Donald Trump the Megathread part II - Mod Warning updated in OP 12/2/26

We don’t even know the motive behind this current shooting.

Or who the shooter even was.

Kirk was an internationally known political figure closely aligned with the Trump administration that did incredibly successful work in getting younger generations interested in the Republican party and politics.

He was assassinated while hosting a politically themed event.

You don't have to have liked him, his beliefs, or the beliefs of the Republican Party, to understand drawing parallels between Charlie Kirk and Mr. Beast is being disingenuous.

Probably because they aren't overly interested in American politics, only people obsessed with American politics and Trump post here constantly.

Also it was headline news last night, I'll be honest I never knew there were any democratic elected representatives shot (which is obviously disgraceful), it didn't seem to make the headlines worldwide like this did.

It doesn't matter a jot.

Anyone involved in politics would've known well who Charlie Kirk was (unless they were living under a rock) and it'd be extremely odd not to offer condolences, especially if you have direct international relations with the US.

Kirk was an internationally known political figure

Like I said, I have never heard of him, he has been described by every single report I read this morning as a social media influencer. He has never been a politician.

The Prime Minister of Britain or an other world leader should not be using their office to rush out a tribute to him. He was nobody of note outside grifting far right circles online and fox news. That's before we even get into the absolute hate he used his platform for.

It was done solely to receive pat on the head points from Trump. It's beyond nauseating.

Ridiculous and completely implausible.

Kirk was a major asset for the Trump movement and was good friends with the Vice President and Trump's son. If they wanted to kill someone to distract from the Epstein stuff, it wouldn't be him and nor would it be a Trump supporter. Not that they would have the intelligence, organisation and discretion to carry out such an operation anyway. Also, as bad as Trump and his circle of people are, I don't think they would directly kill any political figure.

The backlash from these beliefs about DEI has made it so that every non-white person holding any kind of worthwhile job is open to getting those three letters whispered about them in a very open dog-whistle. The implication being that they must have gotten the job via some sort of diversity initiative and not their merit, and if employment practices were entirely merit-based, white-people would have just about every job worth having, leaving the non-whites to the low-skill, low-IQ stuff.

Nope. I'm not one of these people who abhors all violence as I believe steadfastly in the right to self-defence and I would be more than prepared to commit violence on someone who attacks me or mine. However, I would never, ever get in a row if I could help it. Kirk used a democratic platform - his right to free speech - to advocate for and justify the committing of violence on others in country where everybody is armed. He wanted nothing more than to peddle his filth and not be held accountable for it. But I can see how you might get confused, it's a subtle difference.. /s

I'll be honest I never knew there were any democratic elected representatives shot (which is obviously disgraceful), it didn't seem to make the headlines worldwide like this did.

First step is to ask yourself why that is. There is a obvious agenda to portray anyone expressing any opinion in opposition to the MAGA regime as being a potentially violent extremist. This comes from Trump down. Therefore any incident that can potentially attributed as having a less than right wing view point will be amplified repeatedly and thus that amplification gets picked up across social media platform. The ones involving democrats were widely reported. The algorithms did not amplify it though which meant it was drowned out pretty quickly.

It does appear that there is a concerted and coordinated effort from the top to "other" anyone expressing opinions that in previous times would have been very much centre or even centre right. By aligning anything not in step with MAGA with a tiny number of extremists they are laying the ground work for what in the best case would be a widescale demonisation of even moderate views. It could go much further into the realms of outright suppression.

It must also be conceded that some voices on the left vilifying even people who express mild reservations does not help combat the MAGA tactic.

Engaging in wild speculation in the absence of any supporting information is the MAGA way and how vile fringe ideas such as Q Anon came to prominence. A "left wing" Q Anon is the last thing the world needs.

Calm and passionate argument, advocacy and protest, based on reality, is the only rational way to combat extremist rhetoric

If they would have gotten the job purely on ability and without any diversity initiative then why any need for these DEI policies which give preference to particular candidates based on their race?

That is the problem with any sort of quota system it gives rise to justifiable enough suspicions about the ability of people if they meet the criteria for the quota that needs to be imposed.

For a good while whenever you saw a black player on a South African Rugby or Cricket team you had the suspicion they were being picked to fulfill the quota which of course is unfair on them as it put extra pressure on them to be exceptionally good to remove this suspicion. In fact Charl Langeveldt refused to play cricket for South Africa because he suspected he was being picked to fulfil the quota and not on merit.