this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2024
142 points (96.7% liked)

politics

18850 readers
4759 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk is preparing to launch a campaign against Martin Luther King Jr. and the landmark civil rights law he helped enact.

all 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Uglyhead@lemmy.world 61 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.”

Ah. There it is. I’ve heard this one before from other White Nationalists and NatC’s

Next comes: ‘we should have separated the people into their own regions’ and other such complete and utter nonsense.

Segregationists. The lot of them.

Blake Neff, a producer of The Charlie Kirk Show. In 2020, Neff resigned from his job at Fox News as Tucker Carlson’s top writer after CNN revealed he had been making racist posts under a pseudonym.

And there’s the real architect of this pyramid of shite. Blake “Neff”; the NatC bag of shite that held Cucker Tarlsons reins.

[–] whatupwiththat@kbin.social 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] ApostleO@startrek.website 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

'we should have separated the people into their own regions'

We should launch all the white supremacists to Mars and see how well they fare building their own civilization.

[–] Uglyhead@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Having had some close up experience in my life with incredibly wealthy hardcore Christian Nationalist White Supremacists, most would probably absolutely love that. With a stop-over on the dark side of the moon to join up with all the Legacy already stationed there. I’m sure of course, it’ll be called “Planet X” by then.

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 32 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Charlie Kirk can get fucked. Never in all of human history has there ever been somebody with a more punchable face.

[–] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

You just can't unsee it

[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago

The only think Charlie Kirk can discredited is his own arguments. Dude is about as sharp as an orange

[–] kyle@lemm.ee 13 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Honestly what the fuck.

Curious to see what bombshell they plan on dropping on Monday, because this is wild.

[–] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I suspect they're going to attack MLK Jr. on his "character". They love to cite that he cheated on his wife, which...okay, yeah, that's bad. But any reasonable person can see that his alleged cheating and his campaign for civil rights are separate issues.

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 months ago

It'll probably be about his criticisms of capitalism, and his progressive economic ideals that neolibs love to gloss over when they do their performative worship of his memory.

Capitalism is basically a religion to these people at this point.

[–] Sharpiemarker@startrek.website 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's toilet paper USA. There's no bombshell

[–] kyle@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago

Fair. Should've put "bombshell" in quotes lol

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago

Well then he can go fuck the fuck off

[–] Jimmycakes@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago

Your first mistake was listening to Charlie Kirk on any topic

[–] ButtermilkBiscuit@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago
[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 7 points 8 months ago

"Are we the baddies?"

[–] edgemaster72@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

Anyone that would actually listen to Charlie Kirk is probably already on his side of this "argument", why even give him the exposure