USA Political Discussion Thread 2025

Crookedmember said:

Milking suckers and gullibles is the only thing these assholes know.

Click to expand...

blackcad said:

@Larry's Torch

Thank you for that post. It was exceptionally well-written and is the most insightful comment in this entire thread. Your explanation of cognitive empathy and the need to understand that the other person is just as convinced they are right is the absolute foundation for any productive dialogue. It’s a principle I wish more of us, on all sides, would take to heart.

You’ve perfectly articulated the challenge we face. For an honest discussion to even begin, we have to start from a shared set of facts, not smears. The central tragedy here, which should concern everyone regardless of their politics, is the replacement of words with bullets. It's the ultimate rejection of democracy.

A perfect example of the problem is the fake quote that @Crookedmember posted. He claimed Charlie said, "black women do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously." This is a complete fabrication, and it's important to correct the record.

Here is what Charlie actually said, and the context: He was criticizing affirmative action. He was specifically referencing a clip of Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee admitting she benefited from it, and he then named Joy Reid, Michelle Obama, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—all individuals who have publicly stated they were beneficiaries of affirmative action policies. His argument was that by accepting these policies, they were, in his words, making a "confession" they couldn't have achieved their positions on merit alone.

He never said "Black women" as a group. He named specific, powerful individuals in the context of a specific policy debate. You can disagree fiercely with his argument about affirmative action, but you cannot honestly twist it into the racist smear being presented here. Using a fake, generalized quote to paint him as a racist is a textbook example of the disinformation that fuels the hate we're seeing. It also cruelly ignores that Candace Owens, a Black woman he deeply respected and worked with, is heartbroken by his murder.

I defended Charlie, and I will continue to defend his memory, because he embodied the alternative to the violence that took his life. He chose the stage, not the shadows. He used a microphone, not a rifle. He stood and debated his opponents face-to-face.

The fundamental question Larry’s post leaves us with is this: can we find common ground in universally condemning the murder of someone for their speech? And can we commit to debating each other with actual facts, instead of justifying hatred with lies? If we can't, then the hope for "constructive dialogue and mutual understanding" is already lost.

Click to expand...

VanCityNewb said:

Kirk's entire approach relied on hatred based lies, peddled to teenage college students. He was literally in the middle of having a college student call out his dumb lies, in the last seconds of his life.

Click to expand...

wannabe69 said:

Calling others gullible while posting AI-generated videos in this thread, thinking they're real, is quite rich.

Click to expand...

Crookedmember said:

The videos aren't AI. Unfortunately, some people buy whatever right-wing talking points that are thrown at them.

Like I said, suckers and gullibles.

Click to expand...

Cock Throppled said:

So, using the pejorative "...teenage (sic) college students..." you're implying they are too dumb to argue against Kirk. Too dumb to form cogent thoughts. Too dumb to debate. But obviously dumb enough to be mainly left wing, Democrat suporters.

And where was Kirk anything other than respectful and polite to those he debated? Where was the hatred, and lies you so easily profer, and why was it necessary to kill him, rather that hear what he had to say? Were those same students so easily swayed by one man's opinions they must never be allowed to hear them?

How many conservative speakers were not even allowed to speak on campuses? That seems pretty fascistic. There are a few members on this forum who display the same trait - they think any opinion but their own must never be expressed. And the worst part - because they get the thumbs up from the like-minded, they have no shame in showing how intolerant, hateful, exclusive and bigotted they are. There are none so dangerous as those whose righteousness in unequivocal in their own minds.

Click to expand...

blackcad said:

And for all those still trying to say Charlie"s killer was radical right, I asked the most liberal AI out there, Gemini to give me an objective answer from currently available facts, not opinions:



Conversation with Gemini


With the current information publicly available as facts, not opinions, can you tell me objectively, on a balance of probabilities was the killer of Charlie Kirk of left or right wing ideology?





Show thinking

Based on the publicly available information, on a balance of probabilities, the killer of Charlie Kirk, Tyler James Robinson, appears to have held left-wing ideological beliefs. This assessment is based on statements from authorities and evidence recovered during the investigation.

Evidence Pointing to Left-Leaning Ideology

Following the fatal shooting of the right-wing activist on September 10, 2025, several key pieces of information have emerged that suggest the suspect's motivations were rooted in a leftist or anti-fascist ideology.
Statements from Officials: Utah Governor Spencer Cox has publicly stated that interviews with individuals close to Tyler James Robinson indicate he held a "leftist ideology." The governor also mentioned that Robinson had become "more political" in recent years and had expressed a strong dislike for Charlie Kirk's views, telling a friend that he believed Kirk was "full of hate and spreading hate."
Inscriptions on Ammunition: Investigators discovered unfired bullet casings at the scene with politically charged messages engraved on them. These included the phrase "Hey fascist! Catch!" and a reference to the song "Bella Ciao," which has historical ties to the anti-fascist resistance in Italy.

Suspect's Political Affiliation and Background

While the evidence points towards a left-leaning motive, it is important to note that Tyler James Robinson was officially registered as an unaffiliated voter. His parents are registered Republicans. This suggests a personal political evolution that may not be reflected in formal party affiliation.
The investigation into the full motive is ongoing, and authorities are continuing to piece together the events and radicalization that led to the shooting. The presence of internet meme-related engravings on other bullet casings also suggests a complex motivational picture that may include elements of online subcultures alongside political ideology.
It is crucial to rely on confirmed facts from the official investigation as more details become available.

Click to expand...

Cock Throppled said:

So, using the pejorative "...teenage (sic) college students..." you're implying they are too dumb to argue against Kirk. Too dumb to form cogent thoughts. Too dumb to debate. But obviously dumb enough to be mainly left wing, Democrat suporters.

And where was Kirk anything other than respectful and polite to those he debated? Where was the hatred, and lies you so easily profer, and why was it necessary to kill him, rather that hear what he had to say? Were those same students so easily swayed by one man's opinions they must never be allowed to hear them?

How many conservative speakers were not even allowed to speak on campuses? That seems pretty fascistic. There are a few members on this forum who display the same trait - they think any opinion but their own must never be expressed. And the worst part - because they get the thumbs up from the like-minded, they have no shame in showing how intolerant, hateful, exclusive and bigotted they are. There are none so dangerous as those whose righteousness in unequivocal in their own minds.

Click to expand...

blackcad said:

@Larry's Torch

Thank you for that post. It was exceptionally well-written and is the most insightful comment in this entire thread. Your explanation of cognitive empathy and the need to understand that the other person is just as convinced they are right is the absolute foundation for any productive dialogue. It’s a principle I wish more of us, on all sides, would take to heart.

You’ve perfectly articulated the challenge we face. For an honest discussion to even begin, we have to start from a shared set of facts, not smears. The central tragedy here, which should concern everyone regardless of their politics, is the replacement of words with bullets. It's the ultimate rejection of democracy.

A perfect example of the problem is the fake quote that @Crookedmember posted. He claimed Charlie said, "black women do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously." This is a complete fabrication, and it's important to correct the record.

Here is what Charlie actually said, and the context: He was criticizing affirmative action. He was specifically referencing a clip of Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee admitting she benefited from it, and he then named Joy Reid, Michelle Obama, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—all individuals who have publicly stated they were beneficiaries of affirmative action policies. His argument was that by accepting these policies, they were, in his words, making a "confession" they couldn't have achieved their positions on merit alone.

He never said "Black women" as a group. He named specific, powerful individuals in the context of a specific policy debate. You can disagree fiercely with his argument about affirmative action, but you cannot honestly twist it into the racist smear being presented here. Using a fake, generalized quote to paint him as a racist is a textbook example of the disinformation that fuels the hate we're seeing. It also cruelly ignores that Candace Owens, a Black woman he deeply respected and worked with, is heartbroken by his murder.

I defended Charlie, and I will continue to defend his memory, because he embodied the alternative to the violence that took his life. He chose the stage, not the shadows. He used a microphone, not a rifle. He stood and debated his opponents face-to-face.

The fundamental question Larry’s post leaves us with is this: can we find common ground in universally condemning the murder of someone for their speech? And can we commit to debating each other with actual facts, instead of justifying hatred with lies? If we can't, then the hope for "constructive dialogue and mutual understanding" is already lost.

Click to expand...

SmikeSmith said:

AI is just a statistical equation. It doesn’t know anything. It puts terms together based on the frequency of co-occurrence and cannot be trusted for material on which it has not been trained. If you’re basing your opinion on AI as “proof” of anything, it’s not going to work.

Click to expand...

blackcad said:

Oh really? AI removes opinions from the equation. I even asked it as such and posted the question so all could see what the input was. There was no leaning or bias in the question. I even used the more "left" of the mainstream AI (Google Gemini). Unfortunately for you, an emotional and objective computer program, which cares not about offending anyone, disagrees with your side's logic.

Click to expand...

sexpanther69 said:

Charlie on race :

"If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified."

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024

"If you’re a WNBA, pot-smoking, Black lesbian, do you get treated better than a United States marine?"

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 8 December 2022

"Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more."

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 19 May 2023

"If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?"

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 3 January 2024

"If we would have said that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative action picks, we would have been called racists. Now they’re coming out and they’re saying it for us … You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously."


Ya sure doesnt sound like he doesn't have a problem with black people

Would he have the balls to call white Karen's in customer service" moronic"

And read the last line of the last quote....."you had to steal a white person slot to be taken seriously"

Does this not imply he's of the thinking only white people are deserving of their said roles

But sure keep spewing he was a good Christian man... I wonder if Jesus would ever speak of another person like this

Click to expand...

• The "Black pilot" and "moronic Black woman" quotes: Both of these are not attacks on Black people; they are blunt, provocative critiques of DEI and Affirmative Action policies. His argument was that when you prioritize quotas over merit, it tragically forces people to question the qualifications of talented minorities, whether they are pilots in a cockpit or staff in an office. He's arguing the policy itself is what casts that shadow of doubt. You can hate his argument, but it’s a critique of a system, not a race.
• The "WNBA, pot-smoking, Black lesbian" quote: This was said during the debate over swapping Brittney Griner for Viktor Bout, the notorious arms dealer known as the "Merchant of Death." He was using a list of inflammatory descriptors to contrast the media and government's focus on a celebrity athlete with their perceived indifference to freeing other Americans like Marine veteran Paul Whelan. It was a critique of foreign policy priorities, not a random attack.
• The final quote about "stealing a white person's slot": As has already been established, he was naming specific, powerful individuals (Joy Reid, KBJ, etc.) who benefited from affirmative action. He wasn't talking about "Black people" as a monolith.

blackcad said:

I see you’ve chosen to ignore the video I posted earlier which debunks the weaponized, out-of-context quotes you’re using. Since you won’t watch it, let’s go through the context of your list right here.

• The "Black pilot" and "moronic Black woman" quotes: Both of these are not attacks on Black people; they are blunt, provocative critiques of DEI and Affirmative Action policies. His argument was that when you prioritize quotas over merit, it tragically forces people to question the qualifications of talented minorities, whether they are pilots in a cockpit or staff in an office. He's arguing the policy itself is what casts that shadow of doubt. You can hate his argument, but it’s a critique of a system, not a race.
• The "WNBA, pot-smoking, Black lesbian" quote: This was said during the debate over swapping Brittney Griner for Viktor Bout, the notorious arms dealer known as the "Merchant of Death." He was using a list of inflammatory descriptors to contrast the media and government's focus on a celebrity athlete with their perceived indifference to freeing other Americans like Marine veteran Paul Whelan. It was a critique of foreign policy priorities, not a random attack.
• The final quote about "stealing a white person's slot": As has already been established, he was naming specific, powerful individuals (Joy Reid, KBJ, etc.) who benefited from affirmative action. He wasn't talking about "Black people" as a monolith.

You’re presenting his controversial critiques of liberal policies as if they are hateful attacks on an entire race of people. That is a deliberate and dishonest smear.

But let’s set that aside for a moment. Even if you listen to the full context and still conclude that you despise him and everything he said, it brings us back to the fundamental point.

We are having that debate with words. You are using his quotes against him. I am using context to rebut you. This is how a free society works.

His killer chose a different path. He didn't want to argue or debate. He wanted to execute a man for his speech. My defense of Charlie Kirk is not an endorsement of every controversial thing he ever said. It is an unwavering condemnation of the barbaric idea that murder is a legitimate response to words you don't like.

Click to expand...

blackcad said:

I see you’ve chosen to ignore the video I posted earlier which debunks the weaponized, out-of-context quotes you’re using. Since you won’t watch it, let’s go through the context of your list right here.

• The "Black pilot" and "moronic Black woman" quotes: Both of these are not attacks on Black people; they are blunt, provocative critiques of DEI and Affirmative Action policies. His argument was that when you prioritize quotas over merit, it tragically forces people to question the qualifications of talented minorities, whether they are pilots in a cockpit or staff in an office. He's arguing the policy itself is what casts that shadow of doubt. You can hate his argument, but it’s a critique of a system, not a race.
• The "WNBA, pot-smoking, Black lesbian" quote: This was said during the debate over swapping Brittney Griner for Viktor Bout, the notorious arms dealer known as the "Merchant of Death." He was using a list of inflammatory descriptors to contrast the media and government's focus on a celebrity athlete with their perceived indifference to freeing other Americans like Marine veteran Paul Whelan. It was a critique of foreign policy priorities, not a random attack.
• The final quote about "stealing a white person's slot": As has already been established, he was naming specific, powerful individuals (Joy Reid, KBJ, etc.) who benefited from affirmative action. He wasn't talking about "Black people" as a monolith.

You’re presenting his controversial critiques of liberal policies as if they are hateful attacks on an entire race of people. That is a deliberate and dishonest smear.

But let’s set that aside for a moment. Even if you listen to the full context and still conclude that you despise him and everything he said, it brings us back to the fundamental point.

We are having that debate with words. You are using his quotes against him. I am using context to rebut you. This is how a free society works.

His killer chose a different path. He didn't want to argue or debate. He wanted to execute a man for his speech. My defense of Charlie Kirk is not an endorsement of every controversial thing he ever said. It is an unwavering condemnation of the barbaric idea that murder is a legitimate response to words you don't like.

Click to expand...

VanCityNewb said:

Judging against people on the basis of their race, is racism. That's precisely what he did.

Click to expand...

VanCityNewb said:

Judging against people on the basis of their race, is racism. That's precisely what he did.

And again, it's based on nothing but misinformation and lies. There is no such thing as DEI quotas, and it doesn't mean that employers will just start taking any random, unqualified person, simply because they're of one particular race. The entire point is to counteract conscious and subconscious biases against equally qualified minorites, that prevents them from being considered in the first place.

The only "context" you're bringing to the table here, are more lies.

Click to expand...

wannabe69 said:

Ok, if we follow that line of logic, then DEI and affirmative action are racist policies, which many Democrats and left wingers support and push for. So, racism is a problem on both sides.

Click to expand...

VanCityNewb said:

No, it is not. Notice judging *against* a person. Working to counteract racism, is not racism. 🤦‍♂️

Click to expand...

SmikeSmith said:

I guess if you make enough “blunt provocative critiques” against the same group of people often enough, people might start to think you’re not a great person.

And to reiterate, no one here has said that murder is acceptable. As opposed to Charlie Kirk, who praised Kyle Rittenhouse for his murders by saying “You're a hero to millions, it's an honor to be able to have you.” I mean, that’s pretty fucked up.

Click to expand...