Crazy American Politics

[manc_don]

Out of interest, because I’ve had a mental week with work and not paid any attention to the news this week: 

1) who the fuck is this cunt Charlie kirk?

2) Why should I or anyone care?

3) as far as I can see, he loved guns, said people are sacrificial and got shot by one, poetic no? 
 

These are genuine questions, I know very little about this person.

[OrlandoDon]

2 hours ago, manc_don said:

Out of interest, because I’ve had a mental week with work and not paid any attention to the news this week: 

1) who the fuck is this cunt Charlie kirk?

2) Why should I or anyone care?

3) as far as I can see, he loved guns, said people are sacrificial and got shot by one, poetic no? 
 

These are genuine questions, I know very little about this person.

The republican party’s Ben doak. Hugely popular, 31 yr old. Many felt a future president. Family man, Christian, founded turning point USA about 12 years ago. Spent a ton of time on college campuses promoting free speech and openly encouraged debate between differing viewpoints. He felt college campuses were very left leaning so was committed to help dialog between differing viewpoints and parties. There’s a ton of stuff about him online but, as is the case with politics today, depending who you read you’ll get very differing viewpoints.

[tlg1903]

I'd never heard of him until 3 weeks ago when south park took the piss out him.  Fair play to him, he saw the funny side and didn't spit the dummy.  The past few days I've seen plenty of quotes and videos of him.  Most of his opinions I likely disagree with but I admire his attitude of trying to get people talking even if they don't agree.  The reactions from so many have been utterly rancid though.  I don't understand how anyone can cheer a 31 yo getting gunned down in front of his wife and kids just because they disagreed with him politically. Defo fear for America right now, one of my American pals was saying yesterday this could be americas Archduke Ferdinand moment and civil war may not be far away.  I don't know how accurate that is but my pal is no fool and not one for hyperbole. 

[OrlandoDon]

1 hour ago, tlg1903 said:

I'd never heard of him until 3 weeks ago when south park took the piss out him.  Fair play to him, he saw the funny side and didn't spit the dummy.  The past few days I've seen plenty of quotes and videos of him.  Most of his opinions I likely disagree with but I admire his attitude of trying to get people talking even if they don't agree.  The reactions from so many have been utterly rancid though.  I don't understand how anyone can cheer a 31 yo getting gunned down in front of his wife and kids just because they disagreed with him politically. Defo fear for America right now, one of my American pals was saying yesterday this could be americas Archduke Ferdinand moment and civil war may not be far away.  I don't know how accurate that is but my pal is no fool and not one for hyperbole. 

Definitely crazy times and my wife and I talk about it quite a lot. As many of you know, we were forced out of California, lost jobs, and kids kicked out of school, all because of California politics. It’s a very divided country with very differing beliefs. However, I don’t know how a civil war would play out, most of the major cities are democratic and outside everyone else is republican, it’s not quite the north south divide.

the conspiracy theory is that Charlie Kirk was such an up and comer that he was becoming too popular and influential. The dems had a stronghold on the young vote until recently when Kirk, Ben Shapiro etc started their college tours and talk about the other side of what students learn in college. The dems are losing the young vote.

immigration is such a key issue at present too and I am sure you hear about the ICE raids. Population decides the number of govt seats each state gets, and that includes illegal aliens. Remove illegals and places like California, democratic, lose seats while places like Florida, republican, could gain. That decides an election.

Little here is done for the good of the people, it’s all left or right and who must win. This is the perfect time for both parties to make a clear effort to tone it down and get along but they won’t do it.

[tlg1903]

15 minutes ago, OrlandoDon said:

Definitely crazy times and my wife and I talk about it quite a lot. As many of you know, we were forced out of California, lost jobs, and kids kicked out of school, all because of California politics. It’s a very divided country with very differing beliefs. However, I don’t know how a civil war would play out, most of the major cities are democratic and outside everyone else is republican, it’s not quite the north south divide.

the conspiracy theory is that Charlie Kirk was such an up and comer that he was becoming too popular and influential. The dems had a stronghold on the young vote until recently when Kirk, Ben Shapiro etc started their college tours and talk about the other side of what students learn in college. The dems are losing the young vote.

immigration is such a key issue at present too and I am sure you hear about the ICE raids. Population decides the number of govt seats each state gets, and that includes illegal aliens. Remove illegals and places like California, democratic, lose seats while places like Florida, republican, could gain. That decides an election.

Little here is done for the good of the people, it’s all left or right and who must win. This is the perfect time for both parties to make a clear effort to tone it down and get along but they won’t do it.

It's always about power isn't it, never the people. 

Re conspiracies I did ponder yesterday that the biggest beneficiary of Kirks murder is actually Trump.  Why?  Well, we ain't heard Jeffrey Epstien mentioned much since it happened.......... 

[OrlandoDon]

34 minutes ago, tlg1903 said:

It's always about power isn't it, never the people. 

Re conspiracies I did ponder yesterday that the biggest beneficiary of Kirks murder is actually Trump.  Why?  Well, we ain't heard Jeffrey Epstien mentioned much since it happened.......... 

Ha, Epstein isn’t going away. Although, I said this before, there’s too many big and powerful people who have been to the island for significant and overly revealing info to come out.

trump and Kirk we’re good friends and from what I’ve heard trump was on the phone with his wife for significant time on Wednesday when this all went down. I don’t see him creating this mess and he seems quite affected by it.

[RicoS321]

3 hours ago, tlg1903 said:

The reactions from so many have been utterly rancid though.  I don't understand how anyone can cheer a 31 yo getting gunned down in front of his wife and kids just because they disagreed with him politically.

I can understand it. If I had known who the lad was, I'm sure I'd make jokes and have a dark sense of humour about it. There is certainly a large element of schadenfreude about a Christian who claimed that the right to have a gun was a God given one, was then indirectly a victim of that attitude. It made me smirk when I read about it. Although I guess that that is a long way away from cheering. I saw a couple of clips of his "debates", where he came across as an insincere nasty (troll) shite, lacking in empathy and love, so I can see why some might have cheered (of course, those would have been curated for sharing to show him in a bad light). Putting it down to "disagreeing with him politically", seems a bit simple. I might disagree with Nicola Sturgeon or Ruth Davidson politically, but wouldn't cheer their deaths. A sneering populist prick like Farage, I might, not because of political disagreement, but because of his insincerity and deliberate rabble rousing. I don't doubt that there was another side to this character that I'm not witness to, of course, so I'm only speaking hypothetically as far as this lad is concerned. The method of his death, too, is of little concern to most because of the disconnect of not being personally involved or intimate with the situation. I think empathy is quite difficult to maintain across internets and oceans, or states. I think there is a definite tit-for-tat element when it comes to empathy these days - you didn't show empathy for thousands of dead Palestinians, why should we show empathy for this guy - but there's probably also a ceiling to how much empathy people can hold onto too. I have little zero empathy or otherwise for the lad, his death just doesn't register - much like any other non-entity celebrity. An equivalent would be princess Diana - obviously a tragic death, but I don't feel that I need to muster feelings about it. I think it's healthy to be immune to such incidents. It has made me feel good about not being on social media though, and glad not to have ever heard of the lad. I'm obviously doing something right.

[OrlandoDon]

3 hours ago, RicoS321 said:

I can understand it. If I had known who the lad was, I'm sure I'd make jokes and have a dark sense of humour about it. There is certainly a large element of schadenfreude about a Christian who claimed that the right to have a gun was a God given one, was then indirectly a victim of that attitude. It made me smirk when I read about it. Although I guess that that is a long way away from cheering. I saw a couple of clips of his "debates", where he came across as an insincere nasty (troll) shite, lacking in empathy and love, so I can see why some might have cheered (of course, those would have been curated for sharing to show him in a bad light). Putting it down to "disagreeing with him politically", seems a bit simple. I might disagree with Nicola Sturgeon or Ruth Davidson politically, but wouldn't cheer their deaths. A sneering populist prick like Farage, I might, not because of political disagreement, but because of his insincerity and deliberate rabble rousing. I don't doubt that there was another side to this character that I'm not witness to, of course, so I'm only speaking hypothetically as far as this lad is concerned. The method of his death, too, is of little concern to most because of the disconnect of not being personally involved or intimate with the situation. I think empathy is quite difficult to maintain across internets and oceans, or states. I think there is a definite tit-for-tat element when it comes to empathy these days - you didn't show empathy for thousands of dead Palestinians, why should we show empathy for this guy - but there's probably also a ceiling to how much empathy people can hold onto too. I have little zero empathy or otherwise for the lad, his death just doesn't register - much like any other non-entity celebrity. An equivalent would be princess Diana - obviously a tragic death, but I don't feel that I need to muster feelings about it. I think it's healthy to be immune to such incidents. It has made me feel good about not being on social media though, and glad not to have ever heard of the lad. I'm obviously doing something right.

The world would be a better place if we all avoided social media!

[RicoS321]

2 hours ago, OrlandoDon said:

The world would be a better place if we all avoided social media!

Aye, obviously not including football forums of course. 

[tlg1903]

6 hours ago, RicoS321 said:

I can understand it. If I had known who the lad was, I'm sure I'd make jokes and have a dark sense of humour about it. There is certainly a large element of schadenfreude about a Christian who claimed that the right to have a gun was a God given one, was then indirectly a victim of that attitude. It made me smirk when I read about it. Although I guess that that is a long way away from cheering. I saw a couple of clips of his "debates", where he came across as an insincere nasty (troll) shite, lacking in empathy and love, so I can see why some might have cheered (of course, those would have been curated for sharing to show him in a bad light). Putting it down to "disagreeing with him politically", seems a bit simple. I might disagree with Nicola Sturgeon or Ruth Davidson politically, but wouldn't cheer their deaths. A sneering populist prick like Farage, I might, not because of political disagreement, but because of his insincerity and deliberate rabble rousing. I don't doubt that there was another side to this character that I'm not witness to, of course, so I'm only speaking hypothetically as far as this lad is concerned. The method of his death, too, is of little concern to most because of the disconnect of not being personally involved or intimate with the situation. I think empathy is quite difficult to maintain across internets and oceans, or states. I think there is a definite tit-for-tat element when it comes to empathy these days - you didn't show empathy for thousands of dead Palestinians, why should we show empathy for this guy - but there's probably also a ceiling to how much empathy people can hold onto too. I have little zero empathy or otherwise for the lad, his death just doesn't register - much like any other non-entity celebrity. An equivalent would be princess Diana - obviously a tragic death, but I don't feel that I need to muster feelings about it. I think it's healthy to be immune to such incidents. It has made me feel good about not being on social media though, and glad not to have ever heard of the lad. I'm obviously doing something right.

Why schadenfruede?  I always understood it to be the taking pleasure in anothers suffering and, well, he's dead so he's not suffering.  There's certainly a ruthless symmetery to him dying this way though.  

I've seen bits here and there of what Kirk had to say for himself and I can understand why he pissed a lot of people off.   Equally though I've seen a few things where he's engaging very respectfully and compassionately with black single mums and trans people who some will tell you he hated.  Thing is it's all clips and very often important context can be missed and often deliberately too unft.   One thing that does seem clear is his main schtick was to try and get more conversation across the political divide which I can respect.  

It's not so much the method of death but the fact it was in front of his wife and kids that makes the reactions so distateful to me, I've read his wee girl ran to him for comfort scared by the shot though I can't say that for certain.   It's a horrible mental image regardless, and, truthfully, one I've struggled to shake..... you may be onto something with staying off social media.   

[Slim]

10 hours ago, tlg1903 said:

  One thing that does seem clear is his main schtick was to try and get more conversation across the political divide which I can respect.    

I would say that’s a very romanticised view of what he did. He never debated in good faith, there was never an openness to consider differing viewpoints, only pushing his own agenda (rooted in disinformation), mostly on people who were not equipped to “debate” with him.

Plus the whole “debate me” schtick seems to be just the window dressing on what his Turning Point organisation was actually doing. Lots of prominent people in academia and journalism coming out saying they were targeted with harassment campaigns designed to silence them.

Not saying that excuses what happened to him but he wasn’t just some politically-curious young man with a passion for debate. He was an activist for an agenda that will result in human death and suffering whether it be removal of healthcare, removal of access to safe abortion, consequences of false demonisation of vaccines, rhetoric on acceptability of gun deaths, and the general approach to diversity and immigration that will have lasting effects on millions of hard-working families.

[RicoS321]

1 hour ago, Slim said:

millions of hard-working families.

You were doing so well until you transformed into Dave Cameron 

[OrlandoDon]

3 hours ago, Slim said:

I would say that’s a very romanticised view of what he did. He never debated in good faith, there was never an openness to consider differing viewpoints, only pushing his own agenda (rooted in disinformation), mostly on people who were not equipped to “debate” with him.

Plus the whole “debate me” schtick seems to be just the window dressing on what his Turning Point organisation was actually doing. Lots of prominent people in academia and journalism coming out saying they were targeted with harassment campaigns designed to silence them.

Not saying that excuses what happened to him but he wasn’t just some politically-curious young man with a passion for debate. He was an activist for an agenda that will result in human death and suffering whether it be removal of healthcare, removal of access to safe abortion, consequences of false demonisation of vaccines, rhetoric on acceptability of gun deaths, and the general approach to diversity and immigration that will have lasting effects on millions of hard-working families.

I agree with you it’s been romanticized a little as he could come across as arrogant or condescending, but he was very confident and knowledgeable, and a very good guy. You can find a ton of stuff out there positive about him, depending on the clips you see will certainly influence your opinion of him.
It was called debate because he challenged anyone to come and talk to him to discuss any topics or view points. Quite often those who came to talk to him knew very little of what they were talking about, just what they had been told to believe. He tried to help them open their minds with another viewpoint, or he asked them to really think about what they were saying and believing, and why.
he went to college campuses because here, and maybe in other countries, educational institutions are very left leaning and more indoctrinating than educating at present. That’s what he fought against. He gave college kids information, an education, and viewpoints they were not being given from educational institutions. He’d argue the college kids were the activists who were being fed an agenda rather than a broad and impartial education.

He’d also debate those who called him spreading misinformation as he felt it was those very people that were quite often spreading misinformation. He would elaborate a lot as to why he believed the way he did, rather than many of the college kids who believed what they were being told to believe. He challenged them to educate themselves and really think.

you highlighted vaccines and he’d talk about how influential big pharma is in this country, the politicians they fund, institutions like the CDC which they fund and have/had board members, and the agenda of people and committees/organizations making decisions that were for personal and financial gain over the greater good.
in USA our children are required to take so many more vaccines than Britain for example, and the health of the country is tanking while Parma gets very rich. Something is off and he’d expose that. He discussed the covid vaccine as a perfect situation where it was pushed, mandated in places, because people benefitted financially, not because it made a significant positive difference. People got very rich. This has been debated a lot in congress of late and the effects of the vaccine, tough for some people to hear or accept.

he'd discuss illegal immigration. We have laws here that were not being inforced. Why have laws? This country is so much in debt and illegal Immigration is over extending resources such as housing, healthcare, education etc., as well as the increase in crime. he pushed an agenda of American/citizens first, rather than a party who appeared to prioritize illegals over ‘hard working’ legal citizens. A lot of people support that. 
hed discuss illegal immigration and the effect on population, and how voting and governmental seats are decided. I referenced this earlier this week. He discussed that the left are targeting immigration as a way of realigning districts and the allocation of seats. An ongoing issue here that both parties have exploited, and continue to exploit. He’d expose that and show how illegal immigration can buy votes, showing those who may not have been aware. A lot of people don’t understand how that works in America and the effect of an influx of people can have on the voting community.

hed discuss crime. If someone committed a crime they were taken away from their family. If they are illegal and commit crimes they get deported. That may take someone from their family too but crimes are crimes and he’d talk about enforcing laws for the greater good of a country.

you and I clearly have different beliefs but Kirk created a venue for debate and discussion, something that doesn’t happen a lot at the moment. No clue where you live but I’ve seen Kirk a lot and I certainly don’t see him as the guy you present. he gave the other side and sometimes people didn’t like how he did that but, in today’s society, people quite often can’t handle another viewpoint regardless of how it’s presented. He pushed discussion between differing viewpoints, presented an argument that quite often isn’t popular or gets shot down as misinformation because it doesn’t fit the narrative, and was killed for that.

 

[RicoS321]

6 minutes ago, OrlandoDon said:

gets shot down

Too soon

[Slim]

Yeah I’m out.

[OrlandoDon]

On 12/09/2025 at 06:00, tlg1903 said:

I'd never heard of him until 3 weeks ago when south park took the piss out him.  Fair play to him, he saw the funny side and didn't spit the dummy.  The past few days I've seen plenty of quotes and videos of him.  Most of his opinions I likely disagree with but I admire his attitude of trying to get people talking even if they don't agree.  The reactions from so many have been utterly rancid though.  I don't understand how anyone can cheer a 31 yo getting gunned down in front of his wife and kids just because they disagreed with him politically. Defo fear for America right now, one of my American pals was saying yesterday this could be americas Archduke Ferdinand moment and civil war may not be far away.  I don't know how accurate that is but my pal is no fool and not one for hyperbole. 

It’s been an interesting week. So far no reaction. No riots, looting, or violence we have seen in recent times when there has been a high profile shooting. Lots of talk about faith, family, love, and how we can better get along. Although it has been said that the left is the side that riots, and it’s the right this time. That could certainly change but a very different reaction to a potential ‘archduke’ moment for now.

[Nellie The Don]

49 minutes ago, OrlandoDon said:

He pushed discussion between differing viewpoints, presented an argument that quite often isn’t popular or gets shot down as misinformation because it doesn’t fit the narrative, and was killed for that.

 

You don't know yet why he was killed. Neither do I.

Based on the information that is available about the suspect, though, I would be very surprised if he turns out to be left wing or even leaning. 

It seems much more likely to be a thinly veiled accelerationist act or a spat within the far far right. 

 

[tlg1903]

1 hour ago, OrlandoDon said:

It’s been an interesting week. So far no reaction. No riots, looting, or violence we have seen in recent times when there has been a high profile shooting. Lots of talk about faith, family, love, and how we can better get along. Although it has been said that the left is the side that riots, and it’s the right this time. That could certainly change but a very different reaction to a potential ‘archduke’ moment for now.

Fingers crossed that continues 

[OrlandoDon]

1 hour ago, Nellie The Don said:

You don't know yet why he was killed. Neither do I.

Based on the information that is available about the suspect, though, I would be very surprised if he turns out to be left wing or even leaning. 

It seems much more likely to be a thinly veiled accelerationist act or a spat within the far far right. 

 

I believe we know a little so far, he had posted/commented that he had issues with Kirk and his beliefs. Don’t think he’s considered far left or even a democrat though, just someone who had issues with what Kirk was saying and doing.

[RicoS321]

2 hours ago, OrlandoDon said:

I believe we know a little so far, he had posted/commented that he had issues with Kirk and his beliefs. Don’t think he’s considered far left or even a democrat though, just someone who had issues with what Kirk was saying and doing.

We do know that your President and many republican representatives did immediately blame the "far left" (basically nonexistent in the US), in an attempt to make political capital, without waiting for any confirmation. 

Anyway, rather disturbingly, the childish US culture war has been successfully exported worldwide, and the pub I was in today, in fucking Aberdeen, was showing English grifter news channel GB News, with live coverage of a march organised by assistant chief grifter Tommy Robinson (funded by US backers). Hilariously pathetic. 

[OrlandoDon]

14 minutes ago, RicoS321 said:

We do know that your President and many republican representatives did immediately blame the "far left" (basically nonexistent in the US), in an attempt to make political capital, without waiting for any confirmation. 

Anyway, rather disturbingly, the childish US culture war has been successfully exported worldwide, and the pub I was in today, in fucking Aberdeen, was showing English grifter news channel GB News, with live coverage of a march organised by assistant chief grifter Tommy Robinson (funded by US backers). Hilariously pathetic. 

I do believe the left is worse than the right, both in speech and in acts of violence, and don’t necessarily disagree with the blame. As you know, I lean right and support much of what the right is saying. But the one person who I truly believe can make a difference right now is trump. The left are a mess with poor leadership, if trump made a conscious effort to speak about turning the temperature down, including stopping the name calling, hitler, facist etc, that would help. However, he was the initial name caller, although much being stupid and childish names, for which he most likely won’t stop. It’s hard for him as Kirk was a close friend of his, but he has to step above it all and I don’t think he’s capable.

if trump was to focus on policy that is more agreeable and find easy wins where he can work with the left, showing the willingness to unite and collaborate, I think we’d see a difference. But he won’t. You also clearly see this here, the left won’t support trump with anything, regardless of topic. If trump tried to defuse a bomb the left would attack him for being insensitive to the bombs rights and invading its space. The left will argue against trump simply for it being trump.
much like Ukraine and Russia, Israel, etc, it requires concessions, sacrifice in stance for the greater good etc, and I don’t think trump is a compromising guy. I also don’t think the left would compromise and work with him regardless of topic.

[Kowalski]

It’s just a shame that Trump and his happy clappers won’t show this much sympathy when a bunch of kids are slaughtered at school. 

[Nellie The Don]

15 hours ago, OrlandoDon said:

I do believe the left is worse than the right, both in speech and in acts of violence, and don’t necessarily disagree with the blame.

Nah. Fuck that.

This all came about a week after Trump's deputy chief of staff said that the entire democratic party is 'not a political party, but a domestic extremist organisation'. 

Less than 3 months ago the democratic speaker of the Minnesota state legislature was assassinated by a right wing extremist, and your entire party basically just shrugged and ignored it.

The guy that attacked Nancy Pelosi's husband with a hammer was lionised as a patriot by *checks notes* Charlie Kirk.

Trump pardoned everyone convicted of rioting and attacking the capitol building because they didn't like the result of the 2020 election. 

We've had him painting a target on Hilary Clinton's back by claiming that 'the 2nd ammendment people could stop her', and then Kamala Harris' by removing her secret service protection and then using the police union to prevent LAPD from protecting her.

Trump, and just about every other Maga talking head spent the last few days attempting to weaponise Charlie Kirk's death against the 'extremist left', to the point of invoking 'civil war', only for it to turn out that the shooter was nothing of the kind.

This upsurge in political violence is a problem from and of the right, and your Maga pals need to fucking own it or grace us all with a long overdue great big silence.

 

[OrlandoDon]

1 hour ago, Nellie The Don said:

Nah. Fuck that.

This all came about a week after Trump's deputy chief of staff said that the entire democratic party is 'not a political party, but a domestic extremist organisation'. 

Less than 3 months ago the democratic speaker of the Minnesota state legislature was assassinated by a right wing extremist, and your entire party basically just shrugged and ignored it.

The guy that attacked Nancy Pelosi's husband with a hammer was lionised as a patriot by *checks notes* Charlie Kirk.

Trump pardoned everyone convicted of rioting and attacking the capitol building because they didn't like the result of the 2020 election. 

We've had him painting a target on Hilary Clinton's back by claiming that 'the 2nd ammendment people could stop her', and then Kamala Harris' by removing her secret service protection and then using the police union to prevent LAPD from protecting her.

Trump, and just about every other Maga talking head spent the last few days attempting to weaponise Charlie Kirk's death against the 'extremist left', to the point of invoking 'civil war', only for it to turn out that the shooter was nothing of the kind.

This upsurge in political violence is a problem from and of the right, and your Maga pals need to fucking own it or grace us all with a long overdue great big silence.

 

I said the left was worse than the right and I believe that. I didn’t say the right was blameless or innocent. Both are at fault.

[RicoS321]

32 minutes ago, OrlandoDon said:

I said the left was worse than the right and I believe that. I didn’t say the right was blameless or innocent. Both are at fault.

You'd have to be fairly mental to believe that. There hasn't been a left wing government in the US in at least fifty years, and given that the overwhelming majority of political violence comes from the state, there is zero chance of the left ever surpassing right wing violence.