What is wrong with America

[Sir Ralph]

1 hour ago, revolution saint said:

One denied the result of a legitimate democratic election, and the other didn't?

Thanks for your help with that one. There are multiple differences between someone who can articulate a considered point in debate in discussion with somebody with an opposing view (even if you disagree with it) and a maniac on a one-way rant on tik-tok. 

 

Edited yesterday at 12:34 by Sir Ralph

[revolution saint]

23 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Thanks for your help with that one. There are multiple differences between someone who can articulate a considered point in debate in discussion with somebody with an opposing view (even if you disagree with it) and a maniac on a one-way rant on tik-tok. 

 

You're more than welcome.  Always happy to help.

I just thought it worth pointing out that Charlie Kirk denied the result of a legitimate democratic election without any evidence whatsoever.  That would make him either stupid, or a shill who based his opinions not on fact but on whatever would benefit him at that particular time.  The girl on TikTok probably at least believes what she's saying. 

[Sir Ralph]

2 hours ago, revolution saint said:

You're more than welcome.  Always happy to help.

I just thought it worth pointing out that Charlie Kirk denied the result of a legitimate democratic election without any evidence whatsoever.  That would make him either stupid, or a shill who based his opinions not on fact but on whatever would benefit him at that particular time.  The girl on TikTok probably at least believes what she's saying. 

He may have made what you perceive to be an uneducated comment in that instance that doesn’t make him stupid. I suspect he was smarter than you or I. Just because you don’t agree with someone they can still be smarter than you

Edited yesterday at 15:30 by Sir Ralph

[badgerx16]

32 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

He may have made what you perceive to be an uneducated comment in that instance that doesn’t make him stupid. I suspect he was smarter than you or I. Just because you don’t agree with someone they can still be smarter than you

Charlie Kirk didn't make uneducated comments, he was very clever at promoting a particular point of view despite almost certainly knowing the facts often went against his standpoint. He was a propagandist for Project 2025, and like any other form of propaganda, there had to be a basis in fact, if only a fleeting relationship.

EDIT: and anybody that lobbies against gun control is most definitely stupid.

Edited yesterday at 15:55 by badgerx16

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

He may have made what you perceive to be an uneducated comment in that instance that doesn’t make him stupid. I suspect he was smarter than you or I. Just because you don’t agree with someone they can still be smarter than you

To be fair, he got shot whilst preaching against gun control. Not very smart.

[Sir Ralph]

39 minutes ago, aintforever said:

To be fair, he got shot whilst preaching against gun control. Not very smart.

Factually incorrect unfortunately for you. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/charlie-kirk-shot-gun-violence-video-utah-b2825263.html

Edited yesterday at 17:56 by Sir Ralph

[aintforever]

13 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Factually incorrect unfortunately for you. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/charlie-kirk-shot-gun-violence-video-utah-b2825263.html

Well he was pro gun and answering questions on guns at the time he got shot.

One of this genius’ quotes:

“I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.”

Very smart.

Edited yesterday at 18:01 by aintforever

[badgerx16]

On the subject of Charlie Kirk, and how wonderful a person he was;

On October 28th 2022, David De Pape broke into Nancy Pelosi's home armed with a hammer, intending to kidnap Mrs Pelosi. When he couldn't find her he assaulted her husband with the hammer and left him with a severely fractured skull.

De Pape was remanded in custody.

Kirk, on his podcast, said “Why has he not been bailed out? By the way, if some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out", before repeating a conspiracy theory that the attack was actually a gay lovers' tiff.

 Real Christian values there.

Edited yesterday at 18:02 by badgerx16

[Weston Super Saint]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

On the subject of Charlie Kirk, and how wonderful a person he was;

On October 28th 2022, David De Pape broke into Nancy Pelosi's home armed with a hammer, intending to kidnap Mrs Pelosi. When he couldn't find her he assaulted her husband with the hammer and left him with a severely fractured skull.

De Pape was remanded in custody.

Kirk, on his podcast, said “Why has he not been bailed out? By the way, if some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out", before repeating a conspiracy theory that the attack was actually a gay lovers' tiff.

 Real Christian values there.

Christian values like Slavery, Colonialism, Genocide, violence and intolerance?

I'd say his response was certainly typical of a true 'Christian'...

[AlexLaw76]

6 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

On the subject of Charlie Kirk, and how wonderful a person he was;

On October 28th 2022, David De Pape broke into Nancy Pelosi's home armed with a hammer, intending tyo kidnap Mrs Pelosi. When he couldn't find her he assaulted her husband with the hammer and left him with a severely fractured skull.

De Pape was remanded in custody.

Kirk, on his podcast, said “Why has he not been bailed out? By the way, if some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out", before repeating a conspiracy theory that the attack was actually a gay lovers' tiff.

 Real Christian values there.

Close friends of the family were over visiting when when he was shot dead (they live in Arizona ironically)

They are by no means liberal lefties and do not particularly like Trump either (although they like his overall stance on almost stopping illegal immigration on the Southern Border).

They could not believe how Kirk was painted over here during the coverage. They were evidently appalled at what happened, but they had a view that the UK press/media were painting Kirk as a bit of a Martyr who said some controversial things. They said that the reality was that he was a deeply and openly a disgustingly unpleasant person, with many on the right horrified by many of the things he would say.

Edited yesterday at 18:08 by AlexLaw76

[Sir Ralph]

23 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Well he was pro gun and answering questions on guns at the time he got shot.

One of this genius’ quotes:

“I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.”

Very smart.

Of all the hours of videos this is the only one that ever gets quoted. You haven’t probably even watched that video. He actually talks about reducing gun provision. Anyway you were factually incorrect in what you said then so well done on shifting your position. 
 

I’ve provided the link for that video as I suspect you haven’t watched it but have a view regardless:

 

Edited yesterday at 18:23 by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

11 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Close friends of the family were over visiting when when he was shot dead (they live in Arizona ironically)

They are by no means liberal lefties and do not particularly like Trump either (although they like his overall stance on almost stopping illegal immigration on the Southern Border).

They could not believe how Kirk was painted over here during the coverage. They were evidently appalled at what happened, but they had a view that the UK press/media were painting Kirk as a bit of a Martyr who said some controversial things. They said that the reality was that he was a deeply and openly a disgustingly unpleasant person, with many on the right horrified by many of the things he would say.

What did he actually say that was controversial though? I see people saying this but they have googled it or read some politically biased article. When you watch any of his videos he says anything but that 99.9% of the time. Seems like a right dick in this -

 

[AlexLaw76]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

What did he actually say that was controversial though? I see people saying this but they have googled it or read some politically biased article. When you watch any of his videos he says anything but that 99.9% of the time. Seems like a right dick in this -

 

I have no idea. I am just parroting what they said at the time.

[aintforever]

18 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Of all the hours of videos this is the only one that ever gets quoted. You haven’t probably even watched that video. He actually talks about reducing gun provision. Anyway you were factually incorrect in what you said then so well done on shifting your position. 
 

I’ve provided the link for that video as I suspect you haven’t watched it: 

 

Seen it thanks, nothing smart at all about what he says. The idea that having tighter gun control is some sort of ‘utopian vision’ is just nonsense.

Edited yesterday at 18:28 by aintforever

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

I have no idea. I am just parroting what they said at the time.

Fair enough. I suspect they haven’t actually listened to his stuff. When he died there was a list of all his terrible statements that he had made that got debunked one by one. Essentially they were either made up or out of context

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, aintforever said:

Seen it thanks, nothing smart at all about what he says. The idea that having stricter gun control is some sort of ‘utopian vision’ is just nonsense.

He didn’t say that actually - he says we should an honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence. He then said the Americans won’t leave in a utopian society with no gun deaths. So again, facts are important not making things up

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Fair enough. I suspect they haven’t actually listened to his stuff. When he died there was a list of all his terrible statements that he had made that got debunked one by one. Essentially they were either made up or out of context

Ok mate. In your opinion unless you can provide links to where everything was debunked. 

[Sir Ralph]

12 minutes ago, JohnnyShearer2.0 said:

Ok mate. In your opinion unless you can provide links to where everything was debunked. 

Not really - my view is he didn’t say anything really bad. You seem to think he did. I can’t prove a negative. You provide a quote where he said something bad and let’s see the context. As they say - innocent until proven guilty or maybe you don’t take that approach? 
 

If he was such a disgusting human being I’m sure you will have multiple quotes or videos to show I’m incorrect so be my guest

Edited yesterday at 18:44 by Sir Ralph

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

Oh dear. The loop begins again.

Nope, already done this dance and you didn't answer any specific questions last time. 

I didn't ask if you thought he said anything bad I asked where were all the statements that got debunked. 

You said that they had so was interested in where you're reading or watching that.

[whelk]

39 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Christian values like Slavery, Colonialism, Genocide, violence and intolerance?

I'd say his response was certainly typical of a true 'Christian'...

What the fuck are you on about?

[Sir Ralph]

On 12/09/2025 at 17:09, Sir Ralph said:

I only read the first two

What’s the context to these statements. The first one I found was false

https://deadline.com/2025/09/stephen-king-apology-charlie-kirk-stoning-gays-1236529789/
 

The second comment was in the context of DEI - see video. He was using the second comment as an example. Do you really think he is being racist in this?

The individual statements need to be read in context. Whoever produced the list has lazily tried to make a point. People just accept and don’t read into things and make their own minds up. The exact problem. Respectfully I suggest you listen to his videos and make your mind up

@JohnnyShearer2.0 here you go. I may have jumped the gun assuming your view so apologies. This was the start of it. I’m employed so didn’t go through the full list. However the point being that I couldn’t find a single quote which was actually said or was taken completely out of context

Edited yesterday at 18:49 by Sir Ralph

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, whelk said:

What the fuck are you on about?

It's OK, if that's passed you by, you probably don't need to know.

[trousers]

"Elephants can fly"

Prove me wrong... 

[aintforever]

35 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

He didn’t say that actually - he says we should an honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence. He then said the Americans won’t leave in a utopian society with no gun deaths. So again, facts are important not making things up

Yep, and he also said ““I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year” then became one himself.

Has anyone even suggested there could be zero gun deaths? The aim of gun controls in the US has always been to try and reduce the amount of shootings, making out people are aiming for zero deaths is just more bollocks. 

[badgerx16]

21 minutes ago, trousers said:

"Elephants can fly"

Prove me wrong... 

"I seen a horse fly,

I seen a dragon fly,

I seen a house fly,

................

But I've been, done, seen about everything
When I see a elephant fly"

[Sir Ralph]

13 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Yep, and he also said ““I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year” then became one himself.

Has anyone even suggested there could be zero gun deaths? The aim of gun controls in the US has always been to try and reduce the amount of shootings, making out people are aiming for zero deaths is just more bollocks. 

Yes he did - you quoted that bit correctly. In the UK that would seem to be an unusual statement and in parts of the US people may disagree with it. In other parts it wouldn’t be as the Second Amendment is seen as sacred for various reasons, including to protect life and property. 
 

Again, of all the hours of videos debating sensitive and controversial subjects, this is all people ever quote but there are lots of videos of him respectfully debating people and actually being empathetic to this with different views. Hence why I fail to see why anyone would say he is a nasty piece of work or stupid as the evidence doesn’t stack. Seems to me that politically people disagree with his standpoint and therefore are looking to throw mud

Edited yesterday at 19:24 by Sir Ralph

[badgerx16]

34 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Yes he did - you quoted that bit correctly. In the UK that would seem to be an unusual statement and in parts of the US people may disagree with it. In other parts it wouldn’t be as the Second Amendment is seen as sacred for various reasons, including to protect life and property. 
 

There are at least 5 different texts of the Second Amendment, it varies from State to State in terms of the exact punctuation ratified by that State's Legislature. None of them mention the protection of life and property, the text relates to the maintenance of a "well regulated militia" to ensure "the security of a free State."

The bigger issue with the Amenment is that it is seen as inviolable, yet other Amendments have been varied, or even struck down. What is so special about the Second, given that all States maintain "well regulated" militias in the form of the National Guard ?

Edited yesterday at 19:58 by badgerx16

[Sir Ralph]

51 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

There are at least 5 different texts of the Second Amendment, it varies from State to State in terms of the exact punctuation ratified by that State's Legislature. None of them mention the protection of life and property, the text relates to the maintenance of a "well regulated militia" to ensure "the security of a free State."

The bigger issue with the Amenment is that it is seen as inviolable, yet other Amendments have been varied, or even struck down. What is so special about the Second, given that all States maintain "well regulated" militias in the form of the National Guard ?

There is case law on the Second Amendment that says otherwise (Chat GPT never cross references case law 😉). If you look up District of Columbia v Heller (2008). It’s sort of by the by with regards to the point about Kirk anyway

Edited yesterday at 20:47 by Sir Ralph

[badgerx16]

17 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

There is case law on the Second Amendment that says otherwise (Chat GPT never cross references case law 😉). If you look up District of Columbia v Heller (2008). It’s sort of by the by with regards to the point about Kirk anyway

The case law doesn't alter the wording of the Second Amendment, it establishes an interpretation of what it means. Americans, including SC Judges, seem to have a blind spot about the Amendment, and infer what the Founding Fathers actually meant when drafting the Constitution. There is little regard to how the World has moved on from the specific threats and issues that existed during and immediately after the Revolutionary War.

[Gloucester Saint]

DOGE = cuts huge sums from the NIH budget and cancer science research as well as a whole host of clinical trials stopped for other serious illnesses.

Trump doles that money back out to a failing Argentinian President with weird hair - 20bn to a rapidly tanking economy.

America First. Allegedly. Populists are a fucking joke. Except the punchline is never funny. Farage is also a fan of the Argentinian PM. Economics as accurate as ever then….

[Sir Ralph]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

The case law doesn't alter the wording of the Second Amendment, it establishes an interpretation of what it means. Americans, including SC Judges, seem to have a blind spot about the Amendment, and infer what the Founding Fathers actually meant when drafting the Constitution. There is little regard to how the World has moved on from the specific threats and issues that existed during and immediately after the Revolutionary War.

Yes exactly, so the legal interpretation of the Second Amendment is that it covers self defence so what I said was correct. 

Edited yesterday at 22:11 by Sir Ralph

[badgerx16]

8 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

Yes exactly, so the legal interpretation of the Second Amendment is that it covers self defence so what I said was correct. 

I am not dieputing the legalitiy. However, I am arguing my stance as to something that is very "wrong" with America.

 

[badgerx16]

9 hours ago, Gloucester Saint said:

DOGE = cuts huge sums from the NIH budget and cancer science research as well as a whole host of clinical trials stopped for other serious illnesses.

Trump doles that money back out to a failing Argentinian President with weird hair - 20bn to a rapidly tanking economy.

America First. Allegedly. Populists are a fucking joke. Except the punchline is never funny. Farage is also a fan of the Argentinian PM. Economics as accurate as ever then….

The loan to Argentina is an attempt to buy support for Milei in the upcoming elections. Trump has said that the US "won't waste our time" on Argentina if his party does poorly.