Donald Trump the Megathread part II

Well clarified in fairness to you. Maybe you could also clarify what he meant when he said that the granting of civil rights in the 60's was a "huge mistake " ?

So you still can't find a single example.

Grossly exaggerated, eh? He called civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr "awful" and "not a good person". He assailed the Civil Rights Act of 1965 (outlaws discrimination based on race, religion, colour, sex and national origin, and prohibited segregation). He believed in that "great replacement" bullshit. He opposed the Juneteenth holiday. He said "If I see a Black pilot, I'm going to be like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified'" . He was a racist, reactionary, foul, provocative, ****-stirring piece of sh1t and there will be about, say, twenty thousand people, killed unlawfully yesterday that I will be mourning before I mourn him.

Where was the good guy with a gun to stop him?
oh right, he couldn’t have stopped him.

I would hope this would lead to a greater debate on gun violence in the USA, but I know it won’t.

It will be used to fuel more hate and division.

this would insinuate that you agree with him on that stance then? Isn’t that a contradiction?

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.