Elliott

What does that have to do with this conversation, sincerely? The fact democrats are not perfect does not mean Republican corruption is acceptable or comparable.

Ya, I don't believe Republicans will do a gass chamber, but they've already proven they want to jail political opponents and rig elections, that's fascism. And this isn't new, the 2000 election was corrupted by Republican Supreme Court halting votes being re-counted in Florida. Democrats tried to pass a nationwide anti-gerrymandering bill and EVERY republican voted against it.

It wasn't a political assasination, but I consider it an assasination. He wouldn't have been killed if he wasn't famous, even if he said the same things publicly.

Has trump ever given a decent statement or speech?

They'll forget about Kirk in about 6 months.

@Carl-Richard I'm skeptical. Do you think you possibly inhaled trace amounts before you were aware you smelled the weed, that triggered your emotions? Something you're unaware of? To the legal point, should we ban dogs too, since people are allergic to dogs? I'm being Devils advocate, I'm indifferent on the issue. I don't care for the smell, but it doesn't affect me.

@Carl-Richard so, were you joking about getting high off the secondhand smoke? It seems impossible to me unless you're trying very hard. I only ever tried to smoke weed once and I didn't get high, actually smoking it.

Kimmel was fired because of the president, the company says they don't agree with firing him.

What's an example of an "untruth" rather than an explicit lie, in this context?

The president told the company to fire them?

You don't even know what love is.

Who are you to dictate how people should feel or act? Get over yourself. And, do you condemn Kirk for celebrating public execution, because there's zero difference. You're demented. Unless it's something YOU oppose! "but his death shouldn't be celebrated", "be severely punished."

Of course not. Neither does conviction of murder. I would oppose the death sentence for Hitler. Has nothing to do with the way people are though, you say violent things, violent things tend to come your way.

Kirk expressed violent opinions. He didn't say heinous criminals, he supported death sentences for petty criminals and non-criminals. Do you know how many on death row have been exonerated? Guess. Kirk opposed due process for people given the death sentence, he opposed the appeal process "Kill them quick". There is objectively zero difference between a convicted murderer sentenced to death by 12 men, and the 12 people your interviewer interviewed that was okay with Kirk's death.

charlie Kirk said he would enjoy public executions, what's your point? "That will make my day better" kirks words on publicly executing people just like he was. You'd lose it if you read about the French revolution!

In my experience, fact checking does work for non-trolls. It requires a lot of instances though. But, I think this is an exaggerated minority we're dealing with, and that 'fixing' them isn't necessary. I think efforts would be more fruitfull if focused on nurturing the liberal base and letting it grow organically whether it be through politically indifferent people or the youth. I think the root of what you point out is what progressives are already working on; prosperity and inclusion, education and values. It seems to me it's just evolution. I would also add, I don't think 'truthers' are as far from 'liars'(what I would call them rather than post-truth) as it may seem.

https://rumble.com/v5na9cq-your-body-my-choice.html

Israel, Russia, Argentina,.....?

If fingerprints don't come back to Robinson, I will die. lol

Ya, I think it's a great post.

I don't believe this is a new phenomenon("Post-"). Most people up to 40 years ago believed a flying spaghetti monster told men in white robes how everyone shouldn't dress and what music they should listen to, now it's down to about 10% of the population(maga and maga-adjacent)

Post democrats calling for violence, or supporting the communist manifesto.

Essentially. But my point was just that Kirk seemed to be more interested in the commercial aspect, money and fame, Fuentes seems a lot more ideological.

I'll try to find it. He goes on about how it's structurally unsound, inherently, those aren't his words I'm paraphrasing. Most anyone would choose authoritarianism of their own beliefs if there were no drawbacks....