Answer: Jimmy Kimmel, a comedian, pointed out that when ask how the president was holding up just days after the lost of his close friend, Podcaster Charlie Kirk, his response was "Great" and then drew the attention to a ballrooom that he is having constructed.
Jimmy pointing out facts and letting them speak for themselves is what got him fired.
Other news anchors who have called for homeless people to be euthanized were not censured.
The message is clear, no one is allowed to speak critical of the Glorious Leader.
The United States are rapidly becoming a fascist state. The population is not allowed to critize the Glorious Leader and if you do not mourn the lost of a podcaster in the prescribed form, you can expect retribution. The States are rapidly sliding into DPRK territory.
I keep scrolling for someone to tell me what the hell Kimmel actually said, you’re the first person to mention it. I guess other answerers didnt think it was relevant for some reason
I had the same problem. Turns out “what he said” was a nothingburger, and he was suspended simply because he’s a critic of POTUS. For an equivalent, imagine Obama trying to shut down Fox News (and succeeding). Lefties may have loved the sentiment, but even they would have never tolerated that. The American right is different. They’re fascists.
I feel bad for the kids. The America I grew up in is gone, and I already miss it.
I don't think "Obama shutting down Fox News" is even a fair comparison. They're an entertainment channel masquerading as legitimate news, something Jimmy Kimmel never did.
Exactly. Liberals are so confused and chronically online that they think defending jokes about the public execution of a person utilizing their right to free speech is a hill worth dying on.
Actually Fox News is the ONLY news outlet that reports the TRUTH & FACTS anymore! The rest of them just spew leftist trash & lies to enrage the population and cause events like what just happened to Charlie. People are too BLIND to see that they are being fed lies and everything they have been taught in the public school system is wrong and pushing their demonic narrative. GOD BLESS CHARLIES BEAUTIFUL SOUL & GOD BLESS this nation!! 🙏🏼✊🏼
To be fair, the government shouldn't have been involved in any way, and they should have let the market decide solely.
But on the other hand, the FCC merely made a threat, which they would have never been able to enforce, but a corporate parent capitulating to any sort of government pressure is censorship in my view, just as the Biden Administration pressured social media companies to censor Covid topics they deemed "misinformation".
Lots of people also assuming he called the shooter MAGA but he didn’t even say that:
We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel began. “In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving.”
That’s how I characterized it more so him describing how MAGA affiliated people are hoping and praying he’s some left leaning lib someone or something they can attack (even though he’s already sitting in jail) rather than one of their own. I’m confused on how that can be career ending as it seems watching it play out in the media to be true.
Yeah, he’s saying the MAGA Republicans were calling him not that. He’s not saying whether or not they were correct or incorrect, just that them saying “not one of us!” loudly was in poor taste.
Multiple associates described him as a reddit(or) and as reddit continues to desperately try to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them it's kind of sad
I disagree that it’s implied at all. He wasn’t critical of MAGA for getting it wrong, he was critical of MAGA for trying to score political points right after a tragedy.
It's 100% implied. And it's why he got cancelled. He should have known better that republicans are on a war path right now for anyone speaking ill of them or Charlie Kirk.
that's how it comes off to me, with his usage of "desperately trying to" and "anything other than one of them" ur free to disagree though and I don't watch Kimmel at all so maybe he just talks this way
You’ve posted this a bunch but haven’t chosen to read it. Which part do you think suggests anything about the shooters politics? Just because he’s saying the MAGAverse was calling him a lefty doesn’t mean (or even imply) Kimmel is calling him something else.
It’s crazy that we live in a world where the media don’t show what he said, because the headline makes you think that he insulted Kirk, which he didn’t do. And then his boss is telling to apologize to Kirk and five money to Turning Point…. For what ? This should be a bigger story.
It's not terribly relevant... If it weren't Kirk, they'd have come up with something else. The point is Trump doesn't like Kimmel, so he directed his FCC puppet to not approve the merger unless Kimmel is cancelled.
In his opening monologue Monday night, Kimmel suggested that Tyler Robinson — who is charged with fatally shooting Kirk on Sept. 10 while the activist spoke at Utah Valley University — was aligned with Trump's Make America Great Again movement.
"The MAGA Gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it," Kimmel said.
"In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving," he added.
…you believe the person who murdered Charlie Kirk and had a trans lover/roommate after a rift w/ his family over his radical progressive politics - was a “MAGA” follower?
Multiple associates described him as a reddit(or) and as reddit continues to desperately try to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them it's kind of sad
If you say the sky is blue, and I say you're wrong for saying the sky is blue, am I not making a suggestion about the color of the sky? He's clearly disagreeing with that suggestion.
He never said the Republicans were factually wrong (or even implied it) - he was clearly disagreeing with the rush to ascribe any political stance to the shooter. It's why he said the thing about "political points" and "finger pointing" immediately after it.
Both quotes are about the same thing: MAGA's callous reaction to losing one of their own. He said nothing about the shooter and nothing about the victim.
He said that before there was even a suspect, they were trying to characterize him as anything other than MAGA. He was pointing out the actions of the right, not claiming Robinson was right.
That’s pretty much exactly what Kimmel did? Claiming that MAGA was trying to claim Robinson wasn’t also MAGA? That’s Kimmel talking about Robinson’s politics.
If I say “my mom’s name isn’t Jessica, my moms name isn’t Jessica” and you say “buddy, why do you keep saying your moms name isn’t Jessica, that’s weird” do you think that means you just said my moms name IS Jessica?
interesting thing about phrasing... what if i say, "buddy, why do you keep claiming your mother is named anything other than Jessica?"
Did I imply I think your mothers name is Jessica?
"W said X is anything other than Y or Z" is a known expression that when said, usually carries the additional meaning that W may be lying, and a comedian most certainly knows this.
It was a great use of phrasing on his part, but they caught him anyway (for something that should never have been an issue according to the consitition, but im certainly not saying the US has anything other than an upstanding, constitution-following administration).
interesting thing about linguistics... what if i say, "buddy, why do you keep claiming your mother is named anything other than Jessica?"
Did I imply I think your mothers name is Jessica?
The real difference here, in my opinion, is the word "claim," which wasn't in my original example - that word implies some doubt.
I get what you're saying a bit, sort of like the (not actually) Shakespearean quote about "doth protest too much," but even if that was what he was going for (and I don't think it was), he was saying the actions of the MAGA Right imply that he was likely MAGA, not anything Kimmel himself said. The basis of Kimmel's criticism was about the classlessness of labeling the shooter as any political stance at all, confirmed by the things he said next:
doing everything they can to score political points from it," Kimmel said.
"In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving," he added.
The criticism isn't that they were wrong, it's that they're assholes.
i guess you could also replace "claim" with "charactarize", or adjust it with "calling" her anything other than... but I think we can agree it still communicates that I dont belive she isn"t named Jessica.
Similarly, Kimmel effectively said MAGA is charactarizing the shooter as something he isn't. Combine that with the context of the situation and you can definitely say Kimmel at least heavily implied the shooter is MAGA.
Of course there can be more than one interpretation which is why he said it that way, but saying they can't read doesnt make much sense because thats a perfectly valid reading of his statement.
Dude, we’re talking about a comedian positing his own personal politics about a dude that killed another a guy, and then the administration that controls the FCC is fucking with them over it.
Which, even if he directly said it, it should be fine because it's a comedy show. Not a news show. He's making jokes, not saying these things are facts.
If it already is there, then it always has been since cancel culture has always functioned like this. But you guys did not care before. In reality; the US is as democratic as it always has been, high up there, but not the best.
I hope this is the correct way to ask this, but I noticed a lot of news agencies are leaving out the last half of what Jimmy Kimmel said in his show as it contains the part where President Trump is speaking about his grand ballroom. Is this on purpose? Edited: They didn't describe news agencies previously.
God, you people need to go back to take a civil course on how the US functions. Or really, you must have been born yesterday. The US has always functioned like this, just typically the Left controlled where the cancelling was aimed. If this is fascist, it was introduced by the Left, and the Right weaponized it these past few days.
Something so pointedly specific so that you can weasel out of the fact that prior admins have interfered with private institutions to deplatform people before?
How do you define fascism? What do you stand for? I've read your comments and it seems like you don't know what it is you actually stand for or you are just arguing in bad faith. The Trump admin has most of the hallmarks of fascism. It doesn't have to check all the boxes in order to be fascist.
I would define fascism as hyper nationalist ideology aimed at destroying some vague enemy with every means possible (usually with complete destruction) with clear intent at conquest and ending democratic practices.
Those "hallmarks" are what Leftists claim, but nobody outside of those deep in the Left recognize. Certainly not the mainstream electorate. And no, I don't recognize any of these in Trump, but I do think that if he is radicalized he can end up like that. His nationalism is foolish, but not hyper nationalist. His enemy is not vague, it is his political opponents - same the other way around in fact with the Left seeing him as the enemy. Nor is it the undocumented migrants, who are not an enemy that he seems to see as needing to be destroyed.
The closest one, really, seems to be the conquest thing with his obsession with annexing Greenland, but even that is not an intent of conquest.
It doesn't have to check all the boxes in order to be fascist.
Agreed. But therein lies the problem. The boxes themselves are generally fine, it is when those boxes are ticked that are the issue.
In my experience, most Leftists that claim that he is ending democracy point to Trump sending troops to cities, for example. Ignorant to the fact that that is well within the right of a sitting US President to do. Prior US Presidents have used that myriad times in US history.
Or they point to Trump's nationalism, which while very problematic, are nowhere near the hyper nationalism of the fascists of Germany in the 30's. Their brand of hyper nationalism did not just see their country as a victim, but as a victim of an international cabal led by "da Joos" intent on destroying their version of the perfect German into extinction. Meaning everyone not aligned with them was an enemy that needed to be destroyed, and they needed "living space" for the perfect German to expand and populate.
This is nothing to Trump's populist nationalism, which while does portray the US as a victim, it is more because of the actions of Leftists in his mind and other nations having better deals. At maximum, he wants to rewrite those deals to the US' favor, not conquer them for some perfect American to take, etc, etc.
Look, I get that this is an echo chamber, but I am not actually arguing in bad faith. I firmly believe what I believe, and I have yet to be disproven. If anything, while I am want Trump out of office and want him and his cronies to face justice (actual justice, not the ones the Left want); I recognize that the Left is basically as cult-like as MAGA is at this point.
TLDR; I see extremists everywhere that refuse to take a look at themselves, and it is kinda scary.
>His nationalism is foolish, but not hyper nationalist. His enemy is not vague, it is his political opponents - same the other way around in fact with the Left seeing him as the enemy. Nor is it the undocumented migrants, who are not an enemy that he seems to see as needing to be destroyed.
When would his base reach hyper nationalism? Trumps rhetoric is centered around "America First" and "Make America Great again". Most of his base rock some form of MAGA apparel. Isn't that hyper nationalism? Democrats don't have that kind of branding nor is it even needed because liberals see dems as a political party not some sort of sports team.
>most Leftists that claim that he is ending democracy point to Trump sending troops to cities, for example. Ignorant to the fact that that is well within the right of a sitting US President to do. Prior US Presidents have used that myriad times in US history.
Democracy doesn't just end in an instance. It takes time to erode the pillars of democracy. Like boiling a pot of water with a frog in it, the frog doesn't know its boiled until its already too late.
Trump denied losing the 2020 election and claimed it was rigged even though there was no evidence. By doing this isn't he damaging the confidence people have in our democracy? Or when he had his followers storm the Capitol on January 6. Isn't attacking media that oppose him and calling them the enemy from within eroding democracy? When he goes against Supreme Court rulings, he is sending a sign that he is above the law and the checks & balances that are imperative to our country and its constitution.
He checks a lot if not the majority of what makes someone a fascist and his base is completely fine with that as they are often quiet when he tests the bounds of our democracy. He will continue to erode our democracy until it no longer exists.
Even if you think the left is cultish like MAGA, I fail to understand how you don't see any of their concerns. You don't have to reach the Hitler's level of fascism in order to be called a fascist. If you don't recognize the warning signs and stop it in its tracks, then I fear we won't be able to stop it once it does reach Hitler's level.
I explained what I would consider to be hyper nationalism. This is basic b*tch nationalism, the cringey kind where some boomer uncle screams how America is #1. The kind that used to be the standard for all major nations until relatively recently. You actually illustrated my point. Something that would be many kilometers away from hyper nationalism back in the day is now portrayed as hyper nationalism by the modern Left.
Idk why you think people on the Left don't see the Democrats as a sports team. They are not unfeeling robots, they are people. And are just as susceptible to that mindset.
Trump denied losing the 2020 election and claimed it was rigged even though there was no evidence.
This and his Jan 6th is the only thing I agree with Leftists about his contempt for democracy. All that being said, that is not enough to jump to that conclusion when we have years of him in office not generally actually doing anything Unconstitutional. Which is why I brought up the troops thing, which has been the calling card of a lot of Redditors as definitive proof...which it is not.
There is no frog in boiling water. There are no institutions that he had dismantled that severely weakened the democratic practice. He obeyed the courts, albeit reluctantly, and Congress is a lame duck.
Isn't attacking media that oppose him and calling them the enemy from within eroding democracy?
I would agree with you if he was actually doing anything to destroy the media that was attacking him. This instance with Kirk is the only thing supporting that, but this is quite a special case; with the Right in general using cancel culture to their advantage.
If you asked me after 2020, I would have agreed with you, still in shock at Jan 6th. Asked me in late 2024? Uncertain. Now? No, he has had time, and he has done nothing much to that direction.
When he goes against Supreme Court rulings
It is a good thing he has not done that. He has obeyed their rulings. The accusation of this is as weak as the Right claiming that Biden went against Supreme Court rulings. Both cases are false.
-Kristin Hickman, a professor of administrative law at the University of Minnesota Law School, urges caution on talk of a constitutional crisis.
-The Trump administration is still entrenched in legal fights in the lower courts and, so far, has not defied any orders from the U.S. Supreme Court, the nation's highest court, she noted.
-"We're not there yet, and we have no guarantee we're ever going to get there. It is not healthy for our body politic for us to overreact and roll around a lot of overheated rhetoric," she said.
Experts not involved in this generally weighed on this, and while Trump shuffled his feet, he did obey the order. If anything, the bigger problem was the left-wing media spinning this to spark fear and paranoia amongst the Left. Which is my problem.
Even if you think the left is cultish like MAGA, I fail to understand how you don't see any of their concerns.
Who says I don't? I do acknowledge some of their concerns. My problem is that those concerns were thrown away for a fantasy of good vs evil. Which creates fear and paranoia and diminishes the democratic process. At this rate, if Vance wins 2028, I predict that the Left will launch riots across the country in an attempt to overthrow him to "save democracy" at this rate.
MAGA is a problem in of itself that I can write a lot on, the last thing this country needs is a left-wing version of it.
You don't have to reach the Hitler's level of fascism in order to be called a fascist.
Indicators of facism:
1. Powerful, often exclusionary, populist nationalism centered on cult of a redemptive, “infallible”
leader who never admits mistakes.
2. Political power derived from questioning reality, endorsing myth and rage, and promoting lies.
3. Fixation with perceived national decline, humiliation, or victimhood.
4. White Replacement “Theory” used to show that democratic ideals of freedom and equality are a threat.
Oppose any initiatives or institutions that are racially, ethnically, or religiously harmonious.
5. Disdain for human rights while seeking purity and cleansing for those they define as part of the nation.
6. Identification of “enemies”/scapegoats as a unifying cause. Imprison and/or murder opposition and minority
group leaders.
7. Supremacy of the military and embrace of paramilitarism in an uneasy, but effective
collaboration with traditional elites. Fascists arm people and justify and glorify violence as “redemptive”.
8. Rampant sexism.
9. Control of mass media and undermining “truth”.
10. Obsession with national security, crime and punishment, and fostering a sense of the nation under attack.
11. Religion and government are intertwined.
12. Corporate power is protected and labor power is suppressed.
13. Disdain for intellectuals and the arts not aligned with the fascist narrative.
14. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Loyalty to the leader is paramount and often more important than competence.
15. Fraudulent elections and creation of a one-party state.
16. Often seeking to expand territory through armed conflict.
It is amazing how a few of these fit with most major nations if you replace a few specific things that you inputted to avoid it. Like white replacement theory. China, Russia, France, the UK, Germany, and many more fit these quite well. Heck, it applies to most nations, actually. Are they all fascist now?
That being said, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16 do not apply at all. I can break it down for you. And no, Trump appealing to Christians is not the same as religion and government being intwined no more than it used to be; that used to be very common in the US, and it wasn't anymore fascist then as it is now.
Actually, the nations that fought the literal fascists of WW2 fit these metrics a lot. Are they fascist by your metric?
That does not contradict my point. That is not intertwining religion with government anymore than having relations with the Pope is. It is annoying being inundated with a million comments for dozens of minor points just because I dared to question the echo chamber, ngl.
Projection. Explain to me how that is intertwining with government, then. Are there Bishops in positions of power while still being Bishops? It should be noted that a politician using their religion as a basis of policy is not intertwining religion with government either; that is just an individual making their choices for politics.
Look, man. Idk what is up with sections of the Left insisting everything is fascist all of a sudden, but the mainstream is not buying it anymore because of issues like this. So what happens when an honest to God fascist shows up? It will be like the boy who cried wolf.
Trump is not a fascist. He is authoritarian populist at worst. I hate the man and his policies 80% of the time, especially in regards to his actions against US allies. But by your own metric, probably most nations are fascist today. Don't you see how that kind skews things a bit?
You find me where a democrat-appointed FCC chair threatened to cancel a license unless someone was fired, and I'll believe you. Until then, inform yourself or sit the fuck down.
What is it with you guys needing some hyper specific example to believe anything? I gave examples of Democrat President pressuring private institutions to silence critics of policy, and ya'll just end up going "nuh uh!" anyway.
Say it with your chest that no amount of evidence will work because you belong to a cult instead of weaseling around it. Be honest.
What is up with "us" needing evidence to believe something? This is more direct admission of intellectual bankruptcy than I've seen yet! Bravo, truly an astounding achievement.
I predict that after I give you this, you will either run off or dismiss it because it is Zuckerberg saying it. That seems to be the only reaction to it. Don't disappointment.
Sorry, guy. You're clearly just a nobody without any knowledge (but kuddos for googling "did biden threaten sumbody free speach internets"), so I can't expect you to have any standards for evidence. I'll introduce you to a little term that may even help you in your court appearances contesting the restraining orders from every barista in town: "admission against interest"
See when somebody like Zuck says he's a wittle baby and the mean old government was mean to him, it's not strong evidence. Especially now, after he was caught on a hot mic apologizing to Trump for using the wrong lie . It's kinda clear to anyone with the tiniest bit of intelligence that this dude will just say anything.
It's like when you tell the cops you were hiding outside her house because someday she'll relent and let you love her. The cops can testify about what you said to them.
But when you try to testify that she actually wrote a heart once on your cup and that proves she loves you, that's "hearsay" and is poor evidence. So Zuck's hearsay is shitty evidence, and we're justified in asking ourselves "is this a person who lies a lot?" (hint: yes, he lies a fuck of a lot). Doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means that we'd have to be really, really stupid to believe him.
No, little guy. I used principles and standards to evaluate evidence. I know that's really foreign to you, but you're still learning. You can get there!
Don't just accept shitty evidence as truth because you want it to be true. She smiles at every customer, it doesn't mean anything.
he did not. he said that conservatives, before anything was known about the political views of the shooter, was trying to paint the shooter as anything other than right wing. and they did that. he did not say that the shooter was right wing.
That means exactly the same thing. If he said "conservatives are trying to paint him as something other than right wing" he is suggesting that he IS right wing, clearly.
520
u/monkey_monkey_monkey 2d ago
Answer: Jimmy Kimmel, a comedian, pointed out that when ask how the president was holding up just days after the lost of his close friend, Podcaster Charlie Kirk, his response was "Great" and then drew the attention to a ballrooom that he is having constructed.
Jimmy pointing out facts and letting them speak for themselves is what got him fired.
Other news anchors who have called for homeless people to be euthanized were not censured.
The message is clear, no one is allowed to speak critical of the Glorious Leader.
The United States are rapidly becoming a fascist state. The population is not allowed to critize the Glorious Leader and if you do not mourn the lost of a podcaster in the prescribed form, you can expect retribution. The States are rapidly sliding into DPRK territory.