The Charlie Kirk Thread

Callatoroy said:
Last part is easier for me. Why not? Lots of reasons. Because it’s trump driving it and others are trying to copy him and trump doesn’t give a shit if it makes things worse. Do you think LB would have a thought if trump didn’t give it to her? Same with mtg. The right thinks we still want to hear it and im sure there are some who do like it as if it’s some pregame speech. Others like me are tired of it and see its destruction, but the right won’t recognize it until losing an election. That is why I think the left, if it rises above it will be in better shape for the next election.

As for trump being an authoritarian I would first need to understand your definition of it.
Click to expand...
Absolutely a fair response. Can I have a day to gather my thoughts on this? I’d like to answer your question in a genuine, and precise, way.
 

BlooVooDoo said:
Below is the AI synopsis from a Google search “characteristics of authoritarian governments.” If you don’t think Trump and friends are playing most of these tunes or clearly trying to, well, let’s just agree to disagree and be thankful for what has been, IMO, a very civil, good-faith discussion.



An authoritarian government is a political system characterized by the consolidation of power in the hands of a single leader, a small group, or a ruling party
. Unlike democratic systems, authoritarian regimes do not allow for free and fair elections, extensive political pluralism, or robust protection of civil liberties. The stability of these regimes is often maintained through political repression, control over information, and limited political participation.
Concentration of power
  • Centralized authority: Power is concentrated in the executive branch and is not held accountable by the people it governs.
  • Weak checks and balances: Authoritarian governments often weaken or eliminate independent institutions like legislatures, courts, and election administration bodies to remove any limits on executive power.
  • Indefinite political tenure: Rulers or ruling parties in authoritarian systems have no term limits, allowing them to remain in power indefinitely.
Control of information and dissent
  • Limited political pluralism: The government suppresses or controls political opposition by restricting rival parties, interest groups, and political dissent.
  • Controlled media and propaganda: State-controlled media is used to spread propaganda and disinformation, while independent media is suppressed through censorship, legal harassment, or control by government allies.
  • Quashing dissent: Authoritarian regimes actively suppress free speech, peaceful assembly, and protest. Dissidents and activists are often harassed, imprisoned, or face other consequences.
  • Political violence: These regimes may tolerate or actively encourage political violence to intimidate and silence opponents and maintain power.
Control over elections
  • Corrupt and unfair elections:Authoritarian systems often hold elections to create a facade of democratic rule, but the process is heavily manipulated to favor the incumbent. Tactics include suppressing votes, biasing rules, and manipulating results.
  • Limited participation: Political participation is minimal and is often manufactured through state-sponsored rallies to consolidate in-group identity and support.
Legal and social controls
  • Weak rule of law: The government adheres to "rule by law," using the legal system as a tool to advance its interests, rather than the "rule of law," which holds that all are subject to the same legal code.
  • Abuse of state power: The power of the state is misused to advance the personal or partisan desires of the ruling elite. This includes persecuting political opponents and funneling resources to loyalists.
  • Scapegoating: Minority groups, immigrants, and "outsiders" are often blamed for a country's problems to exploit national insecurities and rally support.
  • Stifling civil society: A wide range of social controls are used to suppress civil society, including restrictions on non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other forms of collective action.
Click to expand...
This is basically everything that’s happening currently, almost every single part of the definition. Some of the points are obviously true today. Others are being pursued actively.

So is it dangerous rhetoric to call some authoritarian if they match the definition? I’d say it’s more dangerous not to.

Doing the same for fascism would lead to similar observations.
 
For me, it’s not that voters weren’t moved by Harris and other Dems calling Trump authoritarian. It’s that Republican voters — and many swing voters — didn’t care that so many CONSERVATIVES said Trump was a danger to our democracy.

Liz and Dick Cheney. I get that lots of folks, including Republicans disillusioned with the establishment, are not will about Dick Cheney. But good grief — hardcore conservative, tough politician. The same folks who voted for him and George W. Bush twice just didn’t care.

Conservative political scholar Michael Luttig said Trump was a threat.

John Kelly.

Adam Kinzinger.

Former Tea Party Congressman Joe Walsh.

Trump didn’t get an endorsement from George W. Bush.

That’s what should have convinced enough swing voters and reasonable Republicans to reject Trump. I mean, right?
 
Jetson said:
This is basically everything that’s happening currently, almost every single part of the definition. Some of the points are obviously true today. Others are being pursued actively.

So is it dangerous rhetoric to call some authoritarian if they match the definition? I’d say it’s more dangerous not to.

Doing the same for fascism would lead to similar observations.
Click to expand...
Well, you see if you call behavior and propaganda out for what it is, you apparently increase the likelihood 1. People will vote for it and apparently 2. Make the authoritarians become authoritarians, whereas they wouldn’t have, otherwise. Because the right is always made to do what it does - it has no apparent agency nor responsibility for their own behavior.
 
ole howard1 said:
For me, it’s not that voters weren’t moved by Harris and other Dems calling Trump authoritarian. It’s that Republican voters — and many swing voters — didn’t care that so many CONSERVATIVES said Trump was a danger to our democracy.

Liz and Dick Cheney. I get that lots of folks, including Republicans disillusioned with the establishment, are not will about Dick Cheney. But good grief — hardcore conservative, tough politician. The same folks who voted for him and George W. Bush twice just didn’t care.

Conservative political scholar Michael Luttig said Trump was a threat.

John Kelly.

Adam Kinzinger.

Former Tea Party Congressman Joe Walsh.

Trump didn’t get an endorsement from George W. Bush.

That’s what should have convinced enough swing voters and reasonable Republicans to reject Trump. I mean, right?
Click to expand...
I think the one difference with Trump, and one critical contributing factor to his getting re-elected, is the way has has been able to get people who are generally otherwise unengaged with the political process to go out and vote for him. Most of these people are people who would tell you both parties suck. They don’t follow politics closely, nor do they necessarily have a grasp on how US government works.
 
Our school board rep was pressured to resign after making an anti-Kirk post on IG.

Youngkin and the Lt. Gov both chimed in on it.
 




None of this is meant to suggest he deserved to be murdered, just a reminder that his whitewashed modern day Jesus makeover is highly inaccurate.
 
Icky Mettle said:
I think the one difference with Trump, and one critical contributing factor to his getting re-elected, is the way has has been able to get people who are generally otherwise unengaged with the political process to go out and vote for him. Most of these people are people who would tell you both parties suck. They don’t follow politics closely, nor do they necessarily have a grasp on how US government works.
Click to expand...
A good chunk of those are motivated by racism.
 
Icky Mettle said:
I think the one difference with Trump, and one critical contributing factor to his getting re-elected, is the way has has been able to get people who are generally otherwise unengaged with the political process to go out and vote for him. Most of these people are people who would tell you both parties suck. They don’t follow politics closely, nor do they necessarily have a grasp on how US government works.
Click to expand...
I agree.

But there have been quite a lot of well educated, affluent, professionally successful Republicans who were solidly supportive of Bushes, Reagan, McCain, Romney, etc. and have fallen right in line with Trump — despite the warnings of strong conservatives.
 
Icky Mettle said:
A friend of mine sent a quick video clip of a group of people (looked like all white men) walking along a road in Charlotte yesterday, all wearing masks and hats. I couldn’t tell what was going on but my other friends on the text thread said it looked like some alt-right group. Now that I see this, that seems to be what it was. Looks like a modern-day Klan rally.
1757873926592.png
1757873971139.png
Click to expand...
I thought they were afraid of masks or were ICE agents...
 
Callatoroy said:
I don’t know what to tell you other than read the room. A majority of voters apparently didn’t share your view that they (trump, Vance) were fascists or authoritarians. It doesn’t matter at all if trump and his cabinet can “handle” it because it isn’t about them. It’s about voters and whether they can handle it. The left has overused the labels so much they become meaningless. For a year and a half leading up to the election the left absolutely hammered trump as fascist and a threat to democracy, and even said if you vote for him you are supporting racism, fascism, etc. Yet they still voted for him because they don’t believe it because it became meaningless due to over-exaggeration and hyperbole. Continuing to beat that ineffective drum hasn’t worked and continuing to won’t work either. We could have a different conversation on another thread as to what it means and what would have to happen to overthrow the country. Not much more I can say on this topic but that the right isn’t going to tone down the rhetoric and the left can either continue the spiraling downward or use this as an opportunity to rebrand itself in a way that appeals to non hardcore righties and swing voters.
Click to expand...
I don't agree because I don't believe half the trump voters were knowledgeable about this or him, they simply voted for the party or for their eggs to be free again.
 
I believe fear is the simple driving factor towards embracing a "strong man" approach to government. Fear of change, fear of not creating a better life, fear of other, all magnified by orders of magnitude by social media. The strong man's team recognizes this and responds accordingly. The fear is real, and reasonable. The amplification of this fear can be, if left unchecked, Country destroying.
 
nycfan said:


Paul Pelosi says hello
Click to expand...

That's a real whopper, even for him. And not only Pelosi, but he's mocked a number of people who have died or at least their relatives and loved ones. After the Minnesota state legislator was killed he said he wouldn't call Tim Walz to offer condolences because he had "shaky hands" and other crap. He lies about everything all the time, but claiming that the violent rhetoric is coming only from the left and that the right never does such things is completely ridiculous.
 
sringwal said:
I agree that the majority of voters didn’t share the perspective thst Trump and Vance are authoritarian, although I do believe some folks are yearning for authoritarianism.

With that in mind, there is a lot of evidence that supports the argument that Trump is an authoritarian. Show the evidence that he is not.

Regarding your point that the right is not going to tone down the rhetoric, why not? Why is this something that is solely the left’s responsibility?
Click to expand...
I remember when Trump was first elected in 2016 and people were still shocked by his social media posts and rantings in early 2017 that a right-winger on the roundtable on Meet the Press said that Democrats just needed to ignore him and be "the adult in the room". Yeah, that's worked out really well. Saying that is just another example of the ridiculous double standard that Democrats are now held to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top