What will be the consequence of the right’s lies about Kirk shooting?

[Lisa558]

The only people who have been selling victimhood from the very beginning have been whites. MAGA is nothing but a white victimhood movement.

^^^ says the guy who blames all failure in the black community on racism. He’s a one-man victimhood movement.

 

[OKTexas]

Nope, not unconstitutional.

The Constitution has an amendment process, if you hadn't noticed.

And yes, of course the rich don't want you to have a proper voice, of course they don't want you getting rid of political parties you deem bad.

They like you coming on this forum and fighting each other, saying the other is the worst ever, they like you doing it all over the internet, because then you won't blame the rich controlling everything for all the problems.

The solution isn't the solution. No sir-ree, the solution is getting rid of the other side, the bad ones, the ones who get told what to think. No, they tell you that you think for yourself, so you tell yourself that you think for yourself, you're the smart ones.

And the real solution is right there, so many countries have it, but hey "we already have proportional representation" and "it's European, we're American" and other dumb **** responses to why you shouldn't have an electoral system that is in any way democratic.

The Constitution has an amendment process, if you hadn't noticed.

What the hell do you think Article 5 is? Perhaps you should actually read the Constitution before trying to talk about it.

.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What the hell do you think Article 5 is? Perhaps you should actually read the Constitution before trying to talk about it.

.

What on earth are you talking about.

I think the 5th Article is the AMENDMENT PROCESS. I stated that the US Constitution has AN AMENDMENT PROCESS and you reply as if I've said "you can't change the Constitution".

I'm bemused by your replies.

 

[OKTexas]

What on earth are you talking about.

I think the 5th Article is the AMENDMENT PROCESS. I stated that the US Constitution has AN AMENDMENT PROCESS and you reply as if I've said "you can't change the Constitution".

I'm bemused by your replies.

Actually I said what you were proposing was unconstitutional and to see Article 5. Are you saying you were being redundant? Also as the way things stand today, Article 5 is moot, you'll never get 38 States to agree on anything.

.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Actually I said what you were proposing was unconstitutional and to see Article 5. Are you saying you were being redundant? Also as the way things stand today, Article 5 is moot, you'll never get 38 States to agree on anything.

.

How can it be unconstitutional if the constitutional has a clause to change the constitution?
And how "unconstitutional" would it be if they didn't change the constitution?

Let's see.

Article 2 says:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

"The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate."

So, the Constitution says that the electors can choose who they vote for. They could all meet up together and choose to elect the person who gets the most votes.

Article One says "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States"

Well, the doesn't prevent Proportional Representation.

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote."

That does, to a certain extent. Though there would be nothing to suggest that the voting power within the Senate could be proportional. So that a Senator could have 0.54397 of a vote, compared to someone else having 2.343 of a vote.

Yes, it'd be difficult to change.

However that's not what we're talking about, is it?

And if the people of the US decided they wanted PR and forced the political parties to do it, then it could happen.

Just depends on whether you like being a slave or not.

 

[August West]

His parents said he had become radicalized over the last couple of years, some may have gotten details wrong but the big picture is very clear. He was a radical leftist, buying into the wrongheaded leftist propaganda. Rhetoric from people like you are responsible for Kirks murder. You have blood on your hands.

.

Rhetoric from people like you got 140 cops beaten at Trump`s Klan rally.

 

[cowboy fan]

[…]
The misinformation had devastating effects. A transgender woman in Seattle was falsely accused of being the shooter after her photos were circulated online. “These people really do want to kill me because they think that I killed their idol, Charlie Kirk,” she told The Advocate.’

Who is the woman? Where are the photos? Where is the evidence?

 

[OKTexas]

How can it be unconstitutional if the constitutional has a clause to change the constitution?
And how "unconstitutional" would it be if they didn't change the constitution?

Let's see.

Article 2 says:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

"The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate."

So, the Constitution says that the electors can choose who they vote for. They could all meet up together and choose to elect the person who gets the most votes.

Article One says "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States"

Well, the doesn't prevent Proportional Representation.

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote."

That does, to a certain extent. Though there would be nothing to suggest that the voting power within the Senate could be proportional. So that a Senator could have 0.54397 of a vote, compared to someone else having 2.343 of a vote.

Yes, it'd be difficult to change.

However that's not what we're talking about, is it?

And if the people of the US decided they wanted PR and forced the political parties to do it, then it could happen.

Just depends on whether you like being a slave or not.

ROFLMFAO, ya know who always wants to change the way things are done? LOSERS! That's all I'm going to say about it.

.

 

[frigidweirdo]

ROFLMFAO, ya know who always wants to change the way things are done? LOSERS! That's all I'm going to say about it.

.

You've written like 4 posts, and which each post my opinion of you (which was low to start with after our last interaction) has dropped so low.

Not much point in having a conversation with you.

 

[fncceo]

many on the right continue to propagate lies about the ‘violent left.’

If the blood stains fit, wear them.

 

[HikerGuy83]

'Charlie Kirk in his own words: ‘prowling Blacks’ and ‘the great replacement strategy’

'The far-right commentator didn’t pull his punches when discussing his bigoted views on current events'

You seem reasonable.

And I don't follow Kirk.

So, if this was consistent....then he owns it. If it's not, then it's the left just grasping.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Hey EVERYBODY.....

Once again, I scroll through the thread looking for a Jones post. None.

Again, he baits everyone into the same stupid arguments time after time.

And he's never around to take up his OP and defend it.

Do you like being suckered?

 

[HikerGuy83]

Does the original poster ever respond to counterpoints?

I just posted on page 9 that he generally does not. I looked through this thread and again found no second posts from the stupid slimewad.

He does this all the time.

It's his way of ejaculating.

And his followers are swallowers.

 

[MarathonMike]

Hey EVERYBODY.....

Once again, I scroll through the thread looking for a Jones post. None.

Again, he baits everyone into the same stupid arguments time after time.

And he's never around to take up his OP and defend it.

Do you like being suckered?

Clayton is a Black Racist robo-poster. He never replies because like IM2 he doesn't have the intellectual capacity for it.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Winner Winner
10 Chicken Dinners.

Says it all.

Great freaking post.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Clayton is a Black Racist robo-poster. He never replies because like IM2 he doesn't have the intellectual capacity for it.

I stopped posting in his threads except to point out how people are being duped.

He's a jerk wad leftwing slimwad a lot like schmidlap (still sounds like something your dog does on the carpet when he's not feeling well) Rumpole

 

[ThisIsMe]

Some on the right are attempting to sweep days of spreading disinformation and lies under the rug; other conservatives are trying to ignore the debacle as if it didn’t happen; and unsurprisingly, many on the right continue to propagate lies about the ‘violent left.’

Even the prestigious Wall Street Journal managed to contribute to the right’s campaign of disinformation and lies:

‘The Wall Street Journal has quietly walked back early reporting that suggested the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk was linked to transgender people. Republican Utah Gov. Spencer Cox contradicted the paper’s reporting in a Friday morning press conference.
[…]
The misinformation had devastating effects. A transgender woman in Seattle was falsely accused of being the shooter after her photos were circulated online. “These people really do want to kill me because they think that I killed their idol, Charlie Kirk,” she told The Advocate.’

Wall Street Journal quietly walks back false claim Charlie Kirk shooter had pro-trans messages on his bullets

The paper had falsely claimed that the alleged shooter engraved messages consistent with “transgender ideology” on bullets recovered by law enforcement officials.

www.yahoo.com

Its the left who's trying to sweep it under the rug.

You can't walk back the thousands of videos and social media posts of left wingers mocking kirks death.

 

[OKTexas]

You've written like 4 posts, and which each post my opinion of you (which was low to start with after our last interaction) has dropped so low.

Not much point in having a conversation with you.

Discussing someone's fantasies get's boring fast and can only be entertained for so long. Come up with something that has broad support, then we might have something to discuss.

.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Discussing someone's fantasies get's boring fast and can only be entertained for so long. Come up with something that has broad support, then we might have something to discuss.

.

Seriously, am I allowed to put you on ignore? I can't have conversations at this low level, it's ******* painful.

 

[mamooth]

You can't walk back the thousands of videos and social media posts of left wingers mocking kirks death.

The right does so love this dumb talking point. They relish in using it to deflect from the way they spent years pushing propaganda to radicalize a dumb conservative kid into becoming a killer.

And not one of them has shown any regrets over their role in killing Kirk. All of them plan to keep on grooming kids to be killers.

Is there any conservative here who doesn't support Kirk's calls for killing the political opposition?

Even one?

Conservatives are in a pickle here. They say killing the political opposition is bad ... but they all support a guy who called for killing the opposition. Makes them look like quite the pack of corrupt partisan liars, and violent ones at that.

Needless to say, no liberals anywhere are calling for killing the opposition. That depraved ideology is held solely by the right.