Listen, you might have a point if the show was censored, but it wasn't. It literally aired minutes ago (maybe still on? who knows). That's not how government censorship works, or they are just really bad at it. If you want to see government censorship, read the Google story.
He fake cried briefly at the hypothetical concept that he might be a bad person, because he's definitely not. Then said that he doesn't think Robinson is part of an ideological group. And thanked the likes of Ben Shapiro et al for standing up for him even though he disagrees with them on everything and doesn't want to be associated with them in any way.
I can't tell if you are being serious. The president just threatened retribution against a television company for producing and airing a show, that's censorship. The government making the threat itself is the attempted censorship. Just because they're fumbling the bag doesn't make it legal. You know, just like how someone can attempt a robbery, screw it up and go to jail for burglary.
He's threatening to sue them in his personal capacity - not as the government. He's successfully sued several media companies of late - or at least they are settling to avoid potentially embarrassing lawsuits. It's a pretty empty threat in this case though- Kimmel is not a news show and so doesn't have to be unbiased - even though the nightly monologues from these guys are where a lot of people get their news and are undoubtedly misinforming people, as Kimmel tried to do with Kirk's murder.
If he was speaking in his personal capacity then he wouldn't be floating accusations of illegal campaign contributions and the like. He can't sue ABC for those type of acts in his personal capacity.
Hate the left all you want but stop letting this guy be the answer. Both extremes are bad.To be fair, it looks like Trump is threating a lawsuit or some form of criminal investigation of ABC for calling off the suspension. If that is not the government trying to censor someone, I don't know what is. We will see if he follows through, but even the threat should be taken seriously. "We are going to test ABC on this" Highly inappropriate
This is clearly what he should have said on the second show, but refused. He said it now, thanks to temporary ban.
The packed the audience with a bunch clapping seals and sycophants.
Freedom is the only way yeah.
You think it leans right but it is actually infested with russian bots, so I don't know what is the biggest threat here
If I recall he was like « I'm gonna do it » and then « no jk I don't wanna » and then he was threatened to get sued if he didn't, so he did eventually
More of a "I'm sorry you got offended" apology. No real apology anywhere in his monologue. He said his comments may have been misunderstood. How do you misunderstand him saying the shooter was MAGA?
I was being facetious with the final line there
I didn't pay attention to the shooter's location, but on the original video it's VERY clear that he was shot from the side. You don't need to be an expert to see that. I didn't even know that fbi said that he was shot from the front
You clearly don't know what censorship is.
It is insinuation that shooter needs to be uncharacterized as maga, but it's not "he was maga". His wording was unclear (I think intentionally) and can be read with different meanings.
Trump is a necessary evil who saved the world from Clinton and Kamala presidencies and all the woke madness and authoritarian censorship that would have unleashed. Just think if the deep state/govt bureaucracy had been allowed to consolidate power for that long. People are quick to forget all the insanity of the Covid/BLM years.
You're on point. Authoritarianism is creeping in slowly on both ends of the political spectrum. The downward spiral needs to be stopped.
I am sorry, no.. I am, for laughing at this...
Ordinary criminal gangs might intimidate people as a consequence of their actions but it is not typically the main purpose of the illegal activity. eg. If a gang member sticks a gun in your face and demands your wallet, it is usually because they want your wallet rather than to influence your political speech or how you vote. I think once you reach a certain scale of criminal activity that line can become blurred though.
To be fair, it looks like Trump is threating a lawsuit or some form of criminal investigation of ABC for calling off the suspension. If that is not the government trying to censor someone, I don't know what is. We will see if he follows through, but even the threat should be taken seriously. "We are going to test ABC on this" Highly inappropriate
It would be nice if a better candidate had stepped up, but Trump is what we got. We can wonder why that is - I think most men are either too afraid, or are opting out of society and allowing woke women and weak men to run wild.
Trump obviously doesn't want a war, but conservatives did not want a President who will just go through the expected 'stay calm everyone' motions then back to business as usual as they are being hunted for speech, as their rights are being infringed upon and as they lose their country to mass immigration and degeneracy. They wanted someone who will fight back on their behalf. He won precisely because he wasn't the typical 'any other President'.
Freedom is the only way yeah.
It's a perfect example of an echo chamber.
To be fair, it looks like Trump is threating a lawsuit or some form of criminal investigation of ABC for calling off the suspension. If that is not the government trying to censor someone, I don't know what is. We will see if he follows through, but even the threat should be taken seriously. "We are going to test ABC on this" Highly inappropriate
To be fair, it looks like Trump is threating a lawsuit or some form of criminal investigation of ABC for calling off the suspension. If that is not the government trying to censor someone, I don't know what is. We will see if he follows through, but even the threat should be taken seriously. "We are going to test ABC on this" Highly inappropriate
The government didn't do anything. But they could by the "hard way" - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G1I3O_GW4AAIh3S?format=jpg&name=900x900
Plus he talks about all the lame presidents who had no charisma and forgot about the french president who eloped with a woman he had married to another guy a couple years ago (he was mayor at the time), then divorced her and married lenny kravitz ex while president (sarkozy and cecilia and then carla bruni).
www.bbc.co.uk
So wouldn't the proud boys be labeled as such since you know some were apart of the whole Jan 6th thing and been pardoned in the meantime. I think that would classify as a terrorist act would it not.
No. He implied that "we all know it was a MAGA guy". He might have believed what he said was true, but it was a highly inflamatory comment to make considering the heated politcal tempature in the immediate aftermath of the assasination. A suspension was most certainly called for.
And Sinclair, who isn't merging with anyone.
Kimmel broke the rules. He was told about it and asked to correct his behavior. He refused and was temporarily dismissed. Everything was (and could be) done within the law.
She was his school teacher (with 3 kids).
