for civilians. (Past example would be Rosa Parks.) In either case, it requires approval of Congress.

Likewise, the President ordering the flags to fly at half-staff, which they are, I have noticed, as I recently drove across 5 states. I am not minimizing the horror of the murder of Charlie Kirk, but this is the equivalent of doing the same for Rush Limbaugh, or say, Jon Stewart, who is not dead, on the other side. This is not a person who made significant contributions to the good of America. He's a person who made significant contributions to the cause of the Right. It's deeply partisan. And the administration is using its power to elevate his status.

This is not unifying.

Seriously. We know Trump is not a unifier. We knew the same about Biden, and Obama. Your country has not been united in a long time. You need to call your side out on this. They’re a massive cause of division, I would say the greater, given how innovative and intolerant they are. We always need to look at our partisan political allegiances and attack our own side first. We have the same divisions everywhere in the west…

 

[Kieran]

I recommend anyone who participates on this thread to watch this educational video from an ex-US military guy on how we get "programmed" for reactions.



This Charlie Kirk event "reeks of it", as did the George Floyd event to be honest.

I’m just getting outta bed, bro, I’ll definitely watch and reply later. Same with @Federberg ’s interesting videos above…

 

[Federberg]

This seems to be the root cause of the racism accusations against Kirk.

Sorry but it isn’t racism to question if someone is competent at their job if they got it because of DEI or affirmative action. That’s exactly why I would never want that to be used to help me get a position. It immediately attaches a question mark. That’s reality!

 

[Moxie]

Seriously. We know Trump is not a unifier. We knew the same about Biden, and Obama. Your country has not been united in a long time. You need to call your side out on this. They’re a massive cause of division, I would say the greater, given how innovative and intolerant they are. We always need to look at our partisan political allegiances and attack our own side first. We have the same divisions everywhere in the west…

Do I have to include the sweep of history in every post? Or anyway the past 17 years? Obama and Biden have nothing to do with this specific moment. You guys want to keep talking about Charlie Kirk. I made a point about Trump's choices as to how to characterize his death, and to mourn it. Why don't you just comment on that, rather than tell me, once again, how I should frame my own posts? Or, better yet, just skip it, if you have nothing to say.

 

[Kieran]

Lots of interesting stuff coming out to explain....make of it what you will. I'm not sure it's been fully established who this guy was? Or has new stuff come out in the last 24/48hrs?



And this...

They were incredibly interesting to listen to. Articulate and detailed. It’s a whole subculture that I’m gonna look into, very dark and psychological, hidden almost, from the naked eye…

 

[Federberg]

Do I have to include the sweep of history in every post? Or anyway the past 17 years? Obama and Biden have nothing to do with this specific moment. You guys want to keep talking about Charlie Kirk. I made a point about Trump's choices as to how to characterize his death, and to mourn it. Why don't you just comment on that, rather than tell me, once again, how I should frame my own posts? Or, better yet, just skip it, if you have nothing to say.

you guys? Are you including me in this? I saw your post, I largely agreed with it, granted you weren't addressing any of my posts (so not sure why I'm obliged to address yours but you're a queen right? Must do what her majesty says ).

But if you want something.. the part of your post that seems a bit off to me is calling Kirk far right. I'm not sure that's justified. So far most of the views I've seen expressed by him seem more centre right to me. It's the hyperbole that drains away the credibility when you get partisan.

As I've said I don't agree with everything he said, but on affirmative action, the causes of black American disadvantage, trans issues, abortion... so far I've not discerned anything extreme.. And I've watched his interactions at length. Not the clips (I actually got drawn into it about a year ago, when he was campaigning because I saw a clip I found offensive, who knew! Watching the whole thing and the actual context changed my mind!). His reaction to the Pelosi assault didn't sit right with me. His Trump support... nah! But watching him defend same sex marriage surprised me. This wasn't the person the TikTokkers were claiming he was.

But please go ahead and post something from him that's far right. Not a clip mind... let's see the full thing so we can have context. Fair?

 

[Kieran]

Do I have to include the sweep of history in every post? Or anyway the past 17 years? Obama and Biden have nothing to do with this specific moment. You guys want to keep talking about Charlie Kirk. I made a point about Trump's choices as to how to characterize his death, and to mourn it. Why don't you just comment on that, rather than tell me, once again, how I should frame my own posts? Or, better yet, just skip it, if you have nothing to say.

I’m not telling you how to frame your post, I just wish that when others including me were complaining about the deranged, dangerous and excessive abuses of the left, that you weren’t defending them and saying the actual problem is the right wingers who were asking questions…

 

[Kieran]

This seems to be the root cause of the racism accusations against Kirk.

Sorry but it isn’t racism to question if someone is competent at their job if they got it because of DEI or affirmative action. That’s exactly why I would never want that to be used to help me get a position. It immediately attaches a question mark. That’s reality!

I like this guy, Jeffrey Mead. He’s very clear and he’s a black conservative who white dude Joe Biden would tell, “you ain’t black.”

 

[Federberg]

His death IS getting a lot of attention, and rather outsized,

oh.. and I feel I also need to address this, particularly. You know what made this guy different? His willingness to go out and debate people of all stripes. His death IS a big deal. Because what he was doing is becoming rare in the Western world. Granted the left in America isn't as looney as over here, but I suspect it's your constitution rather than your instincts which are restraining you. Perhaps Bernie and maybe Newson (albeit via podcasts) engage all comers, but I find it hard to think of anyone on the left who's doing the good work. The HARD democracy work. The fact that this young man was doing that and was killed is appalling for America. Take your partisan blinders off please, and recognise the tragedy of what happened. It's not a partisan issue, the essence of what makes America great was eroded by that murder. And I dare say a future potential President was lost...

 

[Kieran]

I recommend anyone who participates on this thread to watch this educational video from an ex-US military guy on how we get "programmed" for reactions.



This Charlie Kirk event "reeks of it", as did the George Floyd event to be honest.

This throws me headlong back in covid days, when we had to do a lot of research ourselves, gaslighting was the norm and the governments were not to be trusted - and nor were the big corporations pushing solutions that didn’t hold up to scrutiny.

My question would be, we are right to be sceptical, but what are the tools for discerning truth? I mean, I question all sides but still eventually I have I accept there’s truth somewhere in any given situation. If we’re sceptical of all experts and figures of authority - and we ought to be - how can we find the truth? Non-experts are not experts, for a reason.

It’s a genuine question, not one that’s in any way critical of the video. When he said don’t sign petitions, I thumbsed up. I agree with so much of what he said, but it left a lot of spaces for unnecessary ambiguity too?

 

[Kieran]

oh.. and I feel I also need to address this, particularly. You know what made this guy different? His willingness to go out and debate people of all stripes. His death IS a big deal. Because what he was doing is becoming rare in the Western world. Granted the left in America isn't as looney as over here, but I suspect it's your constitution rather than your instincts which are restraining you. Perhaps Bernie and maybe Newson (albeit via podcasts) engage all comers, but I find it hard to think of anyone on the left who's doing the good work. The HARD democracy work. The fact that this young man was doing that and was killed is appalling for America. Take your partisan blinders off please, and recognise the tragedy of what happened. It's not a partisan issue, the essence of what makes America great was eroded by that murder. And I dare say a future potential President was lost...

Charlie Kirk’s assassination was a Charlie Hebdo moment for another wing of the media. With Charlie Hebdo, Muslim extremists silenced the media, forever. They still can’t risk showing us the photos.

Charlie Kirk was senselessly shot because of what he was saying, and the effect he was having. It was a direct assault on free speech. Others following him might now feel it isn’t worth the risk? Especially since his killing in inspired so much glee and approval from the left.

It’s a moment that will resonate for a long time…

 

[Moxie]

oh.. and I feel I also need to address this, particularly. You know what made this guy different? His willingness to go out and debate people of all stripes. His death IS a big deal. Because what he was doing is becoming rare in the Western world. Granted the left in America isn't as looney as over here, but I suspect it's your constitution rather than your instincts which are restraining you. Perhaps Bernie and maybe Newson (albeit via podcasts) engage all comers, but I find it hard to think of anyone on the left who's doing the good work. The HARD democracy work. The fact that this young man was doing that and was killed is appalling for America. Take your partisan blinders off please, and recognise the tragedy of what happened. It's not a partisan issue, the essence of what makes America great was eroded by that murder. And I dare say a future potential President was lost...

You cut off my quote. What followed was "in terms of this administration." I see it as the Administration elevating a partisan. I take your point that he was trying to engage his opposition in dialogue, though. And Kieran's in calling it a "Charlie Hebdo moment." However, please stop with telling me to take off my blinders. I don't know how many different times and ways I have to say that I think this is a tragedy. My point is the approach by the administration, which is more "official." Especially as compared to the recent assassination, and attempted assassination of elected officials in MN, and their reaction to that.

 

[Federberg]

You cut off my quote. What followed was "in terms of this administration." I see it as the Administration elevating a partisan. I take your point that he was trying to engage his opposition in dialogue, though. And Kieran's in calling it a "Charlie Hebdo moment." However, please stop with telling me to take off my blinders. I don't know how many different times and ways I have to say that I think this is a tragedy. My point is the approach by the administration, which is more "official." Especially as compared to the recent assassination, and attempted assassination of elected officials in MN, and their reaction to that.

Fair enough re: the quote.

As I said, I agree with you about the Administration. At the risk of minimising the assassinations in Minnesota, and that's not what I want to do at all. Like it or not, what Charlie Kirk was doing was different. The public engagement he was responsible for is actually what America and frankly the Western world needs right now. Please let me be clear here, both situations are equally tragic on the human level. But... the democratic impact will be more significant in this case. It might actually be a positive impact, I'll withhold my judgement and just observe. But if what Kirk started encourages a Buttegieg on the left to go out there and debate out in the open in Red States that could be the greatest thing to happen to American democracy in decades. I have no doubt that someone will replace him on the right, sadly I don't think they'll do it with - at least so far as I've been able to observe watching full videos - the same intelligence and balance as Kirk did.

PS, please anyone, and I mean this sincerely, if you find a full video where he is revealed as a bad guy, I want to see it. I don't want to live in darkness. I'm just saying... so far I haven't seen it. And most of you know that the fact that he's so buddy buddy with Trump.... I really wanted to be against what he was doing...

 

[Kieran]

To me, the difference in these things is this. The political killing of an elected official is an attack on the person, and on the state. Likewise when a cop is killed, or any person who's in a frontline job employed by the state, and they're killed for doing their job. In the UK in the last few years, there were two MP's killed, one Labour and one Conservative, and both these crimes were equally bad, because they were representatives of the people who'd elected them, and it's a crime against the state to interfere in that process.

This is why I said Trump is wrong to overdo this, in terms of funeral arrangements and whatever else he's trying to pull. Kirk wasn't a publicly selected representative of the state.

This is also why I group Charlie Kirk's killing adjacent to the Charlie Hebdo atrocity: both were attacks on the founding principles of the liberal state, which is that free speech and a free media are sacrosanct. The Charlie Hebdo incident is still affecting the media's willingness to properly report the news, while also possibly causing politicians of a certain stripe to overlook crimes and abuses caused by Muslims. If freedom of speech, including the right to open and public debate, and also the free media, are threatened or compromised, then far worse is inevitably bound to follow..

 

[Moxie]

Fair enough re: the quote.

As I said, I agree with you about the Administration. At the risk of minimising the assassinations in Minnesota, and that's not what I want to do at all. Like it or not, what Charlie Kirk was doing was different. The public engagement he was responsible for is actually what America and frankly the Western world needs right now. Please let me be clear here, both situations are equally tragic on the human level. But... the democratic impact will be more significant in this case. It might actually be a positive impact, I'll withhold my judgement and just observe. But if what Kirk started encourages a Buttegieg on the left to go out there and debate out in the open in Red States that could be the greatest thing to happen to American democracy in decades. I have no doubt that someone will replace him on the right, sadly I don't think they'll do it with - at least so far as I've been able to observe watching full videos - the same intelligence and balance as Kirk did.

PS, please anyone, and I mean this sincerely, if you find a full video where he is revealed as a bad guy, I want to see it. I don't want to live in darkness. I'm just saying... so far I haven't seen it. And most of you know that the fact that he's so buddy buddy with Trump.... I really wanted to be against what he was doing...

I hear what you're saying about Charlie Kirk being "different," in the sense that he was a charismatic figure, doing something that needs doing, i.e., trying to inspire dialogue across differing, even wildly differing viewpoints. (Side note, I don't think we needed Kirk for Buttegeig to be inclined the same way, because he naturally is, but I won't die on that battlefield.) I also promise to explore some of his podcasts and discussions in full, to understand better what he was trying to do. It's important to understand that, even for those of us who are late to it.

Without knowing enough about him, I will take your lead that. You say that, while he'll be replaced, he will probably be inadequately replaced. Leaders with charisma and intelligence, and a unique vision are not easily replaced. Aside from the obvious personal tragedy for his family, this is why it's a tragedy for the country. To the extent that I understand his positions, we couldn't be more different. I find any number of his positions to be vile. It is undeniable that he was a Christian Nationalist, which I think is terrible for this country. He didn't believe in the separation of church and state. But, he pushed for open dialogue, in a climate that wasn't offering much of it.

Your argument is that this loss is of a person in favor of free speech, which you say is a greater blow to democracy than the assassinations of public officials, in terms of impact. I am NOT diminishing that you agree that both are wrong. I fully recognize that you acknowledge both, and say that both are impactful and dangerous. IMO, the danger to democracy, and the fabric of our society includes, very importantly, the assassinations, and the threats to our elected officials, our judges, and, I would mention threats to those who work election polls. These assassinations and death threats discourage good people from doing the less high-profile work of democracy. Maybe it DOES really all come down to free speech. If Americans are coming to only allowing the speech that they agree with, and are becoming willing to resort to violence against opinions that they disagree with, then it all stems from that. But losing good public servants out of fear of retribution is also a very, very bad thing.

 

[Federberg]

Interesting....