The left had to take out Charlie Kirk

prove-me-wrong-v0-o3pjs60s8nof1.jpeg
 
Nordberg said:
Most leftys did not see Kirk as a big deal. Not sure the rightys did until he got killed, then he became a huge power in the Trump party. I heard him interviewed a couple of times and thought he was a younger ,smarter version of the Illuminati party. He was not overwhelming or convincing to me.
Click to expand...
Everybody think they're Gods, when Youtube gives them notoriety. It happened to Shannon Sharpe, Joe Buden and Charlie. I'll say it again, Latino's gave Trump the fuckin white house, wasn't white boys and gals at all...it was the Latino voter...google it, it is fact!!!
 
tigerred59 said:
What the fuck have I said that is violent? What the fuck have I advocated that labels me a terrorist? Yall can try and spin this shit all the fuck you want, but at the end of the fuckin day, you maniac, that white man died at the hands of another white man because security was laxed and he felt safe. News Flash you raging lunatic....that very day, 37 people were killed in this country and a school was once again shot up by yet another white male.
Click to expand...

I'm pointing to your fellow leftist.

Note the glee in which the 12b Maggot cheers on the death of someone for simply holding views contrary to the party.

A school was once agains shot up by a leftist tranny - a man pretending to be a woman.
 
cawacko said:
Dude, you're a political junkie and don't know who Charlie Kirk is?

He founded Turning Point USA more than a decade ago, and it grew into a big force pushing conservative politics on thousands of high school and college campuses. That’s why he traveled the country giving talks that drew such large crowds at Universities.

He had millions of followers on Instagram and Twitter. He had close ties to Trump. Trump didn’t win because of Kirk alone, but he wouldn’t have won without the work Kirk did to mobilize young voters..

He's dead now, but it's just strange to brush him off as some guy on AM radio. (Does AM radio even still exist? You are aging yourself my man.)
Click to expand...
My post was in response to an earlier post celebrating Rush Limbaugh

To be truthful, I did not know who Charlie Kirk was, I recognize the name, but couldn’t tell you anything about him. I do not follow social media, podcasts, blogs, or anything similar, sports or politics, never was a fan of one way communication.
 
archives said:
My post was in response to an earlier post celebrating Rush Limbaugh

To be truthful, I did not know who Charlie Kirk was, I recognize the name, but couldn’t tell you anything about him. I do not follow social media, podcasts, blogs, or anything similar, sports or politics, never was a fan of one way communication.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, everyone chooses how they want to get information. But on a board dominated by Boomers and retirees, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that not everyone fully understands how the newer platforms work.

Podcasts aren’t just one person talking at you like old-school radio. They’re usually interviews or back-and-forth discussions. Social media can work the same way. Even Twitter, for all its mess, still has useful give-and-takes unless someone shuts off comments.

People don’t just sit with the morning paper and evening news anymore. It’s a different world now.
 
tigerred59 said:
Everybody think they're Gods, when Youtube gives them notoriety. It happened to Shannon Sharpe, Joe Buden and Charlie. I'll say it again, Latino's gave Trump the fuckin white house, wasn't white boys and gals at all...it was the Latino voter...google it, it is fact!!!
Click to expand...
The Latinos did not help Trump win all 7 swing states.
 
cawacko said:
Fair enough, everyone chooses how they want to get information. But on a board dominated by Boomers and retirees, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that not everyone fully understands how the newer platforms work.

Podcasts aren’t just one person talking at you like old-school radio. They’re usually interviews or back-and-forth discussions. Social media can work the same way. Even Twitter, for all its mess, still has useful give-and-takes unless someone shuts off comments.

People don’t just sit with the morning paper and evening news anymore. It’s a different world now.
Click to expand...
I know how they work, I’ve seen/heard them, and they are not entirely as your portray them. One doesn’t normally go on say a Ben Shapiro or Young Turks podcast if you know your views contrast with theirs, and the exchange on such a show is aimed at creating melodrama, it is entertainment they are selling

And I am always suspicious of anything limited to 280 characters

To relate to an earlier question you asked, difference between the ‘60s and now, is the spread of disinformation and pore hate the Internet allows. In the past, there were guardrails, be it institutional or norms, not necessarily official, which today don’t exist. The actual horrific footage of a murder, wouldn’t surface immediately after the event, giving anger a chance to subside
 
archives said:
I know how they work, I’ve seen/heard them, and they are not entirely as your portray them. One doesn’t normally go on say a Ben Shapiro or Young Turks podcast if you know your views contrast with theirs, and the exchange on such a show is aimed at creating melodrama, it is entertainment they are selling

And I am always suspicious of anything limited to 280 characters

To relate to an earlier question you asked, difference between the ‘60s and now, is the spread of disinformation and pore hate the Internet allows. In the past, there were guardrails, be it institutional or norms, not necessarily official, which today don’t exist. The actual horrific footage of a murder, wouldn’t surface immediately after the event, giving anger a chance to subside
Click to expand...
Fair enough. It’s like how Fox News and MSNBC feed confirmation bias by telling us we’re good people for what we believe. They also tell us that anyone who disagrees is the enemy. Some podcasts do the same thing, filling that tribal need. But there are also podcasts hosted by sharp people who have thoughtful discussions that are genuinely informative. It really comes down to what you’re looking for.

My question to you is, what do you consider “real debate”? Where does that happen today, if at all? And where do you think it happened in the past, if it ever did?

And yes, I agree about the issues with social media. Look at this board. On one hand it lets us gather and talk. But if we stepped back, dropped the tribal pretenses for a moment, and looked at this place from 30,000 feet, I think a lot of people would be appalled at the level of hate, anger, dehumanizing, and even wishing death on each other.
 
cawacko said:
Fair enough. It’s like how Fox News and MSNBC feed confirmation bias by telling us we’re good people for what we believe. They also tell us that anyone who disagrees is the enemy. Some podcasts do the same thing, filling that tribal need. But there are also podcasts hosted by sharp people who have thoughtful discussions that are genuinely informative. It really comes down to what you’re looking for.

My question to you is, what do you consider “real debate”? Where does that happen today, if at all? And where do you think it happened in the past, if it ever did?

And yes, I agree about the issues with social media. Look at this board. On one hand it lets us gather and talk. But if we stepped back, dropped the tribal pretenses for a moment, and looked at this place from 30,000 feet, I think a lot of people would be appalled at the level of hate, anger, dehumanizing, and even wishing death on each other.
Click to expand...
Well, I haven’t sent many of those “thoughtful discussions” on the web, nor on traditional mediums, short of CSpan, and we know no one watches because it’s “boring.” For clarification, I am a born cynic, of just about everything

I don’t believe “debate” exist, debate implies winners and losers, I like to think of it as exchanging views, not selling opinions, presenting viewpoints, which is why I prefer print. You know the average nightly newscast, and probably most internet products, can be printed out in three or four pages
 
archives said:
Well, I haven’t sent many of those “thoughtful discussions” on the web, nor on traditional mediums, short of CSpan, and we know no one watches because it’s “boring.” For clarification, I am a born cynic, of just about everything

I don’t believe “debate” exist, debate implies winners and losers, I like to think of it as exchanging views, not selling opinions, presenting viewpoints, which is why I prefer print. You know the average nightly newscast, and probably most internet products, can be printed out in three or four pages
Click to expand...
I don't disagree at all that what passes for 'debate' is often little more than people yelling at each other trying to score (political) points.

It's why I specifically said discussions, not debate, when talking about podcasts. There are podcasts where smart people operating in good faith engage in legitimate discussions, including disagreements, that are very informative.

I can read an opinion piece in print but there's no rebuttal. To me, to fully understand a topic, I want to hear the points and counterpoints. You don't get that in print.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top