USA news & politics

[Which Tyler]

Led by Donkeys have had four members arrested for that stunt, which is absolutely mad.

What's the bets that none of them get charged?
Clear over-reach, and just an excuse to stop them "embarassing" the country again tonight.
Official crime of "unauthorised projection"

This one, on the other hand (also clear over-reach)...

Two founders of Led By Donkeys to face trial after Labour HQ protest

Rushworth resistance — The art and activism crew hung a banner opposite the party’s Southwark headquarters, featuring an image of a bombed out Gaza street…

www.huckmag.com

Official crime of "disobeying a police order"

 

[AlRums]

Led by Donkeys have had four members arrested for that stunt, which is absolutely mad.

Different group, different stunt

 

[AlRums]

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche defends idea of prosecuting protesters

https://us.cnn.com/2025/09/16/politics/todd-blanche-defends-idea-of-prosecuting-protesters

How's that free speech?

 

[Welsh Exile]

You can't blame him. Trump has eradicated crime in DC and himself admitted that had he done an interview somewhere in Washington a few months ago there would be a 70% chance he'd be shot but now it's all good. Imagine his frustration after all that hard work fixing the city for protesters to come along and disrupt the peace.

 

[Which Tyler]

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche defends idea of prosecuting protesters

https://us.cnn.com/2025/09/16/politics/todd-blanche-defends-idea-of-prosecuting-protesters

How's that free speech?

"Prosecuted for racketeering"
Why is it that Trump ALWAYS accuses his enemies of doing the stuff he's already doing?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Ok take a breathe, you just made an incredibly sexist statement, that Hortman was lesser because shes a woman, im not sure why.

The question is should Gutfeld be fired for saying she was unknown, and her murder or their murder wasnt directly involving Republicans dehumanising them. I say no, because those two statements are factual, and little to no comparison can be made between them and Kirk.

Your also forgetting hes making the claim that the murder knew the victims, but thats a whole new debate on motives.

Your final point im constantly agreeing with, they are both as bad as each other, so id like you to keep that in mind the next time theres a Democrat killing, or attempt on their life, so when you are up in arms I'll give you the caveat.

And this is where I get frustrated, you and other team pickers here, will absolutely go hysterical when Democrats are the victims of such, but absolutely lambast the Republicans as just as bad, or even blame them for being angry for when they are victims of something, you will fight on behalf of the Democrats regardless.

At least my stance is honest, theyre both a bunch of scumbags, i dont pretend theyre not.

I assume your sexist comment is some silly joke so I'll ignore that.

And again, the two points he made aren't relevant. It already completely ignores how he says it. You gave it as if he was making a reasoned point rather than angrily trying to dismiss a counter point as a nobody. Remember that example was raised to counter the claim only the left engages in political violence. His attempt to discredit it as a valid counter example is the context of this that you are ignoring. The popularity or language preceding it didn't change the fact it was a valid counter example of right wing political violence. Rather than admit that, he attacks and belittled it.

We are in an environment where every sane person recognises it has occurred on both sides and the rhetoric needs to be turned down but that's not what's happening, the rhetoric is being turned up. We literally have the president of the USA and justice department threatening penny partisan retribution and you feel it's wrong for anyone in the left to point this out?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

You can't blame him. Trump has eradicated crime in DC and himself admitted that had he done an interview somewhere in Washington a few months ago there would be a 70% chance he'd be shot but now it's all good. Imagine his frustration after all that hard work fixing the city for protesters to come along and disrupt the peace.

And it turns out DC grand juries are overwhelmingly refusing to find there was cause for the charges, which is practically unprecedented. They say you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich because of how stacked the process is in favour if the prosecution, but it seems you can't get them to indict someone who throws a ham sandwich and admits to doing it.

 

[dirty harry]

I assume your sexist comment is some silly joke so I'll ignore that.

And again, the two points he made aren't relevant. It already completely ignores how he says it. You gave it as if he was making a reasoned point rather than angrily trying to dismiss a counter point as a nobody. Remember that example was raised to counter the claim only the left engages in political violence. His attempt to discredit it as a valid counter example is the context of this that you are ignoring. The popularity or language preceding it didn't change the fact it was a valid counter example of right wing political violence. Rather than admit that, he attacks and belittled it.

We are in an environment where every sane person recognises it has occurred on both sides and the rhetoric needs to be turned down but that's not what's happening, the rhetoric is being turned up. We literally have the president of the USA and justice department threatening penny partisan retribution and you feel it's wrong for anyone in the left to point this out?

Stop pivoting, relevancy is not a determing factor on whether someone deserves to be fired, are you honestly making a case for Gutfeld deserving firing?

I cant keep having to reiterate my stance to you, Gutfeld doesnt deserve sacking, he said some stupid stuff, be he also made factual statements that the Minesota killings and Kirks killing arent the same.

What's the petty partisan retribution?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Stop pivoting, relevancy is not a determing factor on whether someone deserves to be fired, are you honestly making a case for Gutfeld deserving firing?

I cant keep having to reiterate my stance to you, Gutfeld doesnt deserve sacking, he said some stupid stuff, be he also made factual statements that the Minesota killings and Kirks killing arent the same.

What's the petty partisan retribution?

No the determining factor is if the network thinks they are acting in a way that goes against the values of the company. Do you think his response to being correctly shown there actually had been far right assassinations was reasonable?

And I can't keep reinterating that it is irrelevant because the actual point being made was the claim that only the left engage in political violence. His response to being shown that was not the case was to launch an attack and belittle another victim as a nobody. He was wrong and attacked a fellow host personally who pointed it out. You think someone with a whole hit list of democrat politicians is less political violence than someone who kills one target just because that one target is more famous?

How about threatening to use RICO para against protesters as a starter?

 

[dirty harry]

No the determining factor is if the network thinks they are acting in a way that goes against the values of the company. Do you think his response to being correctly shown there actually had been far right assassinations was reasonable?

And I can't keep reinterating that it is irrelevant because the actual point being made was the claim that only the left engage in political violence. His response to being shown that was not the case was to launch an attack and belittle another victim as a nobody. He was wrong and attacked a fellow host personally who pointed it out. You think someone with a whole hit list of democrat politicians is less political violence than someone who kills one target just because that one target is more famous?

How about threatening to use RICO para against protesters as a starter?

You lost me on that first paragraph, its a bit babble esque, can you rephrase please?

He didnt attack anyone, saying the Minnessota victims werent as high profile as Charlie kirk is absolutely accurate, to say they werent deemed fascists and nazis daily like Kirk is absolutely accurate, and to claim the killer may have known them is accurate. There was no harm, or even insult, he was using it for a stupid point about Republicans being victims.

Are we talking about the Stop Funders act?

 

[dirty harry]

WTAF?!?!?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

You lost me on that first paragraph, its a bit babble esque, can you rephrase please?

He didnt attack anyone, saying the Minnessota victims werent as high profile as Charlie kirk is absolutely accurate, to say they werent deemed fascists and nazis daily like Kirk is absolutely accurate, and to claim the killer may have known them is accurate. There was no harm, or even insult, he was using it for a stupid point about Republicans being victims.

Are we talking about the Stop Funders act?

What determines if he gets fired or not is if he upholds the standards expected by the network or not.

He did, he attacked his co-host. "The fact of the matter is, the both sides argument not only doesn't fly, we don't care. We don't care about your both sides argument, that **** is dead. For one thing, there is no cognitive dissonance on our side. On your side, your beliefs do not match reality. so you're coming up with these rationalisations, what about this? What about that? We're not doing that because we saw it happen. We saw a young, white man assassinated and we know who did it. We are not coming up with rationalisations, we are calm (clue, he's not calm at all when he's saying this), we are honest, we're not defensive, and I understand the defensiveness, I understand why people are saying what about this, what about this, because if you have the face the underlying facts of this, your life is gonna fall apart because you're gonna realise you're not the good guys."
You want to say he wasn't attacking his co-host there? Also Tarlov made EXACTLY the same point I did, after Gutfeld said nobody had heard of her she responded with "does it matter"? Not it ******* doesn't matter, political assassination is political assassination and he doesn't get to simply dismiss it because they were less famous. He also responded by pointing out a Democrat was murdered as "bullshit", you think that isn't an attack? Yes she wasn't specifically targeted, but she WAS targeted because of a general demonification of Democrats and the left, that's why her killer had a whole hit list and not just her. How is that any less dangerous? How is that any less valid as a response regarding political assassination? His response was angry and abusive. You think that embodies proper journalism? You think what he is saying isn't just fanning the flames further, exactly in a way he claims the left only do?

I mean things like this:

Bondi to prosecute Office Depot worker who refused to print Charlie Kirk flyers

Office Depot fired a Michigan employee who refused to print flyers for a Charlie Kirk vigil, claiming they were ‘propaganda’

www.independent.co.uk

DOJ says Trump protesters could face RICO charges for yelling at him during dinner

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche defends Trump’s threat to charge protesters for using ‘vile words and vile anger’

www.independent.co.uk

It's not the Stop the Funders act, it's using existing RICO laws to prosecute protestors for daring to shout at the president. You see no problem with that!?

 

[McTallshort]

What determines if he gets fired or not is if he upholds the standards expected by the network or not.

He did, he attacked his co-host. "The fact of the matter is, the both sides argument not only doesn't fly, we don't care. We don't care about your both sides argument, that **** is dead. For one thing, there is no cognitive dissonance on our side. On your side, your beliefs do not match reality. so you're coming up with these rationalisations, what about this? What about that? We're not doing that because we saw it happen. We saw a young, white man assassinated and we know who did it. We are not coming up with rationalisations, we are calm (clue, he's not calm at all when he's saying this), we are honest, we're not defensive, and I understand the defensiveness, I understand why people are saying what about this, what about this, because if you have the face the underlying facts of this, your life is gonna fall apart because you're gonna realise you're not the good guys."
You want to say he wasn't attacking his co-host there? Also Tarlov made EXACTLY the same point I did, after Gutfeld said nobody had heard of her she responded with "does it matter"? Not it ******* doesn't matter, political assassination is political assassination and he doesn't get to simply dismiss it because they were less famous. He also responded by pointing out a Democrat was murdered as "bullshit", you think that isn't an attack? Yes she wasn't specifically targeted, but she WAS targeted because of a general demonification of Democrats and the left, that's why her killer had a whole hit list and not just her. How is that any less dangerous? How is that any less valid as a response regarding political assassination? His response was angry and abusive. You think that embodies proper journalism? You think what he is saying isn't just fanning the flames further, exactly in a way he claims the left only do?

I mean things like this:

Bondi to prosecute Office Depot worker who refused to print Charlie Kirk flyers

Office Depot fired a Michigan employee who refused to print flyers for a Charlie Kirk vigil, claiming they were ‘propaganda’

www.independent.co.uk

DOJ says Trump protesters could face RICO charges for yelling at him during dinner

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche defends Trump’s threat to charge protesters for using ‘vile words and vile anger’

www.independent.co.uk

It's not the Stop the Funders act, it's using existing RICO laws to prosecute protestors for daring to shout at the president. You see no problem with that!?

Why argue with someone who just wants to argue?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

You lost me on that first paragraph, its a bit babble esque, can you rephrase please?

He didnt attack anyone, saying the Minnessota victims werent as high profile as Charlie kirk is absolutely accurate, to say they werent deemed fascists and nazis daily like Kirk is absolutely accurate, and to claim the killer may have known them is accurate. There was no harm, or even insult, he was using it for a stupid point about Republicans being victims.

Are we talking about the Stop Funders act?

Fox Panel Erupts After Gutfeld Defends Musk’s Misinformation

“You are getting too emotional about this,” Gutfeld told Jessica Tarlov after he falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton also spread misinformation about the attack on Paul Pelosi.

www.thedailybeast.com

Just compare those 2 responses to 2 attacks.

 

[Ddanno]

Why argue with someone who just wants to argue?

Sick to the back teeth of these threads being polluted with it tbh.

 

[dirty harry]

What determines if he gets fired or not is if he upholds the standards expected by the network or not.

He did, he attacked his co-host. "The fact of the matter is, the both sides argument not only doesn't fly, we don't care. We don't care about your both sides argument, that **** is dead. For one thing, there is no cognitive dissonance on our side. On your side, your beliefs do not match reality. so you're coming up with these rationalisations, what about this? What about that? We're not doing that because we saw it happen. We saw a young, white man assassinated and we know who did it. We are not coming up with rationalisations, we are calm (clue, he's not calm at all when he's saying this), we are honest, we're not defensive, and I understand the defensiveness, I understand why people are saying what about this, what about this, because if you have the face the underlying facts of this, your life is gonna fall apart because you're gonna realise you're not the good guys."
You want to say he wasn't attacking his co-host there? Also Tarlov made EXACTLY the same point I did, after Gutfeld said nobody had heard of her she responded with "does it matter"? Not it ******* doesn't matter, political assassination is political assassination and he doesn't get to simply dismiss it because they were less famous. He also responded by pointing out a Democrat was murdered as "bullshit", you think that isn't an attack? Yes she wasn't specifically targeted, but she WAS targeted because of a general demonification of Democrats and the left, that's why her killer had a whole hit list and not just her. How is that any less dangerous? How is that any less valid as a response regarding political assassination? His response was angry and abusive. You think that embodies proper journalism? You think what he is saying isn't just fanning the flames further, exactly in a way he claims the left only do?

I mean things like this:

Bondi to prosecute Office Depot worker who refused to print Charlie Kirk flyers

Office Depot fired a Michigan employee who refused to print flyers for a Charlie Kirk vigil, claiming they were ‘propaganda’

www.independent.co.uk

DOJ says Trump protesters could face RICO charges for yelling at him during dinner

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche defends Trump’s threat to charge protesters for using ‘vile words and vile anger’

www.independent.co.uk

It's not the Stop the Funders act, it's using existing RICO laws to prosecute protestors for daring to shout at the president. You see no problem with that!?

Ill be honest, from that transcript I would wish people on this thread would be as polite to me as he was to her. Would you say you guys attack me?

Your right, she wasnt specifically attacked, her killer may have been radicalised, as well as knowing her and the others, holding anti abortion views and targetting abortion advocates, and his views havnt been confirmed, werent no kings flyers found in his car? The situation isnt clear, and the instance isnt anything like Kirks death.

I dont think a link is fair, they are very different situations, and Gutfeld was right about that, and doesnt deserve to be fired for saying so. Im notnsure why your hell bent on demonising his stupid rant, and calling it an attack, and for him to be fired, im not sure you would be saying the same of a person from your team.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Ill be honest, from that transcript I would wish people on this thread would be as polite to me as he was to her. Would you say you guys attack me?

Your right, she wasnt specifically attacked, her killer may have been radicalised, as well as knowing her and the others, holding anti abortion views and targetting abortion advocates, and his views havnt been confirmed, werent no kings flyers found in his car? The situation isnt clear, and the instance isnt anything like Kirks death.

I dont think a link is fair, they are very different situations, and Gutfeld was right about that, and doesnt deserve to be fired for saying so. Im notnsure why your hell bent on demonising his stupid rant, and calling it an attack, and for him to be fired, im not sure you would be saying the same of a person from your team.

Yes you get attacked, you often bring it on yourself by going out of your way to cause arguments.


Political assassination is political assassination. Are they different? Yes, is that relevant to the point about who is assassinating who? No. In both cases it was a political assassination. He made a claim that it was an exclusively left wing problem, he was presented with a case showing it wasn't. It really is as simple as that.

Notice how when it was a Democrat who had been attacked, he immediately mocked her for being "too emotional" (both not true and sexist) and shouted her down in both cases when she was trying to make a serious point. I don't think he should be fired for on instance, I think he should be fired for a long string of cases of acting like a complete ****.

 

[Ddanno]

Ragey please just put him on ignore. He contributes nothing of value and replying to him just gets him hard.

I try to leave the posts unread but it makes the thread impossible to follow because it's just whataboutery, strawmans, anecdotal evidence etc etc from him, while others try to engage in good faith for four pages every day. Let him him shout into the void. You'll never get him to change his mind because he just wants an Internet ******* contest.

I use three other (unrelated) forums regularly and he would have been kicked out of all of them out by now for violating the general rule of 'don't be a dick' on every possible occasion.

 

[dirty harry]

Ragey please just put him on ignore. He contributes nothing of value and replying to him just gets him hard.

I try to leave the posts unread but it makes the thread impossible to follow because it's just whataboutery, strawmans, anecdotal evidence etc etc from him, while others try to engage in good faith for four pages every day. Let him him shout into the void. You'll never get him to change his mind because he just wants an Internet ******* contest.

I use three other (unrelated) forums regularly and he would have been kicked out of all of them out by now for violating the general rule of 'don't be a dick' on every possible occasion.

Ive never known such a person as to continually plead with people to do something about the person who doesnt hold the same opinions as you sometimes...

Sadly its part of life to accept we can all think differently, its ok, your safe.

 

[dirty harry]

Yes you get attacked, you often bring it on yourself by going out of your way to cause arguments.
View attachment 24653

Political assassination is political assassination. Are they different? Yes, is that relevant to the point about who is assassinating who? No. In both cases it was a political assassination. He made a claim that it was an exclusively left wing problem, he was presented with a case showing it wasn't. It really is as simple as that.

Notice how when it was a Democrat who had been attacked, he immediately mocked her for being "too emotional" (both not true and sexist) and shouted her down in both cases when she was trying to make a serious point. I don't think he should be fired for on instance, I think he should be fired for a long string of cases of acting like a complete ****.

So those who are attacked, sometimes have the caveat of bringing it on themselves? I think this was basically what Dowd said to get fired, you havnt made any Charlie Kirk posts have you, dont risk your job for a gloat.


Thats a really revealing meme... having one voice of decent on some issues, in an entire website says way more about you guys than it does me!

If your in a discussion forum, where the only person who calls for honesty, accuracy and nuance in each situation, is the one being attacked for being a troll, I suspect, and ive said it before, you need to step back and figure out how you have become so radicalised. Maybe its the constant bombardment of poor quality biased journalism being posted here, I dont think a member who posted say daily mail articles 4 times a day would last very long.