[worry]

Wait, the USA is doing what now?

[Garak]

Every FB or Insta post I'm seeing about the Kirk murder is nothing but hatred and threats and whatnot. The fuck is going on in the US?

[Maark Abbott]

Garak, on 15 September 2025 - 09:04 AM, said:

Every FB or Insta post I'm seeing about the Kirk murder is nothing but hatred and threats and whatnot. The fuck is going on in the US?

Yeah, and desperate scrabbling about 'the shooter was a leftist'.

The US Fascists can't accept that the shooter was one of their own so they try and find a marginalised group to punch down on, or use what happened as an excuse to do so.

It's extremely telling that there's so much hand wringing over someone who by all accounts was utterly foul, and yet someone on the opposite side of the fence was murdered a couple of months ago and... crickets.

Every threat of violence seems to come from those deep in the right wing. And yet, as per over here, when you point this out you're jeered (or threatened with physical violence). World's gone to hell.

[Macros]

Looks like Putin needs to bring in a special military operation to denazify

[Cause]

So now that bombing narc-terrorists at sea is going to be official policy I am not sure how I feel about it.

If its like the movies and we ask the chained AI to confirm the target and it provides 99.9% certainty that the cartels top Heisenberg is on the boat I don't really care if we kill them. However, this is reality, so whats the process, who vets the intel, who calls the strike, what can they strike at and what cant they. How do we know we they are not killing yachts on pleasure cruises and how do we make sure they don't have the authority to strike anything they want to.

Also will this actually lessen drug traffic into the usa? I would think not at all? The idea that the head of a drug cartel would stop selling drugs in the USA for fear of being struck with missiles seems farfetched. Better to strike the drug cargo itself I think. Also could this backfire in some way with drug cartels striking back at embassies or some other kind of soft USA target in their countries?

[Tsundoku]

Cause, on 15 September 2025 - 09:50 PM, said:

So now that bombing narc-terrorists at sea is going to be official policy I am not sure how I feel about it.

If its like the movies and we ask the chained AI to confirm the target and it provides 99.9% certainty that the cartels top Heisenberg is on the boat I don't really care if we kill them. However, this is reality, so whats the process, who vets the intel, who calls the strike, what can they strike at and what cant they. How do we know we they are not killing yachts on pleasure cruises and how do we make sure they don't have the authority to strike anything they want to.

Also will this actually lessen drug traffic into the usa? I would think not at all? The idea that the head of a drug cartel would stop selling drugs in the USA for fear of being struck with missiles seems farfetched. Better to strike the drug cargo itself I think. Also could this backfire in some way with drug cartels striking back at embassies or some other kind of soft USA target in their countries?

Sounds like the plot to a novel. Or maybe chopped down for a movie.
Maybe President Orange Turd Thunderbolt Ross can save us?

Attached File(s)

•  clear and present danger.jpg (30.75K)
  Number of downloads: 0
•  af1.jpg (45.53K)
  Number of downloads: 0

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 16 September 2025 - 07:59 AM

[Maark Abbott]

The US far right: kills someone in the US far right

The US far right: we should probably kill some leftists in response to this

America seriously what in the sam hell

[Abyss]

Tsundoku, on 16 September 2025 - 06:03 AM, said:

Cause, on 15 September 2025 - 09:50 PM, said:

So now that bombing narc-terrorists at sea is going to be official policy I am not sure how I feel about it.

If its like the movies and we ask the chained AI to confirm the target and it provides 99.9% certainty that the cartels top Heisenberg is on the boat I don't really care if we kill them. However, this is reality, so whats the process, who vets the intel, who calls the strike, what can they strike at and what cant they. How do we know we they are not killing yachts on pleasure cruises and how do we make sure they don't have the authority to strike anything they want to.

Also will this actually lessen drug traffic into the usa? I would think not at all? The idea that the head of a drug cartel would stop selling drugs in the USA for fear of being struck with missiles seems farfetched. Better to strike the drug cargo itself I think. Also could this backfire in some way with drug cartels striking back at embassies or some other kind of soft USA target in their countries?

Sounds like the plot to a novel. Or maybe chopped down for a movie.
Maybe President Orange Turd Thunderbolt Ross can save us?

If Harrison Ford runs for office i will immigrate just to vote for him.
(im coming straight back to Canada after the election tho)

...but , in CLEAR & PRESENT Clancy created a vengeful borderline nutcase druglord who was prepared to actually go to war against the US as if he were some kind of revolutionary. The reality is they will simply stop using ships for a while and up transport in other ways, then resume using ships a few years from now. Likely president Tang will have a few passing fishing boats detonated in the meantime.

[HoosierDaddy]

His affiliation is murderer.

The left, right or center are not defined by a single person, and as far as I can tell it has been wholly looked at as a murder by everyone.

The call against this act seems to be unanimous.

Why then is that not enough? What more is wanted?

Think about that.

Then think about the reactions the same people had to political violence perpetrated against the other side.

Why are the reactions not equal to the same violence?

Who wins from stirring up the hate? From demonizing other Americans? Not me. Not you. Not Charlie Kirk’s family. Not the legislators families in Minnesota.

[Tsundoku]

HoosierDaddy, on 17 September 2025 - 01:10 AM, said:

Who wins from stirring up the hate? From demonizing other Americans? Not me. Not you. Not Charlie Kirk’s family. Not the legislators families in Minnesota.

Project 2025.

[Abyss]

Tsundoku, on 17 September 2025 - 08:38 AM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 17 September 2025 - 01:10 AM, said:

Who wins from stirring up the hate? From demonizing other Americans? Not me. Not you. Not Charlie Kirk's family. Not the legislators families in Minnesota.

Project 2025.

And the gun activists who would actively promote ebola if it kept negative attention focused away from, y'know, guns.

[HoosierDaddy]

Abyss, on 17 September 2025 - 01:32 PM, said:

Tsundoku, on 17 September 2025 - 08:38 AM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 17 September 2025 - 01:10 AM, said:

Who wins from stirring up the hate? From demonizing other Americans? Not me. Not you. Not Charlie Kirk's family. Not the legislators families in Minnesota.

Project 2025.

And the gun activists who would actively promote ebola if it kept negative attention focused away from, y'know, guns.

Looks like neither of those are "me" nor "you."

I have my own thoughts on who would benefit from stirring up hate. But motivation is either intrinsic, extrinsic, or altruistic. This is not altruistic, we've already ruled that out. And if it's neither me nor you benefiting from the hatred, it's not intrinsic. That leaves extrinsic. I'll let whoever reads this research on extrinsic motivation.

[Tsundoku]

Sorry, I forgot to list Russia and other state-level actors as well.

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 17 September 2025 - 08:15 PM

[Macros]

I think HD is referencing personal level outrage and rage and how it is directed.

[Macros]

I dont want to feed the algorithm but did Kimmel actually get pulled?
And was it for the single bit where he (rightly) called maga out for desperately trying to frame kirks murderer as a lefty and Trumps totally lack of class talking about his ballroom?

[Maark Abbott]

Macros, on 18 September 2025 - 06:23 AM, said:

I dont want to feed the algorithm but did Kimmel actually get pulled?
And was it for the single bit where he (rightly) called maga out for desperately trying to frame kirks murderer as a lefty and Trumps totally lack of class talking about his ballroom?

Yep.

Looks like criticising the regime is being cracked down on. Feels almost familiar.

[Briar King]

I deleted a post yesterday containing info I didn’t have permission to use.

Included in it with an addition or 2 I said let him say his piece if he chooses to since he is still alive to do so. I’m kinda surprised he didn’t off himself since it is usually the outcome it seems. I can’t see this entire thing playing out court wise offscreen. It ll probably put the Johnny Depp v Amber Hurd ratings to shame.

Depending on if it actually makes it that far and no one gets their Jack Ruby on.

[Tiste Simeon]

Maark Abbott, on 18 September 2025 - 06:52 AM, said:

Macros, on 18 September 2025 - 06:23 AM, said:

I dont want to feed the algorithm but did Kimmel actually get pulled?
And was it for the single bit where he (rightly) called maga out for desperately trying to frame kirks murderer as a lefty and Trumps totally lack of class talking about his ballroom?

Yep.

Looks like criticising the regime is being cracked down on. Feels almost familiar.

And whoEVER could have seen THAT coming???

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Maark Abbott, on 18 September 2025 - 06:52 AM, said:

Macros, on 18 September 2025 - 06:23 AM, said:

I dont want to feed the algorithm but did Kimmel actually get pulled?
And was it for the single bit where he (rightly) called maga out for desperately trying to frame kirks murderer as a lefty and Trumps totally lack of class talking about his ballroom?

Yep.

Looks like criticising the regime is being cracked down on. Feels almost familiar.

It was a consequence of Trump's FCC Chair illegally threatening to cancel ABC, in blatant violation of the first amendment:

Quote

Jimmy Kimmel Live! was pulled off the air on Wednesday after FCC Chairman Brendan Carr threatened to withdraw ABC's broadcasting license [...] More details are emerging about the moments leading up to ABC's decision to "indefinitely" cut Jimmy Kimmel Live!, including last-minute meetings where executives were reportedly "p---ing themselves," according to Rolling Stone. [...] In those meetings, multiple executives backed Kimmel before ABC ultimately decided to cut the late-night host's show, sources said, adding senior executives ultimately feared retaliation from President Donald Trump.

The report says multiple executives felt Kimmel "had not actually said anything over the line."

[...] "Congratulations to ABC for finally having the courage to do what had to be done," Trump said.

Insiders Spill Chilling Reason Jimmy Kimmel's TV Bosses Caved to MAGA - The Daily Beast

[Cause]

Macros, on 18 September 2025 - 06:23 AM, said:

I dont want to feed the algorithm but did Kimmel actually get pulled?
And was it for the single bit where he (rightly) called maga out for desperately trying to frame kirks murderer as a lefty and Trumps totally lack of class talking about his ballroom?

Its not a distraction though. Building a flagpole outside the white house (The house of the president, in the capital of the USA but I guess they worried people might forget where they are), the ballroom is a distraction. Having a billion dollar company fire a famous on air talk show host because the government is anti- free speech and anti-constitution is an actual story of its own. Id even argue the executive order mandating jail terms for flag burning is a distraction even though its uncosntituional, becuase it wont be enforced and will be struck down. However Jimmy Kimmel was a victim of his employer which is more frightening. The billionaires are self enforcing the new ruls.