No. 98241Anonymous 29th December 2023 Friday 11:41 pm98241This man is going to be President again and ir's going to be awesome
14rh amendment -
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
If Jesus is so merciful why do those nutters have to keep begging to be let into heaven all the fucking time? Still, it's probably easier than being a Hindu and being let into Valhalla.
so d'you two reckon that trans people are going to get it now, now that the right wing media have started spinning the story that a trans person corrupted the mind of a god fearing Conservative so that he decided to pick up a rifle and kill Charlie Kirk?
I mean, seems like the obvious next page in the fascist playbook.
>>102926 >so d'you two reckon that trans people are going to get it now
What do you mean by that?
It's false flags all the way down, anyway. We know the FBI/CIA do that kind of shit, as retarded as it sounds, we have documented evidence that they do. So it's not in the realms of tinfoil hat, it's probably the truth in about 20-30% of all Yank domestic terrorism.
Either that or Kirk put the hit on himself so he'd go down a martyr.
Part of me enjoys watching the world burn, and the U.S. disappear into a puff of irrelevance. The latter especially. But then I remember that we must not let America lead by bad example.
This should be well enough to ban Musk from entering the UK under some law that he is probably grossly violating. And he should be threatened with arrest if he then ignores that ban.
Andrew Tate is banned from entering a handful of countries for being a misogynistic git. You're telling me we can't do the same when somebody delivers incendiary speeches designed to overthrow our democratic government?
>>102937 >You're telling me we can't do the same when somebody delivers incendiary speeches designed to overthrow our democratic government?
What's xhe proposing instead?
I like how you lefty scum clutch pearls at people telling the working class they should fight back against a government that hates them and is in the process of demographically replacing them, while you cum in your pants with glee as an activist is murdered in front of his family (oh, he deserved to die , he said mean things about the poor oppressed ickle twannies!"), while your side can openly call for the throat slitting of your opponents, call for authors to be pipe-bombed and say things like "Fuck jews and rape their daughters" and nothing happens to you because you have Special Tier 1 protected belief privileges. Meanwhile, Lucy Connolly gets 2 1/2 years in prison for a fucking tweet.
I bet you all live in rich posho 99% white villages with names like Little Cockinghamshire and never have to deal with the "diversity" you claim to love so much.
"We celebrate the death of our political opponents, we can openly call for more of them to be murdered with zero legal repercussions, all the global corporations and 90% of Western governments support and encourage our views yet we're the poor oppressed freedom fighters on the right side of histuree guise"
Leftists have shown their true colours and shown the world what smug, hypocritical, sneering, grave-dancing ghouls they are in the past couple of weeks. I went to university with you people, I know how much you despise the working class you claim to support, you will be rendered utterly irrelevant come the next election.
>>102943 >We celebrate the death of our political opponents
Y'all got any more of those 41% memes?
>we can openly call for more of them to be murdered with zero legal repercussions
I seem to recall widespread cheering from your side when Nancy Pelosi and her husband got attacked and nearly murdered in America.
>all the global corporations and 90% of Western governments support and encourage our views
Our views that they should pay more taxes? Our views that they should be more strictly regulated? Our view that the laissez-faire policies that enabled these monopolies need to be stopped as soon as possible? I don't think they do support those views at all. Remember that Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and so on were all guests at Donald Trump's inauguration, personally invited by The Donald himself.
>Leftists have shown their true colours
The only bright red I've been shown lately came from Charlie Kirk's neck ahahahahaha
>I know how much you despise the working class you claim to support
Of course you would think that if you consider yourself one of them. With posts like yours, it is very, very easy - trivial, even - to despise you.
>you will be rendered utterly irrelevant come the next election.
But 90% of Western governments support and encourage us? And so do all the global corporations who fund the major parties and clearly write their own laws. Are they all going to change their minds for some reason?
I hope your nice posho rural village gets a mosque built in it, and the local country club gets turned into "refugee" accommodation, your house price nosedives and your girlfriend can't go outside without being harassed by Somalis every single day. You smug cunts are getting "enriched", and it's going to be glorious to see.
Don't feed him lad, it's just some retard off of 4chan/KF who couldn't accurately define what a leftist actually is if his life depended on it, and will likely blither on about Rudgewick users or videogame pronoun people instead. I can't even be arsed to drop a big classlad lecture on him because that lot have just had their brains fully liquefied by the last six months, it's a waste of effort.
>>102894 I think we should worry more that a cretin like Kirk was allowed to be so bold in his nonsense that it got bad enough that somebody wanted to shoot him. A decent society would have shunned him, not started treating him like some sort of MLK like figure.
>and the local country club gets turned into "refugee" accommodation
There isn't a country club on this earth that shouldn't be. Country clubs as an institution are one of the most pernicious elitist circle jerks in existence. Every single one of those cunts should be driven out to sea on their yachts and given concrete shoes.
Other than that, I mean, LAD. Seriously. Have a word with yourself. You probably think you're being the most brilliant edgelad ever. But you'd do well to get out of your mum's basement once in a while and spend time in the real world.
Sailing if you're actually using sails; travelling under any motor power is "steaming". Boat people love archaic terminology.
The difference does actually matter, because motor vessels and sailing vessels travel in such radically different ways. Motor vessels travel in mostly straight lines (currents and tides permitting), but sailing vessels zig-zag all over the place unless they're sailing directly downwind. By law, sailing vessels that also have a motor must display a white light on the bow if they're steaming. Sailing vessels are a massive pain in the arse in busy waters, partly because they move in such an unpredictable way, but also because leisure boaters tend to be knobheads with absolutely no self-preservation instincts.
I'm not posh, my dad's side of the family are from Grimsby.Sing when you're fishing, you only sing when you're fishing.Saying the word "Grimsby" makes me think about fat Rebel Wilson (RIP).
>Disney-owned ABC has pulled Jimmy Kimmel Live off the air indefinitely after the host caused controversy with remarks about Charlie Kirk’s alleged killer.
>In his opening monologue on Monday, Kimmel, a vocal critic of US President Donald Trump, accused “the MAGA gang” of trying to “score political points” from Kirk’s murder, saying they were quick to blame the left before much was known about the shooter’s motives.
>“The MAGA gang (is) desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel said on his show. “In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving,” he added.
>“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,” Kimmel added.
But there's more!
>Brendan Carr, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), told right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson on Wednesday that he had a strong case for taking action against Kimmel, ABC and Disney.
>“This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney,” Carr said. “They have a licence granted by us at the FCC, and that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest.”
>According to a Bloomberg report, quoting sources, Kimmel had planned to address the backlash on his show on Wednesday and rehearsed it that morning.
>Carr also urged media companies that own local television stations to “push back”.
>Nexstar, which owns several ABC affiliates, appeared to follow that call, announcing it would drop Jimmy Kimmel Live from its affiliates even before ABC itself confirmed the suspension.
>Kimmel’s remarks about Kirk were “offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse,” Nexstar added.
>Carr expressed approval for Nexstar’s decision, thanking them “for doing the right thing”.
First they came for Charlie Kirk, and I did not speak up because I was not a shit-stirring grifter. Then they came for Jimmy Kimmel, and I did not speak up because this just keeps getting better and better. Besides, there's still Jimmy Fallon, who is indistinguishable to me.
>Kimmel’s remarks about Kirk were “offensive and insensitive
Like they fucking care. Kirk was free to spew his below the belt hatred against minorities and anybody not part of the fascist junta, and that was A-OK. But anybody even mildly exposing the hypocrisy for what it is now gets branded an unperson.
People keep saying this, but every clip I've seen of Kirk seemed totally reasonable - conservative, Christian, but thoughtful and moderate and a million miles from fascism. I don't agree with his world view at all, but I see nothing frightening about it. What am I missing?
So you're saying somebody should be given the benefit of doubt if only two out of ten of his statements in a given speech were outlandishly racist, sexist, homophobic and/or nationalist? That that doesn't say everything about their true character?
I'm sure you could have a pleasant time listening to ARE Adolf and any member of his coterie when they weren't on about Ze Jews, Lebensraum, or the Final Victory. You could probably banter with Himmler about raising chickens over a cup of coffee. Oh well, who cares if they were responsible for one of the darkest periods of all of European and world history. Chickens and coffee!
As mentioned earlier on, the majority of his debate rhetoric was pure motte and bailey. Arguing a more moderate version of what he really believes, until he has secured the ground, and then advancing from there with the assumption the more extreme version has been tacitly accepted.
He would do it a lot on the abortion issue, where he'd corner people with "do you think birth control should be used as contraception?" to which any reasonable people would say "of course not, that's just reckless", and he'd go "Well that's really all we believe! See we actually agree more than disagree!" which just self evidently isn't true, because he'd also make it illegal for rape and medical complications if he actually had his way.
It's not his positions I hate, if anything it's exactly that dishonesty, that bad faith fucking sophistry where you argue around somebody with technicalities and word games, instead of actually on the issue itself. I loathe it. When the identity politics lib-left crowd do it, people usually see through it, because they are too blunt and convinced of their own moral superiority; the only difference is Kirk was a lot more clever in his deployment of it.
>>102963 I posted the video further up of his, which I said at the time was entirely reasonable. Since then, they played some clips of him on the news that were much less reasonable. Someone said, "So are you anti-evangelist christian korean youtuber?" and his reply was, "No, I'm just pro-reality." That struck me as needlessly petty, like he wanted a soundbite to trigger the libs so he just said some dumb bollocks that he hadn't thought through at all. Again, there are many right-wing grifters who are bigger bellends than him, but once you have decided his reasonable-seeming style is just an act (because actual reasonable people don't make the comments he occasionally made), I'm happy to assume the worst about him.
What needs to be understood by many more people is that few extremists are extremist all the time, or about every simgle thing they say. Most of them know full well that they have to use a more restrained tone when the situation requires it. All of which still doesn't mean they aren't intolerant, minority abusing cunts who will start every bit the Fourth Reich if you let them.
Problem is, most Americans haven't realised that fascism isn't coming. They're already up to their shins in it. And there remains precious little time to reverse the flow before they become fully submerged by it.
>Donald Trump’s administration is on Monday expected to tie pregnant women’s use of the popular medicine Tylenol – known as paracetamol elsewhere in the world – to a risk of autism, contrary to medical guidelines, the Washington Post has reported.
>Trump officials are also expected to announce an effort to explore how the drug leucovorin could purportedly and potentially treat autism, according to the Post report published Sunday, which cited four sources with knowledge of the plans who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the announcement had not been made.
>Trump teased the announcement during the memorial for conservative activist Charlie Kirk on Sunday, telling the crowd “I think we found an answer to autism.” On Saturday, the president said the planned announcement would be “one of the most important things that we will do.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/21/trump-officials-tylenol-autism
The internet is going to get proper shit if any of this works.
I've also been watching some Charlie Kirk clips. As such I wanted to say that he was a moron, a gossip, a bigot and he dressed like absolute shit. It's funny he got slotted and that his moronic influencer wife had to see it happen, and I don't feel bad saying that because she appears fundementally incapable of genuine human emotion. Fuck all of these people, glass America now!
>>103010 It's really quite remarkable to behold the depth of the loathing American fundies have for women. That time you felt ill and took some paracetamol while you were preggers? Yeah, that's why your child has a neurological condition, and now we're going to "treat" that with some poison RFK Jr. found on rudgwicksteamshow.co.uk.
I think loathing is the wrong word, and misunderstanding what it really is, is why fisherpeople and the assorted ragtag liberalists that pass for "the left" in America have proved powerless to make a dent in it.
What it is religious traditionalist dogma. They might not be making their women wear veils or locking them in cupboards like Sharia muzzies, but it stems from the exact same place. You can call it misogyny but they do not see themselves as misogynists at all. These people love and care about their women, it does not come from a place of hatred. They see themselves as having the obligation, the duty commanded by God, to protect women. That's the opposite of hate, from their perspective.
We talk a lot these days about the crisis of masculinity but what of femininity? Years of fishery, telling us women are strong and capable and equal to men, I think it's arguable women have failed to live up to that, and that's a big part of what gives these guys the room to say "look, equality is a failed experiment, we need to retvrn to trvdition". If the left wants to defeat these nutjobs it has to offer a positive alternative, it needs strong, defined principles to stand on, but liberalism is almost by definition an absence of those things.
>>103012 What are you yammering on about? It's actually mental the lengths you've gone to pretend men like Kirk, Trump and co. aren't sexists. Or if you aren't saying that, I refer you back to my initial question.
>>103016 "Your lot"? You do realise all this nutty Christian bollocks is tremendously unpopular in the UK? More than half the country are totally irreligious.
Women have also voted ten points or more against Trump in all three of his elections. Which, if we consider the extreme levels of religiousity in America, doesn't suggest a "crisis of femininity".
I don't think anybody here was talking about the UK, what has that got to do with it? I think you are just looking for a cunt off rather than actually talking about any of this.
>>103017 If anything, the real "crisis of femininity" is that there aren't enough of them to outvote the knuckle-dragging alleged "men" who keep voting for this shit.
