politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Why is every politician pretending this dude's entire platform wasn't just vitriolic hate?
Because the moment they say that, the other side stops listening and dismisses them or worse, decide to target them.
Remember, politicians are people that go out in public spaces and speak to people and they themselves are terrified of the same event happening to them.
They want the other side to hear them denounce this unequivocally because otherwise, they become targets.
It doesnt help though. All it does is justify Charlie's actions during his life and serves to sanewash him. The move would have been to not defund public education all those decades ago. Doing this now just legitimizes hate speech
If he wants to engage the right in any meaningful way, he has little choice because Charlie was made into a martyr.
The best practical outcome may be messages like this and recognition the killing was infighting, not a leftist move. Maybe the broader conservative movement figures out you can't stir up violent extremism and expect it to consistently point in the direction you would want.
That’s the problem with assassinating people. It makes the dead a martyr and helps legitimize their message because supporters get to memorialize the dead, but for opponents it becomes politically difficult and socially inappropriate to criticize. It’s why I always think assassination largely backfires and is not a smart political move. To build a political movement in a democracy, you want to accumulate grievances you can use against the other side, not inflict them so the other side can use them against you.
I guarantee you everyone will forget about Kirk dying a couple weeks from now, far from martyrdom. Facts don't mean anything to these brainwashed morons, one of their "grievances" is the "stolen election" for Christ's sake. Personally I'll endure a couple weeks of hypocritical crocodile tears from the right to never hear another racist/transphobic/moronic utterance from that puckered asshole he called a mouth for the rest of my natural life.
Yep. This won't meaningfully raise the temperature, they will keep doing what they always do. However, this might actually improve things in the long run. He routinely targeted kids for indoctrination, without his influence things will improve.
Yeah like when Rittenhouse murdered two people, am I right?
Rittenhouse is an idiot, but that wasn’t an assassination. His victims weren’t well known political voices.
It's so fucking clear he went there when the intent to murder someone.
They canonized him, gave him a speaking tour, turned him into a folk hero.
Did the two Minnesota legislator get turned into heros? Yeah I don't think so either.
You have a downvote but you aren't wrong. Though I do have to say it seems to be largely ineffective using grievances against the current Republican diaspora.
I think that is largely because the democrats are weak and terrible messengers.
You can both denounce Charlie Kirk and everything he stood for and also denounce political violence.
Both can be valid stances.
I'm just frustrated that very very few people including Sanders are remarking on that first part. He spread hate speech and misinformation. He and Trump's rhetoric and actions are what led to this point.
Was so pissed off at Daily Show's coverage last night when Kosta attacked Warren and the guy from msnbc calling a spade a spade.
The thing is everyone that would ever be inclined to believe that of Charlie Kirk already knows. To call him out posthumously doesn't tend to sway people that listened to him, it makes those people double down.
Ironically, this strategy probably makes the most of his death. People get to see the risks his behavior incurred while also seeing a peaceable path to de-escalation.
You can't debate with "Black people are inferior genetically". Thats not a good faith argument. It drags the entire country down. Charlie Kirk was not debating or sharing valid views. Democracies do not survive with the populace is uneducated and fed hateful viewpoints. So, no, I cannot denounce his killing. No more than I can denounce the killing of Mussolini or the suicide of Hitler. He caused death and havoc in the exact same way.
Controlled opposition.
Because they’re in on it.