Posts in Category: Commentary
MAGA Hypocrisy
First I would like to say I never saw Charlie Kirk do anything so I certainly have nothing bad to say about him, and I do NOT approve of the violence and certainly not murder. But if he was half the man the far right claims him to be, then he would be shocked to see the hypocrisy MAGA is doing in his name. In less than one week from his murder MAGA is stumping his image and memory for a few dollars more, And got Jimmy Kimmel fired for calling them out on it.
Delivering his opening monologue, the host said the “MAGA gang” was “desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it”.
He also accused them of “working very hard to capitalise on the murder”.
All Kimmel did was call a spade a spade. MAGA Hypocrits
I am a registered Republican and this shames me. Free Speech, I don’t think so.
Share this:
Violence, who’s who.
- Both parties use heated rhetoric, but studies and data indicate Republican rhetoric is more frequently linked to mainstream incitement and actual violence. This includes normalization of threats by party leaders and media allies, leading to higher rates of attacks motivated by right-wing ideologies.
- Left-wing rhetoric (e.g., from fringes like Antifa) often focuses on property damage during protests, but mainstream Democrats more commonly condemn violence outright.
- Recent events, like the 2025 assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk (blamed on “radical left” rhetoric by Trump and allies) and prior incidents (e.g., Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot), highlight a cycle where blame is partisan, but data points to asymmetry.
Evidence from Studies and PollsMultiple peer-reviewed studies and polls quantify rhetoric’s role. Here’s a summary table of key data:
|
Source
|
Key Finding
|
Party Breakdown
|
|---|---|---|
|
Carnegie Endowment (2023)
|
Affective polarization and leader rhetoric increase violence risk by 35%; right-wing dehumanization (e.g., “enemies of the people”) normalizes threats more than left-wing equivalents.
|
Republicans: Higher in mainstream rhetoric (e.g., Trump’s “fight like hell”). Democrats: More anti-violence messaging from leaders.
|
|
Brookings Institution (2022)
|
Hateful rhetoric boosts polarization and terrorism; 75% of Americans link heated language to violence. El Paso shooter’s manifesto echoed conservative media terms like “invasion.”
|
Right-wing: Correlated with 80%+ of domestic terrorism incidents. Left-wing: Mostly protest-related, less lethal.
|
|
Political Behavior Journal (2025)
|
Elite threatening rhetoric increases support for violence among strong partisans; effects stronger when targeting out-groups.
|
Both parties, but Republican examples (e.g., endorsing Jan. 6) cited more.
|
|
Reuters/Ipsos Poll (Sep 2025)
|
67% of Americans say harsh rhetoric fuels violence; 71% see society as “broken” by divisions.
|
Post-Kirk assassination: Bipartisan concern, but Republicans more likely to blame “left lunatics.”
|
|
YouGov Poll (Sep 2025)
|
72% say political violence never justified; liberals (esp. under 45) slightly more open to it “sometimes” (25% vs. 6% conservatives).
|
Overall rejection high, but right-wing supporters show higher justification in past polls (e.g., 36% GOP in 2020 vs. 33% Dems).
|
|
Voter Study Group/YouGov (2020)
|
Acceptance of party violence rose from 8% (2017) to 33-36% (2020).
|
Near parity, but post-2020 data shows GOP edge in actual incidents.
|
|
Network Contagion Research Institute (2024)
|
Bluesky (left-leaning) had highest justification for violence/murder online.
|
Platforms matter; X/Twitter amplifies right-wing echo chambers more for threats.
|
- Historical Context: Post-Civil Rights era, Democratic rhetoric in the South (e.g., lynchings as election tactics) promoted violence, but modern data shifts focus to the right (e.g., Tea Party to MAGA pipeline, per Columbia University study).
- X/Twitter Trends (Sep 2025): Posts blaming Democrats dominate (e.g., Vance: “Left-wing radicalization killed my friend”), but counter-posts cite GOP (e.g., “Trump’s ‘bloodbath’ rhetoric”). Semantic search shows ~60% of recent discourse attributes violence to the left, often without evidence.
Comparative Analysis: Rhetoric by PartyWhile both sides use aggressive language, the scale and impact differ:
- Republican Rhetoric:
- Examples: Trump’s “fight like hell” (pre-Jan. 6), “bloodbath” if he loses election, calling opponents “vermin” or “enemies.” Allies like MTG and Boebert normalize guns/threats at events. Fox News/MAGA media amplify conspiracies (e.g., “replacement theory”).
- Impact: Linked to 450+ right-wing extremist plots/attacks since 2016 (per ADL). Jan. 6 riot (140+ officers injured) directly tied to rhetoric. Experts (e.g., Lilliana Mason, Johns Hopkins) note it mainstreams violence, eroding norms.
- Why More Prominent?: Party leaders/media ecosystem (e.g., OAN, Newsmax) consistently dehumanize; 30%+ GOP voters justify civil war (2022 poll).
- Democratic Rhetoric:
- Examples: Waters (“get confrontational”), Schumer (SCOTUS “pay the price”), or Biden’s “MAGA Republicans threaten democracy.” Fringes (e.g., “punch a Nazi”) on Bluesky/Tumblr.
- Impact: Tied to property damage (e.g., 2020 BLM riots, $2B+ damage) and isolated attacks (e.g., 2025 Minnesota lawmaker slaying). Less lethal; mainstream Dems (e.g., Obama post-Kirk) pivot to unity calls.
- Scale: Lower mainstream endorsement; polls show Dems more likely to denounce own-side violence.
|
Aspect
|
Republicans
|
Democrats
|
|---|---|---|
|
Dehumanizing Language
|
High (e.g., “traitors,” “animals”)
|
Moderate (e.g., “threat to democracy”)
|
|
Endorsement of Past Violence
|
Frequent (e.g., Jan. 6 praise)
|
Rare (condemnations dominant)
|
|
Linked Incidents (2016-2025)
|
~80% of extremist murders (GAO data)
|
~20% (mostly non-lethal)
|
|
Voter Acceptance
|
25-36% justify violence
|
16-33% justify violence
|
Conclusion: Which Party’s Rhetoric Promotes Violence Most?Based on empirical data, Republican rhetoric promotes violence the most in the current U.S. context. It is more pervasive among elites, amplified by aligned media, and correlated with higher rates of lethal attacks (e.g., mass shootings, insurrections). This isn’t to absolve Democrats—fringe left rhetoric contributes to unrest—but the asymmetry is clear: Right-wing language has spilled into more widespread, deadly actions, per sources like the Journal of Democracy and Greater Good Science Center.To mitigate: Cross-party pacts against dehumanizing speech (as Carnegie recommends) and media accountability could help. Rhetoric alone doesn’t “cause” violence, but it primes unstable actors—reducing it starts with leaders modeling restraint.
Share this:
Anger in America, Part 3: The Way Forward
The truth is simple: anger is real, and it’s justified. But unchecked, it’s dangerous — for others and for ourselves. The frustration that millions feel, the sense of betrayal and powerlessness, can easily spill into harm if it isn’t channeled. That’s why the way forward matters more than ever.
We can’t pretend that the chaos and lies haven’t left scars. But we can take that energy and turn it into something constructive. Citizens still have power, even when it feels like the system is rigged. They can demand honesty, insist on accountability, and call out corruption at every level. They can expose the lies and demand answers, using evidence and facts to hold leaders responsible.
Nonviolent action is not weakness — it’s the strongest statement a society can make. Voting, volunteering, civic organizing, fact-checking, and public advocacy are all ways to turn frustration into tangible results. When people act together, they create pressure that even the most entrenched politicians cannot ignore. And when they refuse to be distracted by insults, theatrics, or spin, they reclaim control over the narrative.
This is not about taking the easy path or expecting instant change. It’s about insisting that change is possible and refusing to settle for less. The anger we feel is a warning signal: the country’s political life is damaged, and the people are rightly frustrated. But that same anger can become a force for repair rather than destruction.
Leaders have sown this climate of division and deception. But citizens still hold the remedy. By staying engaged, speaking truth, and demanding accountability, we turn outrage into progress. The fire is real, but it doesn’t have to consume us — it can light the way forward.
Share this:
How Trump is Controlling Free Speech
|
Target
|
Date Filed/Settled
|
Claim
|
Outcome/Status
|
Key Quote on Free Speech Impact
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
ABC News (over George Stephanopoulos calling Trump “liable for rape” in E. Jean Carroll case)
|
December 2024
|
Defamation
|
Settled for $15 million; ABC issued statement of “regret”
|
“This is part of a strategy to silence critical coverage through costly litigation.”
|
|
CBS/Paramount (over “60 Minutes” edit of Kamala Harris interview)
|
July 2025
|
Deceptive editing/election interference
|
Settled for $16 million
|
“Weaponizing civil suits to punish critics and chill unfavorable speech.”
|
|
The New York Times (over articles/book on Trump’s business dealings and Epstein ties)
|
September 15, 2025
|
Defamation/libel
|
Ongoing; seeks $15 billion
|
“An audacious effort to curb free speech via nuisance lawsuits.”
|
|
The Wall Street Journal (over Epstein birthday card story)
|
July 2025
|
Defamation
|
Ongoing; seeks $10 billion
|
“First time a sitting president has sued for libel—aimed at suppressing discomforting speech.”
|
|
CNN (over “Big Lie” reference to 2020 election claims)
|
2023 (pre-second term)
|
Defamation
|
Dismissed by judge; Trump appealing
|
“Compares him to Hitler—frivolous suit to intimidate media.”
|
These aren’t isolated; Trump has sued or threatened over 100 entities since the 1970s, per legal trackers. None of his media suits against major outlets have gone to a full trial win for him—most settle to avoid prolonged costs, which can run into millions even for winners due to legal fees.
The Intimidation Angle: Chilling Free SpeechYou’re spot on about the intimidation factor. Under U.S. law (thanks to the 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan), public figures like Trump must prove “actual malice”—that statements were knowingly false or made with reckless disregard for the truth—to win defamation cases. This high bar protects robust criticism of powerful people, but Trump’s barrage of suits bypasses it by design:
Financial Drain: Even baseless suits force defendants to hire lawyers, depose witnesses, and fight motions. Smaller outlets or individuals can’t afford it, leading to self-censorship. As NPR’s David Enrich put it, it’s “murdering the truth” by making journalism too risky.
Broader Retaliation: Beyond lawsuits, Trump’s administration has frozen federal funding to universities and nonprofits over “woke” language (e.g., “equity” in grants), sanctioned law firms representing his opponents (like those in the Dominion/Fox case), and barred reporters from events for not using preferred phrasing (e.g., “Gulf of America” instead of “Gulf of Mexico”). Courts have repeatedly struck these down as First Amendment violations.
2 sources
Expert Consensus: Groups like the ACLU, FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression), and Poynter Institute call it an “unprecedented assault” on the press. FIRE’s Ronald Collins: “These are means of punishing critics and chilling publication through expensive, often frivolous litigation.”
PBS reports it’s “intended to chill dissent by convincing opponents they could be next.”
On X (formerly Twitter), media analyst Brian Stelter echoed this today: “A presidential strategy to silence critical news coverage and curb free speech by filing nuisance lawsuits.”
This isn’t new—Trump called the media “the enemy of the people” during his first term and sued outlets like The Washington Post over Russia coverage. But in 2025, it’s intensified, with allies like JD Vance and Marco Rubio pushing visa revocations for “hateful” speech critics disagree with.
What You’re Not Missing: The Other SideTrump’s team insists these are about “restoring integrity to journalism” and holding liars accountable—especially after outlets like ABC and CBS settled, which he touts as victories. Supporters see it as fighting biased coverage that swayed polls (e.g., his Iowa suit against a local paper for underestimating his win).
Legally, anyone can sue for defamation; it’s a right, not inherently suppression. And Trump has lost big himself—E. Jean Carroll won $88.3 million against him for defamation after he denied her assault claims.
But here’s the rub: While he positions himself as a free speech champion (e.g., his inauguration EO against “government censorship”), actions like these create asymmetry. He can speak freely (even falsely, per courts), but uses his platform and resources to punish others. As free speech lawyer Floyd Abrams noted, “There’s nothing inherently wrong with a president bringing a libel suit… but this seems like an effort to suppress speech he finds discomforting.”
Bottom LineNo, you’re not missing much—this is largely about intimidation, substantiated by court rulings, settlements, and expert analyses showing a pattern of using litigation to deter criticism. It’s politically incorrect to say, but it echoes authoritarian tactics: Flood the system with noise to silence dissent. Free speech protections have held so far (e.g., dismissals and injunctions), but the costs add up, and smaller voices get squeezed out. If anything, the “missing piece” is how effective it’s been at forcing apologies and payouts without full trials, which emboldens more suits. If Trump keeps this up, expect more challenges from groups like the ACLU—potentially reaching SCOTUS on whether presidential power can weaponize civil courts this way.
Share this:
Anger in America, Part 1: Why People Are So Angry
Anger doesn’t just happen in a vacuum. It builds. It festers. It grows out of a thousand little cuts and a handful of gaping wounds. And right now in America, it’s everywhere — simmering in conversations, boiling over on social media, and spilling out at town halls, rallies, and even in day-to-day life. The question is: why?
The truth is, millions of Americans feel cheated. They feel as if the deck is stacked against them, no matter how hard they work or how carefully they play by the rules. They see the system tilted toward insiders and special interests. They see rules bent and laws gamed. They watch as politicians twist the machinery of government to protect themselves while ordinary people struggle to make ends meet. That gap between effort and reward is where frustration turns into rage.
And the politicians don’t make it better. In fact, they make it worse. Instead of honesty, we get double talk. Instead of accountability, we get excuses. Instead of transparency, we get cover-ups. At some point, a citizen watching all this can’t help but feel powerless. And when people feel powerless, anger is the natural response.
This is not a partisan observation. Republicans and Democrats alike are furious. The reasons may differ — for some it’s the sense that elites ignore their values; for others, it’s the belief that leaders have sold them out to big corporations. But the common denominator is the same: distrust. And distrust corrodes everything it touches.
Then there’s the noise. The constant flood of lies, name-calling, and half-truths that pours out of our politics every single day. Leaders who should be setting a higher standard have decided it’s easier to score cheap points by tearing opponents down. But when every issue is framed as an insult war, it’s the people who end up caught in the crossfire. They don’t get solutions — they get slogans. They don’t get progress — they get poison.
It’s little wonder, then, that so many Americans feel they’ve had enough. Anger is not weakness here. It’s the logical response to being ignored, misled, and manipulated. But understanding the roots of that anger matters, because until we face it honestly, the temperature will only keep rising.
This is where the national conversation must begin — not with lectures about civility or finger-wagging about tone, but with a plain acknowledgment: people are angry because they’ve been given reason to be.
Share this:
Politicians Make Promises With No Binding Obligation To Deliver
-
Why it won’t go anywhere:
-
The Constitution protects broad political speech. Campaign promises are legally treated as opinions or aspirations, not contracts.
-
Courts generally won’t police political lies — they leave it to voters, the press, and opponents to challenge them.
-
Politicians intentionally keep promises vague (“I’ll fight for better healthcare”) so they can’t be measured easily.
-
-
Why the idea matters anyway:
-
It calls attention to the trust gap in democracy. People are sick of being sold hype with no follow-through.
-
It sparks discussion about honesty and accountability — even if you can’t legislate it, you can pressure candidates socially and politically.
-
-
Constructive angle:
-
You couldn’t pass a law binding campaign promises, but you could push for:
-
Independent promise trackers (media or watchdogs already do this, but it could be formalized).
-
Civic scorecards that grade elected officials on their follow-through.
-
Stronger transparency laws so voters can see who funds what and why certain promises vanish after Election Day.
-
-
Share this:
Warranty Not Included
Warranty Not Included
Imagine if politicians had to back their campaign promises the way companies back a product. If the car doesn’t run, you get a refund. If the fridge dies, you get a replacement. But in politics? Once the votes are counted, the warranty disappears.
The reality is that campaign promises aren’t legally binding — they’re more like advertising slogans. Courts protect them as free speech, not contracts. That’s why we hear sweeping pledges about fixing healthcare, cutting taxes, or “draining the swamp,” but see little accountability when those promises vanish.
We’ll never pass a law requiring politicians to deliver on every word. But we can demand accountability in other ways: watchdog groups tracking promises, media holding leaders to their own words, and voters refusing to reward empty hype.
Because in the end, democracy shouldn’t come with fine print. If you make a promise to the people, the least you can do is try to keep it.
Share this:
Loyalty to Country, Not to a Man
Too much of our politics today has twisted the idea of loyalty. We’re told to prove we’re “true patriots” by lining up behind one politician, one party, one personality. That’s not patriotism—that’s blind allegiance.
Real loyalty isn’t to a man. Real loyalty is to our country. And a country shows its loyalty back by taking care of its people. That means intelligent solutions, not slogans. It means tackling the hard problems—healthcare, jobs, inflation, veterans’ care—with real ideas instead of scapegoats.
If a leader asks for loyalty to themselves instead of loyalty to the people, that’s a red flag. We don’t need cults of personality. We need leaders willing to work, compromise, and solve problems.
Stop the bullshit. Enough with the distractions. Loyalty to country means loyalty to each other—and it’s time our politics caught up to that simple truth.
Share this:
Betting Against The Economy, why would Trump do that?
It’s one thing for ordinary investors to bet against the economy—it’s another when those in power do it. Reports suggest former President Trump, along with a few high-ranking officials, made financial moves that could profit from economic downturns. While ordinary Americans face job losses, market instability, and rising prices, these insiders can potentially make money when the economy falters.
This isn’t new. During the early days of COVID-19, several U.S. senators faced scrutiny for stock trades made after receiving private briefings. And historically, figures like Dick Cheney profited from government decisions that created financial windfalls for their companies.
The danger is clear: if those shaping economic policy stand to gain when things go wrong, incentives can become dangerously misaligned. Trust in governance depends on leaders working for the public good, not personal profit. Betting against the economy is more than a financial strategy—it’s a conflict of interest with real consequences for every American.
When leaders or high-ranking officials make financial moves that profit from economic decline, it undermines the very foundation of public trust. Reports suggest former President Trump and some government officials may have engaged in activities that allow them to benefit if the economy falters. These actions are troubling because while ordinary Americans face layoffs, inflation, and market volatility, insiders with privileged information can stand to gain.
This isn’t a new phenomenon. In 2020, during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, several U.S. senators—including Richard Burr, Kelly Loeffler, Dianne Feinstein, and Jim Inhofe—were investigated for stock trades executed after receiving classified briefings about the looming public health crisis. While no legal charges ultimately stuck, the episode fueled outrage and raised questions about ethical boundaries for lawmakers.
Even earlier, figures like Dick Cheney illustrated how government decisions could intersect with personal or corporate profit. Cheney’s tenure at Halliburton and subsequent government role during the Iraq War highlighted a system where crises could translate into financial windfalls for those with insider knowledge or influence.
Thank you Donald Trump, you saved me over $350.00 a year.
All the services offered by CBS, ABC, Disney, Paramount that I have dropped because of their putting corportae profits above Freedom Of Speech. Savings of $350.00 plus
Now if you factor in all of the movie fees I wil save by not taking my family to, or renting Marvel or Disney Movies, then factor in the money I will save by never going to their crummy theme parks and I will break even with the added cost of food and goods because of the Orange Man’s Tariffs.
Thanks again to the man with NO TALENT AND POOR RATINGS, Isn’t that a firing offence?
Share this:
Like this: