The murder of Charlie Kirk

I don't know who that guy is or why I should believe him, but if he is correct, that is hardly any better.
Is ridiculous to say that Jackson didn't have the brain power for anything, and to assume someone who graduated from Harvard magna cum laude only got in because of AA

Especially when we actually do have a mental midget on the court who was clearly put there for DEI reasons. Kirk couldn't even pass community College.

I doubt that Jackson actually said that she was only admitted because of AA. Thomas actually did say that about himself, in his book.

Public decency norms! Did you hear what was said by Kimmel?

that's an opinion. Carr might not have a case, and that's for courts to adjudicate.

still not a violation of the 1a, just a statute application thing.

do you realize speech is NOT FREE on public broadcasting the same as it is with other media? by law? because the state owns the band and auctions it off with caveats?

I know that since the repeal of the equal time doctrine, TV channels are allowed to broadcast any political opinions they want. In certain cases, they are required to allow things they normally wouldn't. Political speech is handled differently than any other speech.

If a political candidate decides to produce a TV advertisement that shows actual porn, they are required to broadcast it (although possibly only during certain hours).

polticial content is basically unrestricted , correct.

Which is why any threat to pull your license over political content is void, as there is no teeth behind the threat. Which means ABC could have just lolled at Carr.

They complied because they wanted to close the show anyway, and in this way they look as martyrs instead of beancounters.

If you threaten me to "sell my soul to the devil" that's not a crime, do you see why?

The Trump admin can't threaten you by threatening things it can't do.

You are delusional if you think Trump and his administration can't do anything just because it's illegal. They've probably done more illegal things this year than every other (non-Trump) administration combined. And no one has been punished for any of it.

They absolutely could pull licenses, just as they threatened to do. ABC could then spend storms a year and millions of dollars fighting it. Every judge would say it was illegal, until it got to the Supreme Court. They would either overturn the rulings, or they would affirm that it was illegal. In which case they would not say that the licenses have to be given back, or that ABC or its affiliates are owed any compensation. There is exactly 0 chance that a lawsuit would do anything except waste money. The SC has effectively trashed the bill of rights, and every one of them who has voted to allow Trump to become a monarch should be executed for treason if the country ever manages to get back on track.

He stayed in the same hotel as a black person? That's crazy. It doesn't mean he's not racist. This country has never been a true meritocracy, isn't now and most likely never will be. Nepotism and connections etc have been corrupting it since before day 1--they still are and most likely will continue into the future. And that's just how it is.

He turned on his son because he saw his sons face plastered all over the news. He simply did the right thing. Most likely he didn't want to go to prison himself knowing his son wasn't getting away with this. If this guy is truly MAGA he was very aware of Kirks politics.

Speaking the truth correlates highly with being considered racist.

Do you get white hot rage for the generations of kids from families who put up buildings at schools etc and then got in/got to slide thru? Because they've put a much bigger spin on our "meritocracy" over the years. Which group do you think has taken more spots from actual qualified white people the dei/aa crew or the legacy kids starting from the beginning?

you can do something legal for illegal reasons, no?

Piggybacking on what Lucium said, but going in a slightly different direction. When leftists say "Democracy is at risk," what they really mean is "Democracy is the risk." That is why they have activist judges blocking as much as they can from the democratically elected President. What leftists call democracy is pretty much the opposite. Not to say they are wrong in trying to oppose Trump. Democratic populism generally sucks, and Trump appears to be no exception to this rule. But saying they are on the side of Democracy by opposing Trump is a labelling error.

sometimes, not necessarily all the times. Sometimes the legality of an action depends on intent , many times it doesn't

Normally I find your thinking to be a little bit better than this. Few things:

1) Judges blocking Trump using injunctions have been democrat and republican. Some of their injunctions have succeeded others have failed. Calling them “activist judges” is begging the question that they made the wrong rulings.

2) Someone can democratically be elected and end democracy right afterwards. That’s what would happen if a fascist got elected. So that someone was democratically elected doesn’t mean that they are upholding democracy. That’s just plainly fallacious reasoning.

Some Trump actions are just simply unconstitutional. Like the birthright EO especially when it relates to people legally but temporarily in the USA, or the IEEPA tariffs.

So opposition to them is just the proper and correct thing to do.

A lot of other stuff is absolutely perfectly obviously legal yet they don't give a ****. Like removing TPS from any group is obviously legal, yet corrupt judges attempted to block that. That's truly absurd because TPS is given by the president and taken by the president, same as immigration parole. IT's insane to claim otherwise.

Leftists in general NEVER even tangentially cared about the rule of law. They always and only care about the end goal. If something is aligned with their preferences it is democratic otherwise it is not.

Ok so then your argument fails to be deductively valid because the premises can be true while the conclusion is false. He could be threatening to do something legal for reasons that are illegal to do. I’m not saying that’s what’s going on here, but you did claim that either what he was threatening was legally within his power, or it was not legally in his power, or the FCC is unconstitutional. We’ve just identified another possibility.

The Rs oppose D picks as sop what do you expect the left to do just get run over? It's just part of the game.

I disagree with this, but I'm pretty sure that you've said that is the way everyone should be, and even the only moral thing to do.

[URL="https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/charlie-kirk-church-texas-ai-audio-video-b2829933.html"]Church gives standing ovation to AI audio clip of Charlie Kirk saying words he never said
[/URL]

Well, if something is going to be fabricated, that's the kind of thing I approve of. It's more reasonable than most things that Kirk said or that anyone on the right has said since then.

Probably got the 100k from the fbi ?
Helps pay the lawyers .

That is such bs .
Incredible…

The right elected trump ffs .

Politicians on both sides of the aisle regardless of the college education level will get criticize all the time as being idiotic, dumb etc.

So this is a prime example of the radical left running wild with a claim of racism. And it’s a disaster for them again it’s why they are struggling politically… the Democrat party has a 35 year level approval rating. They need to clean this up. Get back to talking about working class stuff.

There certainly are problems in America. I agree with that. Nepotism has long been an issue certainly.

Ok as for racism people cannot redefine it. I don’t understand why a portion of the left-wing looks at this topic and then says oh you know what just because somebody travels around the country with a black person doesn’t mean they can’t be racist. Let’s dig more into that comment…. Charlie Kirk brought a black woman on to be one of the most powerful people at Turning point Usa. An actual white supremacist simply would not do that. It doesn’t make any logical sense.

What the radical left believes to constitute racism actually diminishes real racism …. Like segregationists people who say oh I don’t want somebody to come into my restaurant based on their skin color. Or I don’t want to hire someone for a job even if they are qualified but if they are a certain skin color. So those are actual definitions of racism.

Suggesting that DEI is racist ….. or believing that a politician is a DEI hire is something that people can criticize and disagree with ….they cannot claim it to be a racist View.