I was wrong

[Eagle 1]

Supposed to be? He is the most powerful man in the world!
The leadership he provides is pathetic if you are looking for a leader to bring people together, but it's clear (to me anyway) Trump is not trying to do that. He sees benefit to the country (being kind, or more realistically, to himself and his billionaire cronies) in stoking fear, division and social tension.

So there isn't Billionaire cronies that Biden knew. It was pretty obvious from the start that the Democrats were going all out to resist Trumps 2nd term in office and block as much as they can of Trumps agenda. You'll find the fear is mostly coming from imported criminals who shouldn't be in the US in the first place.

 

[lsz]

Here i saved you 26 seconds (all of us on here clearly have the time as we are all on here...)

Brian Kilmeade endorses euthanizing homeless people: "Involuntary lethal injection, or something. Just kill them."

 

[Uk eagle]

God forbid a political party actually had policies which aligned with popular opinions. I sometimes think people forget politicians are there to serve people, not dictate to them. At least that’s how it used to be.

But the world has been down the road of whipping people up into a nationalistic frenzy and it didn't end up well. Highlighting the main issue in your country as immigrants coming in and trying to get a hate message across against them thereby getting the less intelligent people to vote for you doesn't sit well with me. There's one thing for a party to be swayed by public opinion and there's another where you try to influence public opinion for your own benefit. Union jacks and the flag of St George being attached to every lamppost may look nice but it actually feels quite threatening because of the reason they are there

 

[Seagles68]

Yes, you are 100% correct. Celebrating the murder of someone like Charlie Kirk would never have occured 30 years ago.

I would suggest that there would still have been people that celebrated the death of Kennedy, MLK etc in the privacy of their home or inner (hooded) circle. The internet (obviously not around at the time) has now made it easy for people to either vent anonymously or have been emboldened by the current free for all demonstrated by the so called leaders.

 

[Brookie1973]

Here i saved you 26 seconds (all of us on here clearly have the time as we are all on here...)

Brian Kilmeade endorses euthanizing homeless people: "Involuntary lethal injection, or something. Just kill them."

See posts #98 and #101. As for this particular video, not sure what this has to do with Charlie Kirk, apart from an obvious attempt at deflection/“whataboutism”.

 

[Uber Eagle 72]

It's ok if you don't agree with my assessment. But it is certainly not pointless to properly expand on why. I don't agree Obama is above criticism at all, nor did my post say anything about Obama's performance as president. If it appears that way I'd say it's likely more due to discontent over aging presidents and the blatant corruption / criminality associated with Trump (percieved to be unfathomable in previous eras of US politics). I did compliment the nature of political debates at the time. The only compliment on Obama was provided by Republican candidate Romney (to show that he doesn't harbour animosity against Obama long after his presidency).

The below summarises the arguments and walks you through the steps I took to evaluate each claim. Any information I introduced was done so only as it was relevant in assessing the claim at hand. If you want to address particular lines, I am more than willing to hear you out. Also, if there are instances where you strongly believe I demonstrated bias, then that would be good to address as well.

The claim: 'Obama also demonstrated Trump's use of violent political rhetoric to divide and demonise minority groups and/or political opponents'.

Evaluation of implied arguments (A):
A1.1 People opposed to same sex marriage were unfairly labelled bigots by Obama

​

Defined bigot. Identified two viable reasons for opposing same-sex marriage views. Reasons identified were i) intolerance (personal belief), and ii) religious views. Reason i) meets bigot criteria according to its definition. Reason ii) convoluted due to the grey area between religious moral beliefs and intolerance. Considered that even if religious people may have valid religious reasons to oppose same-sex views, the underlying religious teachings are reasonably described as intolerant or bigoted. Did not identify further reasons extending beyond religious or personal intolerance.​

A1.2. And this was an attack on Republicans.

Quote not found to explicitly reference Republicans. Stances on the topic predominately based on religious views as opposed to political affiliation. No group was mentioned in the quote except people 'bigoted' (intolerant to) same-sex relations. Concluded that due to the above factors it is not a legitimate example of violent political rhetoric.​

​

A2. The 'war on women' political slogan wrongfully suggests Republicans plan to take away women's rights.

Sourced a definition on the 'war on women' political slogan. Slogan was not found to originate from Obama (has ties to 90s, popularised by critics of George Bush). Looked for instances of Republicans improving women's rights since Obama. Looked for examples against. Used Trump's quote promising to purposely rig the supreme court to overturn Roe v Wade (1973). Noted Trump's plan worked in repealing women rights to abortion (2022) - senate pushed it to the states. 14 Republican states and 0 Democrat states remove the right to abortion. Touched on the stricter ideas supported by elements of the Republican party (Hegeseth, for example). Concluded that the Republicans did not improve women's rights, nor did they keep them the same. They did, however, take away key women's rights that had been granted for 49 years. Also haven't touched on the Trump admin's derogatory undertones with their rhetoric on 'DEI'​

​

A3. - did not find any information on what the quote was -

A4. Obama told Latino's that Republicans were their enemy

On first view, agreed this resembled a Trump-style attack. Researched the context of the quote. Identified that Obama clarified the quote a month after making it. Obama claimed he was warning Latino's that future Republican administrations will enact immigration policies targeting ethnic minorities such themselves. Considered the merits to this claim based on subsequent events. Throughout 2016-2024, political rhetoric increasingly radical; increased use of terms such as 'illegal aliens'. ICE since been permitted to racially profile. Unlawful detention and deportation widespread in 2025. Republican party removed the right for due process and 70% of victims were found to be legal during a 10 day study in LA (and Latinos disproportionately fear deportation). Republicans ignored court orders deeming ICE actions unlawful. Data of deportation by race/ethnicity is not readily available at this stage, although both you and I would agree that Latino's are disproportionately affected. Concluded that Obama's statement has likely come to fruition. i.e. Not unreasonable given subsequent rhetoric and policy (including policy deemed unlawful).​

This looks like something by chat GPT or similar. Just a suspicion not that it is a crime or anything.
Obama in my view was divisive just in a more subtle way! Say Obama’s tone that intellectual, almost smug delivery — often alienated people just as much as Trump kind of does. Especially those with traditional or religious views who felt talked down to or written off completely. The division was still there, it just sounded nicer on TV.

 

[Brookie1973]

This looks like something by chat GPT or similar. Just a suspicion not that it is a crime or anything.
Obama in my view was divisive just in a more subtle way! Say Obama’s tone that intellectual, almost smug delivery — often alienated people just as much as Trump kind of does. Especially those with traditional or religious views who felt talked down to or written off completely. The division was still there, it just sounded nicer on TV.

Smug condescension. The start of the “uneducated and ill-informed” portrayal of those on the right.

 

[h27272727]

This looks like something by chat GPT or similar. Just a suspicion not that it is a crime or anything.
Obama in my view was divisive just in a more subtle way! Say Obama’s tone that intellectual, almost smug delivery — often alienated people just as much as Trump kind of does. Especially those with traditional or religious views who felt talked down to or written off completely. The division was still there, it just sounded nicer on TV.

Ouch.

No, I get it. Chat GPT puts a lot into question nowadays.

I do a fair bit of technical-style reports (engineering), so that may come through from time to time. Probably fluctuate between formal and informal sentences, or use unnecessarily large words, etc.. While I quietly hope Silvertails doesn't save my edit history, you'd find that alot of my stuff I frantically chop and change. Sometimes I get a bit fixated and spend longer than i'd to admit trying to type my thoughts out (they're not always totally clear to begin with).

My posts are still quite sloppy at times. It's not unusual that I wind up rambling. Certainly a few examples over on the Trump thread. As for Chat GPT, i've tried using it for code and simple engineering problems; but often I end up holding its hand just to get it to do what I actually want it to do... As for writing reports / articles / posts, it appears to be improving although I find it typically still stands out like dog balls (hence the 'ouch'!).

Don't hold anything against you for not liking Obama. If you feel he had divisive undertones, then it's not right for me to try tell you those feelings were invalid without being in your shoes. I don't know how he is perceived amongst religious communities, although from memory he is also quite religious too? I imagine aspects of the religious community wouldn't have liked his stances on some key topics (same-sex, abortion). In the same breath I can't really see him being universally disliked by that community either.

 

[Uber Eagle 72]

Ouch.

No, I get it. Chat GPT puts a lot into question nowadays.

I do a fair bit of technical-style reports (engineering), so that may come through from time to time. Probably fluctuate between formal and informal sentences, or use unnecessarily large words, etc.. While I quietly hope Silvertails doesn't save my edit history, you'd find that alot of my stuff I frantically chop and change. Sometimes I get a bit fixated and spend longer than i'd to admit trying to type my thoughts out (they're not always totally clear to begin with).

My posts are still quite sloppy at times. It's not unusual that I wind up rambling. Certainly a few examples over on the Trump thread. As for Chat GPT, i've tried using it for code and simple engineering problems; but often I end up holding its hand just to get it to do what I actually want it to do... As for writing reports / articles / posts, it appears to be improving although I find it typically still stands out like dog balls (hence the 'ouch'!).

Don't hold anything against you for not liking Obama. If you feel he had divisive undertones, then it's not right for me to try tell you those feelings were invalid without being in your shoes. I don't know how he is perceived amongst religious communities, although from memory he is also quite religious too? I imagine aspects of the religious community wouldn't have liked his stances on some key topics (same-sex, abortion). In the same breath I can't really see him being universally disliked by that community either.

Understand re Chat GPT, no explanations really needed but I did note the technical and extra details included in your responses especially the referenced post. As for Obama religion I understand he is Christian but that is not apparently patently obvious to Americans re; Many Americans Can't Name Obama's Religion

As for Obama I do think he is divisive as well as condescending another example being the guilt trip he tried to put upon African American men in relation to Kamala asking them to get over their so called prejudice against women when the case was many thought she was simply not good enough for the job.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

I haven’t got time to watch videos. Please put this in your own words for me to read.

I did put it in my own words: you didn't bother to read them?????? these were my words

Maybe so. Also would you have imagined this 30 years ago one of the highest rating shows in the US would have its leading personality advocate killing homeless people as a good way to deal with them? Yet it happened just a day or so ago

The video was posted just in case anyone wanted confirmation or to hear the actual words Kilmeade spoke.


This statement on Fox is literally one of the most disturbing things I have ever heard on mainstream US or Australian media. Even stunning in this age of trump.

The fact you brush it off as deflection and “whataboutism” is saddening and sickening in equal parts.

In case you missed it, one of the highest rating show in the US just had its leading personality advocate killing homeless people as a good way to deal with them.

One of the highest rating show in the US just had its leading personality advocate killing homeless people as a good way to deal with them.

One of the highest rating show in the US just had its leading personality advocate killing homeless people as a good way to deal with them.

One of the highest rating show in the US just had its leading personality advocate killing homeless people as a good way to deal with them.

You'd be well advised to have another go at responding to this news

 

[Brookie1973]

I did put it in my own words: you didn't bother to read them?????? these were my words

The video was posted just in case anyone wanted confirmation or to hear the actual words Kilmeade spoke.


This statement on Fox is literally one of the most disturbing things I have ever heard on mainstream US or Australian media. Even stunning in this age of trump.

The fact you brush it off as deflection and “whataboutism” is saddening and sickening in equal parts.

In case you missed it, one of the highest rating show in the US just had its leading personality advocate killing homeless people as a good way to deal with them.

One of the highest rating show in the US just had its leading personality advocate killing homeless people as a good way to deal with them.

One of the highest rating show in the US just had its leading personality advocate killing homeless people as a good way to deal with them.

One of the highest rating show in the US just had its leading personality advocate killing homeless people as a good way to deal with them.

You'd be well advised to have another go at responding to this news

So nothing to do with Charlie Kirk then.
You’d be well advised to stick to the topic, lest you be accused of deflection.

 

[47MVEagle]

@SeaEagleRock8 you're dealing with a coward who prefers to deflect, "whatabout" & adhere to the rules only when it suits them, because these & gaslighting are their only tactics.

You're wasting your time.

 

[Brookie1973]

This thread was created by SER8 to specifically discuss Charlie Kirk, hence its title. I originally offered to have that discussion in the Trump thread, which is more wide ranging, but this was his choice. If the preference now is to turn this thread into Trump Version 2 by opening it up to other issues, so be it.

The problem with deflection is that I am now justified in not responding to SER8s post directly, but by introducing another completely unrelated “whataboutism”.

As a rule, I do not respond to keyboard warriors calling others cowards.

 

[Cliffycomeback]

Maybe so. Also would you have imagined this 30 years ago one of the highest rating shows in the US would have its leading personality advocate killing homeless people as a good way to deal with them? Yet it happened just a day or so ago

https://twitter.com/x/status/1966878449290649676

Ab

Maybe so. Also would you have imagined this 30 years ago one of the highest rating shows in the US would have its leading personality advocate killing homeless people as a good way to deal with them? Yet it happened just a day or so ago

https://twitter.com/x/status/1966878449290649676

This is one of the worst things I have watched on mainstream media. It is entirely indefensible.

Truly horrible.

 

[lsz]

Ab

This is one of the worst things I have watched on mainstream media. It is entirely indefensible.

Truly horrible.

I would argue this is as bad as the MSNBC person who got fired re Kirk comments but there will be no action taken.

 

[Cliffycomeback]

I would argue this is as bad as the MSNBC person who got fired re Kirk comments but there will be no action taken.

This is absolutely as bad. To casually promote the murder of thousands of homeless and mentally ill people on national television is so evil and psychotic. The fact that this guy hasn't been sacked yet is a perfect example of everything that is wrong in the world today.

 

[lsz]

Honestly what is the purpose of saying this?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1967652690114343274

I have not seen one report that justifies this comment.

Every major source I could find that tracks politically motivated violence in the U.S. including the ADL, FBI/DHS, START at the University of Maryland, CSIS, CRS, SPLC, GWU’s Program on Extremism, and GAO has consistently found that right-wing extremists are responsible for the vast majority of attacks and fatalities.

Left-wing extremist violence has been rare, generally lower-scale, and far less lethal, with most incidents confined to vandalism, property damage, or small-scale assaults.

As always happy to read an alternative report but we are heading towards anti vax territory here.

Again I do not think the right wing attackers are representative of right wing beliefs rather that is how they are categorised.

What happened to the US? The realist in me just thinks while there is justified outrage over Kirks murder there is a clear attempt to leverage this into a political advantage by a political party that knows that the upcoming mid terms are traditionally a tough one for their base to "turn out" for.

Otherwise there would be some long over due talk over gun control, mental health and the impact of the online world on kids.

But yea Antifa, trans and the like

 

[47MVEagle]

The world's gone mad, for sure!

Charlie Kirk didn't deserve to be assassinated for what he said & believed in, but he's now become the martyr poster boy for the right wing to claim the left will kill you for exercising your right to free speech.

All this while the US Republican government under Trump has been stripping away the rights of its citizens, censoring the media & encouraging witch hunts against anyone who speaks out against them.

It beggars belief, but that's the crazy time we're living in.

 

[Brookie1973]

Honestly what is the purpose of saying this?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1967652690114343274

I have not seen one report that justifies this comment.

Every major source I could find that tracks politically motivated violence in the U.S. including the ADL, FBI/DHS, START at the University of Maryland, CSIS, CRS, SPLC, GWU’s Program on Extremism, and GAO has consistently found that right-wing extremists are responsible for the vast majority of attacks and fatalities.

Left-wing extremist violence has been rare, generally lower-scale, and far less lethal, with most incidents confined to vandalism, property damage, or small-scale assaults.

As always happy to read an alternative report but we are heading towards anti vax territory here.

Again I do not think the right wing attackers are representative of right wing beliefs rather that is how they are categorised.

What happened to the US? The realist in me just thinks while there is justified outrage over Kirks murder there is a clear attempt to leverage this into a political advantage by a political party that knows that the upcoming mid terms are traditionally a tough one for their base to "turn out" for.

Otherwise there would be some long over due talk over gun control, mental health and the impact of the online world on kids.

But yea Antifa, trans and the like

No one believes there is not extremism on both sides. At issue is the lack of attention given to left wing extremism, particularly Antifa, who are usually portrayed as a group of current day freedom fighters against the evil facists/racists. The proposed designation of Antifa as a domestic terrorist group will go some way to addressing the imbalance.

Not sure about people leveraging the Kirk murder for political advantage, but if so, some may think the same accusation could also be made with George Floyd, who’s death was used by Democrats to pursue a political agenda built around “defund the police”. I recall large scale rioting after the George Floyd murder, but am not aware of any rioting post the Charlie Kirk assassination. Not sure how these facts reconcile with the statistics you have.

 

[Brookie1973]

Just returning to the thread topic for a moment, here is the latest.