The murder of Charlie Kirk
Can we all admit that the majority of extremism is coming from the left over the last handful of years?
Apparently they j
Ya, bro... except, we don't even have a suspect yet. lolDid this even hit your radar? This was an actual confirmed political assassination less than 3 months ago.https://abc11.com/post/2-minnesota-lawma...Or maybe this one?
they have evidence!!
same as they did for students visa and being pro hamas (or anti-USA in general)
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/18/us/po...
you give them your social handles, if you don't have any that's proof you want to hide something and so on
Free speech bro .
Ah yes not anymore …
U it’s ok to blast and threatening lefty to die and not deserving any better but that ok lol..
deleted
do you deny that the dataset discussed considers white prison gang violence as rightwing extremism, but latino and black prison gangs aren't extremism, in the same data set? and that BLM riots aren't coded as leftwing violence either there?Do you deny that, or you know that's objectively true, yet you are fine with it because it allows to claim something which is utterly object
I'm open to truth, no matter where it leads.
But you said the FBI intentionally mis-identifies left wing domestic terrorism. So you need to be specific. We're talking about domestic terrorism. And I'm not going to be by your crazy definition. I'm going to do by how FBI and other law enforcement define it... because it's their data.
Now you're talking about an ADL graphic, which is different. So which group are you going to prove intentionally under plays left wing violence, and over plays right wing violence.
By the way, you can just read how the ADL defines their information. There aren't a ton of domestic terrorist attacks every year... usually about 15-20 or so a year. So I'm honestly not sure what you're even talking about.
https://www.adl.org/resources/report/mur...
Looks like in 2024, it was all right-wingers.
it's not a thought crime. It's not a crime to hate america and be incompatible culturally with it.
It's an assessment of the character of a person you are giving the *PRIVILEGE* to enter the country. The privilege. Denying which isn't a guilty verdict. It's not a trial.
"good moral character" is an *explicit element of consideration in granting naturalization* by *federal law* for example (which democrats never used against monsters with caricatural violent ideologies fully incompatible with the USA, like Mamdami).
How to assess that exactly is open to interpretation of course. And of course, in a democracy, the bent of that assessment will depend on the administration, as it should be.
You want to use the same standard you would apply to citizens, but explicitly by law and by scotus precedent that's not how things should go.
As for visas (entrance in general) you can be denied if you are at risk of becoming a warden of the state ("public charge ground of inadmissibility") for example. Clearly this wouldn't apply to citizens would it?
There is automatic inadmissibility if you are or were a member of any totalitarian party or organization.
And in general as per the constitution, while congress has it's saying, the executive can ban entrants for many reasons. And doing that for moral character reasons, other than being aligned with congress passed laws against unamerican individuals being barred entrance (see above about totalitarianism), is simple not "thought crime". "we the people determine you are disgusting", stay out of our country, it is not a trial.
no it isn't, it's statistically correct, same as profiling for race and crime is.Almost everyone has social media. Many have low activity social media sure. Give them and you'll be fine. Unless you actually said stuff against the values of the USA (as determined by the elected administration) in which case it's proper and good that you are not let in.It's obvious that if you ju
Having social media and lying about not having it shows you have something to hide.
Not having social media doesn’t show that.
But whatever.
I'm not sure anyone who uses the word "centre" is appropriately qualified to speak on American politics.
That's how you end up with a black Cleopatra.
it's not a thought crime. It's not a crime to hate america and be incompatible culturally with it.It's an assessment of the character of a person you are giving the *PRIVILEGE* to enter the country. The privilege. Denying which isn't a guilty verdict. It's not a trial."good moral character" is an *explicit element of consideration in granting naturalization* by *federal law* fo
I was using thought crime in the colloquial sense. I wasn't suggesting that denying someone entry was the same thing as a convicting them of a crime.
During periods when Democrats controlled government, should you have been banned from entering the United States?
Having social media and lying about not having it shows you have something to hide.
Not having social media doesn’t show that.
But whatever.
How do you avoid people just claiming they don't have social media every time they know they have social media with a ton of stuff that would compromise them?
what if they just delete their accounts?
I mean maybe that's the italian in me, but every regulation or law has to start from the idea that people will do everything to dodge it and account for it in full and treat everyone as if he is a professional scammer who is trying to **** you.
You know how easy it is for you to recognize Muslims that have been radicalized by Hamas, or Al-Qaeda? Yet you can't recognize radicalized Christians, although they FUNCTION the exact same way.They both used antiquated "holy books" to justify their hate and bigotry of others. They both want their world views to be forced upon others. They both will not seek any compromise. It i
And yet you can't recognize radicalized Jews and instead blame the people getting blown to bits every minute. Weird.
Lets fight over who is more radical, Israelis or Hamas
(jk, don't care)
I was using thought crime in the colloquial sense. I wasn't suggesting that denying someone entry was the same thing as a convicting them of a crime.
During periods when Democrats controlled government, should you have been banned from entering the United States?
Unless there was a bipartisan agreement to be more lenient with close family members of american citizens (the law explicitly allows waivers in those cases but there is no automatism), obviously any administration that would find my views abhorrent would be fully legitimated to ban me from entering the USA, and i would understand it completly.
A friend was banned btw. He won a magic PTQ years ago (qualifying tournaments for for-the-money magic pro tournaments) , had a minor offence for fiscal fraud pending (but like some redic stuff for few hundreds euros, that became criminal because of how our country treats some taxes differently than others), and got denied entrance.
I think if you were to take every P reg here and have them spend half a day in a shooting course with an instructor and have them replicate this particular shooting, for at least what we think happened, I think almost everyone would have found it to be a lot easier to make this shot than previously thought. I'd imagine that it would also very likely reduce the amount of crazy
whether trained or not, rising up to a moment where the shot matters, and you can erase your adrenaline spike and all sorts of other moral quandaries “taking a shot.” Sure anyone can do it.
90% of the people in this entire forum and Training one day, then going out to kill someone or something, while other moving objects and variables involved they would not only fail to “kill” the target but may not even have the moxy to walk up the steps in front of 1000s of people to even begin to set it up and kill a stranger or snake for that matter.
It is absolutely disgusting to read across these forums who cheer for this and revel in it on any side.
Had this been AOC or Ilhan Omar or any left leaning person who espouses views on anti capitalism, or saying all conservatives are Nazis etc etc everyone cheering would all have a different tone.
This is a horrible horrible event and the only thing that separates us from the other primates that tear each other apart at the limbs and the Stone Age is non violent PUBLIC DISCOURSE.
There is a very scary place we’re heading and all the cheerleaders for this behavior will be slaughtered like everyone else in a river of blood and resentment and spite.
Then we can all be chill.
So, most of the right will be slaughtered? I guess I can live with that
what the hell Ezra Klein scoops it up with a freaking instant masterpiece in the NYT
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/11/opini...
You can dislike much of what Kirk believed and the following statement is still true: Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him. He was one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion. When the left thought its hold on the hearts and minds of college students was nearly absolute, Kirk showed up again and again to break it. Slowly, then all at once, he did. College-age voters shifted sharply right in the 2024 election.
...
Kirk and I were on different sides of most political arguments. We were on the same side on the continued possibility of American politics. It is supposed to be an argument, not a war; it is supposed to be won with words, not ended through bullets. I wanted Kirk to be safe for his sake, but I also wanted him to be safe for mine, and for the sake of our larger shared project. The same is true for Shapiro, for Hoffman, for Hortman, for Thompson, for Trump, for Pelosi, for Whitmer. We are all safe, or none of us are
How do you avoid people just claiming they don't have social media every time they know they have social media with a ton of stuff that would compromise them?what if they just delete their accounts?I mean maybe that's the italian in me, but every regulation or law has to start from the idea that people will do everything to dodge it and account for it in full and treat everyone
This seems like a problem for your proposal.
I mean maybe that's the italian in me, but every regulation or law has to start from the idea that people will do everything to dodge it and account for it in full and treat everyone as if he is a professional scammer who is trying to **** you.
This explains why Italian politics has been a clownshow for 60 years.
