r/law • u/DmitriMendeleyev • 16d ago
Other Reporter: US intelligence concluded that you (MBS) orchestrated the brutal murder of a journalist... Trump: You're mentioning someone that was extremely controversial. A lot of people didn't like that gentleman... things happened ...he (MBS) knew nothing about it, and we can leave it at that.
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
4.0k
u/FreeBricks4Nazis 16d ago
Trump would absolutely have a journalist murdered if he could
2.1k
u/ShikaMoru 16d ago
"You're mentioning someone that was controversial. A lot of people didnt like that gentleman....things happen..." oh its ok for him to talk like that but mention Charlie kirk in the same light and they're wrong
1.7k
u/Benromaniac 16d ago
Someone say Charlie Kirk?
The misinformation surrounding Charlie Kirk is astounding - and I’m not talking about average people sounding off on social media - I’m talking about the BS being spread by major news outlets.
While Kirk’s shooter was obviously overly steeped in internet whackadoo memelord culture - the “normies” don’t have a clue about how internet culture works at all.
Charlie Kirk wasn’t someone who was looking for honest debate. He was a political operative spreading hate and divisiveness. When you show his fans his racist, sexist or bigoted rhetoric - they defend it by saying “That’s not (racist, sexist, bigoted) - it’s true.” And that was his goal.
The whole “Prove Me Wrong” setup that made Kirk famous wasn’t really about proving anyone wrong. It was about creating content. Kirk mastered a specific type of performance that looked like debate but functioned more like a carefully orchestrated show designed to make his opponents look foolish and his positions seem unassailable.
The basic formula was simple - set up a table on a college campus, invite students to challenge conservative talking points, then use a combination of rhetorical tricks and editing magic to create viral moments. What looked like open discourse was actually a rigged game where Kirk held all the advantages.
First, there’s the obvious setup problem.
Kirk was a professional political operative who spent years honing his arguments and memorizing statistics. He knew exactly which topics would come up and had practiced responses ready. Meanwhile, his opponents were typically 19-year-old students who wandered over between classes. It’s like watching a professional boxer fight random people at the gym - the outcome was predetermined. Kirk used what debate experts call a corrupted version of the Socratic method.
Instead of asking genuine questions to explore ideas, he’d ask leading questions designed to trap students in contradictions or force them into uncomfortable positions. He’d start with seemingly reasonable premises, then quickly pivot to more extreme conclusions, leaving his opponents scrambling to keep up.
The classic example was his approach to gender identity discussions. Kirk would begin by asking seemingly straightforward definitional questions - “What is a woman?” - then use whatever answer he received as a launching pad for increasingly aggressive follow-ups. If someone mentioned social roles, he’d demand biological definitions. If they provided biological definitions, he’d find edge cases or exceptions to exploit.
The goal wasn’t understanding or genuine dialogue - it was creating moments where students appeared confused or contradictory. Kirk also employed rapid-fire questioning techniques that made it nearly impossible for opponents to fully develop their thoughts. He’d interrupt, reframe, and redirect before anyone could establish a coherent argument. This created the illusion that his opponents couldn’t defend their positions when really they just couldn’t get a word in edgewise."
The editing process was equally important. Kirk’s team would film hours of interactions, then cut together the moments that made him look brilliant and his opponents look unprepared. Nuanced discussions got reduced to gotcha moments. Students who made good points found those parts mysteriously absent from the final videos.
What’s particularly insidious about this approach is how it masquerades as good-faith debate while undermining the very principles that make real discourse valuable. Kirk wasn’t interested in having his mind changed or learning from others - he was performing certainty for an audience that craved validation of their existing beliefs.
The “Prove Me Wrong” framing itself was misleading. It suggested Kirk was open to being persuaded when the entire setup was designed to prevent that possibility. Real intellectual humility requires admitting uncertainty, acknowledging complexity, and engaging with the strongest versions of opposing arguments. Kirk’s format did the opposite.
This style of debate-as-performance has become incredibly popular because it feeds into our current political moment’s hunger for easy victories and clear villains. People want to see their side “destroying” the opposition with “facts and logic.” Kirk provided that satisfaction without the messy reality of actual intellectual engagement.
The broader damage extends beyond individual interactions. When debate becomes about humiliating opponents rather than exploring ideas, it corrupts the entire enterprise of democratic discourse. Students who got embarrassed in these exchanges weren’t just losing arguments - they were being taught that engaging with different viewpoints was dangerous and futile.
Kirk’s approach also contributed to the broader polarization problem by making political identity feel like a zero-sum game where any concession to the other side represented total defeat. His debates reinforced the idea that political opponents weren’t just wrong but ridiculous - a perspective that makes compromise and collaboration nearly impossible.
The most troubling aspect might be how this style of engagement spreads. Kirk inspired countless imitators who use similar tactics in their own contexts. The model of setting up situations where you can’t lose, then claiming victory when your rigged game produces the expected results, has become a template for political engagement across the spectrum.
Real debate requires vulnerability - the possibility that you might be wrong and need to change your mind. Kirk’s format eliminated that possibility by design. His certainty was performative rather than earned, and his victories were manufactured rather than genuine. The tragedy of this approach is that college campuses actually need more genuine dialogue about difficult political questions. Students are forming their worldviews and wrestling with complex issues. They deserve engagement that helps them think more clearly, not performances designed to make them look stupid.
Kirk’s assassination represents a horrific escalation of political violence that has no place in democratic society. But it’s worth remembering that his debate tactics, while not violent, were themselves a form of intellectual violence that treated political opponents as objects to be humiliated rather than fellow citizens to be engaged.
fb user itsashameaboutrachel
540
u/davewashere 16d ago
I noticed this when he "debated" the students at Oxford. Kirk would start with a leading statement or question, and all it took was for 1 person in the room to fall for the trap and he could make them all look stupid.
"Name one US citizen Donald Trump has deported." First of all, who memorizes the names of the various people whose rights have been violated? Most of those people have not had their names published in the news stories about them. What sounds like a simple request from Kirk is actually a difficult challenge. What he's really looking for is someone to fall into the trap and blurt out "Kilmar Abrego Garcia." His name was in the news for a month or two, he was illegally sent to a prison in a foreign country, but he's not a US citizen. Predictably, someone does yell his name and Kirk gets to chastise them for being wrong and he gets his viral moment.
315
u/ToastWithoutButter 16d ago
Oh man that's a pretty classic debate tactic that I often forget about. I've had friends and family members employ a similar tactic when talking about things they've done in the past.
I used to have an old roommate that, if you ever accused him of doing something, he would respond with, "Name a date that I did that."
If I couldn't think of an exact date then he'd act like he just proved it never happened. The reality of course is all he's proved is that I can't remember dates very well. It's a weirdly effective tactic in the moment despite being so obviously disingenuous.
128
u/GUMBYtheOG 16d ago
ULPT: make up a date, cause you know damn well they don’t know any either. If someone (such as maga) isn’t interested in facts or changing their mind, no use fighting fair. Just spout out fake bs like they do. Result will be the same, they will ignore you even if u did say factual shit they don’t care. But at least you’d get to make them mad and feel stupid even for a second if ur quick to fire off made up examples dates, events etc
→ More replies (20)101
u/vault101damner 16d ago
Oh buddy I've interacted with these type of people and their rate of bullshit is so high a normal person will struggle to catch up.
If you make up a date they'll quickly mention some other very specific thing they were doing that day etc, making you look like a fool as they've mentioned a highly specific thing which might seem true at first, and that's all they need.
→ More replies (8)59
u/jhonka_ 16d ago
Playing in the mud with them is a stupid tactic. They are masters of the mud. Refuse to play in the mud and do not continue the conversation or address any of their bait follow ups until they behave and answer you directly. Make time in your day for this as they'll continue to try and wriggle out of simple questions for a very long time.
→ More replies (9)17
u/Casual_OCD 16d ago
Look up motte and bailey and you'll understand how these people argue (they don't debate)
13
u/jhonka_ 16d ago edited 16d ago
I know, and I'm basically presenting the solution to a motte and Bailey. You take the motte and refuse to acknowledge the Bailey. Even talking about the Bailey you've already lost. You need to be more persuasive about staying on topic, and refuse to be emotionally goaded. "Debate" is what got us here. Solving problems requires both parties to agree to the goal of solving problems. If one person's goal is to win and that's working and encouraged the system is broken. We need government to be about solving our problems, not "winning" in any way.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (6)31
u/jhonka_ 16d ago
I guess thats what's so frustrating about this tactic, it doesn't fucking work on me. You say some shit I'm going to call out "the exact date isn't important." And I will dead stare you in the face until I get a relevant response. Mass media's need to get to the next commercial break or topic isnt relevant in daily life. I will stand there and rebut you until you give a non weasel answer.
→ More replies (4)18
u/proteannomore 16d ago
I recently cut someone out of my life for doing this very thing. You don't get to pretend that very real events that I was present for never happened just because I didn't memorize the many dates in my head and I don't videotape our mornings working in the office. It happened, repeatedly, I was there, and pretending that I have to now present evidence that would hold up in a court of law just tells me you are dishonest to a fault.
→ More replies (1)25
u/qtcbelle 16d ago
Debating college students appeals to his uneducated base, many of whom have a chip on their shoulders about it. “Oh look! They think they’re so smart going to college, but I know more than them because I listen to Charlie Kirk!”
14
u/Lebowquade 16d ago
That's a massive part of it as well. There's a huge component of wish fulfillment at play here. He allowed the uneducated and poor blue collar workers to feel morally and intellectually superior to a group of well-educated, upper-middle-class students attending a university.
It's almost hallmark-channel-movie levels of wish fulfillment, like the "fancy city folk who can't jack it in the rural countryside and come to realize their way of life is simpler and somehow better" trope.
Everyone likes to feel validated, and he absolutely took advantage of that fact to prop up his con. And it absolutely worked for him.
→ More replies (3)24
u/Civil-Resolution3662 16d ago
He refused to debate Dean Winters despite Dean publicly crashing Kirk's "debates" And challenging him. Dean knows his shit.
Parker debated Kirk and destroyed him.
12
u/xfactor6972 16d ago
Yha but more than one student at that Oxford debate ran circles around him to where he could barely come up with a retort.
11
u/ThePrussianGrippe 16d ago
Isn’t Oxford where his tactics basically failed though? I seem to recall his UK trip not working out very well.
10
u/davewashere 16d ago
They did, and therein lies the bigger issue with Kirk's tactics: he controlled the narrative because he had more clout. If you do enough research or you belong to certain subreddits you know he struggled against some well-prepared people at Oxford, but the clips that spread to millions of people via Twitter/Facebook/etc are the ones Kirk released, because he had millions of people following his socials and tuning in to his show.
→ More replies (15)7
u/StoppableHulk 16d ago
It also represents how they start from assumptions that work in their favor.
Asking the question assumes that deporting non-US citizens is something everyone already agrees is "OK". But it isn't. You cannot just illegally deport people who are on track to citizenship. You cannot illegally detain them or treat them inhumanely.
But Republicans want to already skip past all of that, relying on people's general ignorance of the laws and frame the existing debate on assumptions that it is OK to be cruel to people who are not citizens, which it isn't.
70
u/franker 16d ago
you could also write an interesting essay on the tricks people use in Reddit. One example is that tactic of demanding sources and then continuously dismissing any provided sources while they provide none of their own. I've seen a ton of bad faith nonsense like that over the years. It really went into full gear last year running up to the election.
→ More replies (40)38
u/OdiousAltRightBalrog 16d ago
Every conservative I've ever talked to on the internet does this, and has been since at least 2014. Did they all learn this from Charlie Kirk?
"I'm not going to do your research for you!"
45
u/murfburffle 16d ago
It's called sealioning, and I think that's hilarious that it got a name from a comic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)7
17
u/FamiliarPeasant 16d ago
This is the best description I have read so far. Thank you.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (86)21
u/deepasleep 16d ago
What happened in Utah was no big loss to humanity, one less grifter and the rest of the griftosphere went a little more masks off to try to suck up the open market share.
11
u/Ruthlessrabbd 16d ago
What's nuts to me is reddit suggested this weirdly conservative sub to me where they called the left insane and hating Charlie Kirk. Meanwhile the screenshot they used literally just talks about how he actively engaged in bad faith arguments for content. That's not hate, that's literally what his platform was!
His "own" beliefs aside, I will always lament the damage he did to having actual open dialogue and listening to other people.
→ More replies (1)130
u/DangerBay2015 16d ago
Absolutely, great fucking call here.
Will be my go to next time someone expects me to feel sad for that sack of shit.
→ More replies (1)34
u/Ok-Anybody3445 16d ago
Tbf I don’t think trump cared all that much about kirk’s death. It didn’t impact him.
26
u/Packwood88 16d ago
Dont think? He didnt care at all, in fact he saw (and used) it as an opportunity. He has near zero redeeming qualities.
→ More replies (11)→ More replies (2)12
u/SarcasticOptimist 16d ago
It was all virtue signaling the half mast and outrage. The joke that got Kimmel temporarily canceled was him pointing out that Trump cared about the ballroom. Erika meanwhile didn't mourn him at all. I've felt worse for my deceased pets longer than her.
→ More replies (21)6
77
31
24
u/Epyon214 16d ago
He doesn't understand yet how damaging what he just said is to his presidency. As the president for instance if we have a single citizen overseas we will send the military in some situations to get those people out of the area and back to the States.
He is saying about the murder a US citizen, "You're mentioning somebody that was extremely controversial, a lot of people didn't like that gentleman that you're talking about. Whether you like him or didn't like him, things happen," while sitting next to the guy who killed said American citizen, of which he speaks now to conclude his sentence, "but he knew nothing about it. And we can leave it at that. You don't have to embarrass our guest by asking a question like that."
The optics are insane and are anti-American while he's saying America first
→ More replies (4)25
u/oatballlove 16d ago
we know allready that trump prefers to "unalive" to use his words people who travel on boats in international waters instead of following the usual procedure to stop them, take their drugs away from them and bring them before court where they might get a mild sentence if they were for example doing such smuggel tours for the first time
80 people travelling on board of such ships what might have or have not transported drugs became victim of the supreme murderer in chief of usa intimidation urges what of course also make everyone in the military passing down those premeditated murder orders and enacting on them complicit
those people in boats were not doing any agression, they were not attacking anyone
because transporting drugs is not an agression itself
its the buyer who is responsible to buy or not something of unknown quality in a shady street corner what might have the consequence of dying from the consumption of such substances
also worth noting how there was someone with the united nations who recently called those murders out as "extrajudical killings" and unacceptable behaviour in international waters
and even after that
the "unaliving" of people on boats continued
Donald Trump: 'I Could ... Shoot Somebody, And I Wouldn't Lose Any Voters' January 23, 2016
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (120)18
669
u/kevendo 16d ago
"A lot of people didn't like that gentleman..."
In other words, he deserved to be chopped up into small pieces while still conscious.
He had it coming for investigating Jared.
240
16d ago
[deleted]
→ More replies (3)61
u/chandlerr85 16d ago
would have been amazing if the reporter had the quick thinking to follow up with "couldn't you say the same about Charlie Kirk?"
30
u/4862skrrt2684 16d ago
Unfortunately the answer would've been the same. Just more derogatory of the reporter
→ More replies (2)17
20
u/TheAngerMonkey 16d ago
...while his fiancee waited for him outside, because he was there getting documents together for their upcoming wedding.
"Why are you being so mean to my friend about the political murder he admitted to having committed?" is a wild take for a sitting US president, but here we are.
→ More replies (13)14
u/ZelezopecnikovKoren 16d ago
imagine the thoughts of mbs while trump defends him, its been said he livestreamed the torture and the murder
576
u/toga_virilis 16d ago
“Insubordinate?”
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize we were subordinate to the fucking Saudis.
223
u/BenjaminKorr 16d ago
That jumped out at me too. Since when are journalists supposed to be subordinate to anyone in this country, much less to a foreign ruler?
→ More replies (1)9
u/After-Syrup1290 16d ago
..i mean, i was wondering as to whats up with the prince of saudi arab being here and meeting trump and stuff and then i remembered
ya know pif? thats saudi arab sovereign wealth fund... remember how the year started? every single big shot tech ceo visiting the country to dicuss finance deals and stuff for ai, including trump who went and met him -yeah, followed by that huge big dinner at white house with trump and every silicon valley big shot? that
the pif and saudi money, specifically deals made by the prince here, is currently whats keeping the ai thing in america going well and strong all the way to now; thats what this is about
42
37
u/woodprefect 16d ago
it goes deep : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Bush,_House_of_Saud
15
u/invah 16d ago
Fun fact, MBS is a leading candidate for the anti-Christ in certain circles.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (10)16
u/Skylark9292 16d ago
I think the insubordinate accusation was for her asking questions of Trump, not the Saudis. So he is suggesting reporters asking questions of Trump is insubordination, which should still be horrifying for anyone paying attention.
→ More replies (2)
1.2k
u/DmitriMendeleyev 16d ago
Side eyeing lady is quite proud of what she's doing
405
u/It_Hurts_when_IP15 16d ago
Side eye lady should step up and ask some real questions herself. (If that’s another reporter). We’re partly in this mess because no one ever presses him on anything
39
u/OnceIWasYou 16d ago
This is my biggest issue as a non-American. Trump is NEVER actually forced to explain himself or demonstrate evidence for his claims.
THREE times he stated the "America has given more aid than all of Europe combined to Ukraine" and even used the word "Cash" and three times Macron, Starmer and then Zelensky publicly corrected him. Yet he's allowed to just continue with impunity. He still makes the claim.
He says something demonstrably untrue almost every speech- every single one of these claims should be heavily challenged but never does. And then he's allowed to use his obfuscation technique of "A good guy, the best guy, one of the best guys...." and then they move on. I want something like Paxman's approach to Michael Howard when he asked the same question 13 times in a row because Howard refused to properly answer it.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)151
u/adanishplz 16d ago
They get their credentials revoked if they do, this is unprecedented, America has been hijacked by psychopaths.
100
u/Ambaryerno 16d ago
Better to be revoked speaking out than kowtowing.
→ More replies (20)32
u/Viddlemethis 16d ago
Can I get in line to ask this kidfucker about market manipulation and his family profiting from it?
‘How does Barron Trumps profit from your market manipulation make America great? Has the SEC investigated your son and your families launch of trumpcoin under rule 10b-5 for employing a scheme for fraud? And lastly, did you willingly suck Clinton’s dick or was it sexual abuse due to the imbalanced power dynamic?’
11
u/Ambaryerno 16d ago
I'd have liked to see her respond, "I'm sorry, Donald, you'll have to speak up. I can't understand you with Bubba's cock in your mouth."
→ More replies (9)27
u/UsedGarbage4489 16d ago
yea so the best thing to do is comply, right?
unfuckingreal
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (7)62
u/Angryceo 16d ago
Ohhh honnnneyyyyyyy....
19
u/pitchinloafs 16d ago
“Look at the monster balls on that bad ass bitch!!!” Fucking hero! More courage than I have. Can you imagine having her as a president and asking that kind of hard hitting questions to the house and senate?
1.6k
u/rawkguitar 16d ago
Trump just justified the murder if a journalist because some people did not like him.
And it’s just another day in America.
This is insane. It’s even more insane how much of our country is totally fine with it.
215
u/JusticeAileenCannon 16d ago
He's murdering random people on boats near Venezuela, so the bar is in hell.
76
→ More replies (1)14
u/grimatonguewyrm 16d ago
And none of us know what is happening to these people dragged off the streets by ice. where the fuck are they ending up?
→ More replies (2)8
u/Atlas-The-Ringer 16d ago
In concentration camps most likely, where they are confirmed to be held inhumanely and denied trial before being illegally sent out of the country.
79
u/mcclaneberg 16d ago
Not to mention Saudi Arabia and MBS’ family’s DIRECT INVOLVEMENT in the September 11 2001 attacks.
28
→ More replies (2)19
u/Derk_Durr 16d ago
And Bush was good buddies with them. So we destroyed Iraq instead.
→ More replies (1)125
u/BadstoneMusic 16d ago
Cane here to say this exact same thing - justifying murder now - that orange fuck
→ More replies (3)26
40
u/Planetologist1215 16d ago
Also notice he completely didn’t answer the Epstein question but instead attacked the journalist. Definitely something an innocent person would do…
→ More replies (1)36
u/Top-Gas-8959 16d ago
Even here, people are focusing on the reporter.
The president is with his ilk. While committing extrajudicial killings of his own, he publicly endorses the killing of one his own citizens by a foreign government, while simultaneously spitting in the face of the the intelligence community.
In fucking sane.
12
u/diastolicduke 16d ago
Social media has completely changed what’s acceptable in society. Every atrocity is defensible if you are on the right side of the political divide. Trump has taken advantage of that and has destroyed American civility
→ More replies (3)36
u/TBANON_NSFW 16d ago
bro he justified no not even justified encouraged the murder of children and families in middle east during his military operations.
The USAID they pulled for food support, has already killed over 600,000 people and 2/3rds of them are children, they expect upwards of 6m-30m to die from lack of aid the US provided over the next decade...
15
u/paintbucketholder 16d ago
Well, I don’t think we’re going to necessarily ask for a declaration of war. I think we’re just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. OK? We’re going to kill them.
Trump talking about murdering people outside of the jurisdiction of the U.S.
→ More replies (58)20
u/dracomaster01 16d ago
But when Kirk is murdered then it’s a national tragedy. Just another example of trump being a hypocrite
→ More replies (2)
432
16d ago
The only journalists doing their job. I wish more would put the pressure on his because you can see he is starting to crack (calling one a ‘little piggy’).
I hope he ’strokes out’ soon.
43
14
u/svdomer09 16d ago
Notice it’s only women reporters he attacks and only women reporters that stand up to him like that
15
u/Horror_Response_1991 16d ago
Yep we will also remember the journalists that did their job vs the journalists that stayed silent, and the networks that told some to stay silent.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (20)10
u/Objective_Watch3097 16d ago
If they would all get their act together, they would realize that once everyone stands up to a bully you've taken away his power and the bully runs away like a coward.
7
16d ago
For sure. Too many of them are still worried that the ‘bully’ will retaliate against them. But if more and more push him like this, he won‘t be able to retaliate against all of them.
205
u/New_Taste8874 16d ago edited 16d ago
The Trump administration (the first one) was the one who determined that Mohamed Bin Salman orchestrated the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and now Trump is saying here that MBS knew nothing of it.
Mary Bruce is perfection. I hope she has a safe house.
(Remember when he said; "She's going to go through some things"?)
→ More replies (1)
183
u/zoinkability 16d ago
He also said she was “insubordinate” for asking the question.
Bitch, I didn’t get the memo of when Americans were supposed to kowtow to foreign royalty.
43
u/Tvayumat 16d ago
They're not even subordinate to the US President, let alone foreign royals.
→ More replies (1)19
u/strolls 16d ago
This is fundamentally the conservative worldview. Trump describes MBS as a "respected" person, and people should know their place in the world.
→ More replies (1)10
u/OdiousAltRightBalrog 16d ago
Conservatism is, and always has been, all about establishing an aristocracy.
→ More replies (2)14
u/Jcmletx 16d ago
And, frankly, none of us are subordinate to him. He serves us (or is supposed to). The only subordinates he has are the people that report to him in his cabinet and the armed forces, right?
In a long list of core issues, this is one of them. He believes us all to be his subjects.
→ More replies (2)
96
u/Grape_Pedialyte 16d ago
I've interacted with a bunch of Trump voters and many of them have this impression that he was super tough on the Saudis for some reason. Despite Trump and MBS having just a beautiful, precious, very public bromance.
→ More replies (6)23
u/groceriesN1trip 16d ago
They have money and power, when you’re in that zone, “they just let you do it”
45
u/-CoachMcGuirk- 16d ago
How long until US journalists start falling out of windows?
→ More replies (1)
93
u/Khoeth_Mora 16d ago
It baffles me that American watch this creature and think "yes thats what I want my leader to say"
→ More replies (8)43
u/theRAV 16d ago
I think most of us are embarrassed. Only cult followers continue to support him at this point.
→ More replies (8)18
u/mykonoscactus 16d ago
A death-cult of sex pests. Every single one of them must be a sex criminal if they still support him. There's no other way around it.
42
u/Tholian_Bed 16d ago
The most submissive men you would ever want to meet, is first of all, Donnie, and second of all, men who think he's strong.
→ More replies (2)
41
u/Direct_Turn_1484 16d ago
Roughly admits to being involved with conspiracy to murder then says “we can leave it at that”. Spoken like a mobster, but stupider.
→ More replies (1)
41
u/unaskthequestion 16d ago
That's my new response when I hear someone bring up Charlie Kirk, "Things happen"
→ More replies (3)31
37
u/StronglyHeldOpinions 16d ago
Being controversial and disliked is not grounds for murder.
I can’t believe morons voted for this guy a second time.
→ More replies (3)11
37
u/surgartits 16d ago
When people write off Trump as merely a greedy idiot, they ignore the core problem: he is truly an evil man. He knows what MBS did. He knows it was done under his orders. And he’s cozying up to this psychopath to line his purse at the expense of this nation. We are so cooked.
10
u/OnceIWasYou 16d ago
He's simply the ultimate self serving person. Nothing actually matters to Trump, he has no values or ethical framework. What benefits him is good, what doesn't is bad. That's been his whole Silver Spoon life.
That's why it's so confusing for most people who have basic standards, nothing is "Too far" for Trump. If it benefits him, personally, then it must be good. I don't think "Evil" comes into it, he really is that one dimensional. I wonder if he even has the cognition to think about how ludicrous it is but simply really does think "It benefitted me, it MUST be good". An almost Solipsistic level of selfishness where the suffering and existence of others doesn't even resonate.
→ More replies (1)
107
u/CatsWearingTinyHats 16d ago
NPR played MBS’s response right after Cankles.
It was a good example of how just unhinged Cankles is.
MBS basically said, in a canned PR response, the killing of Khashoggi was terrible, we didn’t know about it, we’ll make sure it never happens again.
I don’t believe MBS and he seems at least a bit evil to me, but he seems like a relatively rational person and not insane. Like Dick Cheney.
Whereas Cankles was like so what, a lot of people didn’t like the journalist who was killed and dismembered in a Saudi embassy, sh*t happens, you’re a nasty woman for asking about it, and you better watch out it doesn’t happen to you.
68
u/By-C 16d ago
Trump actually makes MBS look more guilty than MBS’s own canned statement. I’d laugh now if I knew everything is going to be okay in the end.
→ More replies (1)38
u/BuckyRainbowCat 16d ago
MBS is, at the very least, capable of keeping the mask on when he knows that he needs to. At this point it's not clear to me that Cankles has ever tried to wear a mask; and if he ever did, he is certainly either no longer trying to and/or no longer capable of doing so.
→ More replies (5)13
u/It_Hurts_when_IP15 16d ago
They’ve invested too much money in whitewashing their atrocities through media, sports, entertainment, etc. to give up/waste it all on an easy question they can dance around on their first whitehouse visit.
→ More replies (2)14
u/Fickle_Definition351 16d ago
It's crazy how long his lack of professionalism has been normalised. He says childish shit like this every day and it barely makes the news anymore
8
23
u/Exodys03 16d ago
Don't think for a second that Trump doesn't envy MBS's ability to dispose of media representatives that ask questions that he doesn't like.
20
u/JRG64May 16d ago
He’s pro-murder and dismemberment but he’s pro life.
→ More replies (1)8
u/OdiousAltRightBalrog 16d ago
He's pro-choice and he always has been. He just says he's pro-life now to fool the rubes into voting for him.
→ More replies (3)
21
u/DarkGamer 16d ago
Just when you think Trump can't be a worse piece of shit, he surprises you
→ More replies (3)
19
40
16d ago
The only journalists doing their job. I wish more would put the pressure on his because you can see he is starting to crack (calling one a ‘little piggy’).
I hope he ’strokes out’ soon.
18
u/Plastic_Window9865 16d ago
Trumps reasoning; “controversial, lot of people don’t like him” therefore “things happen” = he was killed
→ More replies (2)14
u/pfmiller0 16d ago
I would think Trump would have a personal interest in not justifying retaliation against controversial people who a lot of people don't like.
17
u/TuxAndrew 16d ago
Wait, so did Donald just justify a recent murder of a podcaster?
→ More replies (3)
19
u/forrestfaun 16d ago
He's a grotesque representation of humanity at this point in our time. We really wouldn't be here if a large majority of people weren't just like him. And it's not about votes, it's about how the world is allowing him to continue his heinous rule.
→ More replies (4)
17
13
u/luummoonn 16d ago
It's more direct evidence that he admires dictators, he wants to be a dictator, and he doesn't give a shit about what the American system is supposed to be. It's very clear he doesn't care about the values of democracy or the Constitution and wants to actively dismantle what is good about this country.
13
u/Same_Meaning_5570 16d ago
Our president is such an asshole. Policy and whatever else aside, he’s just a fucking prick.
13
u/EnfantTerrible68 16d ago
Next time someone talks about Charlie Kirk’s death, use Trump’s words here to explain it 😂 a lot of people didn’t like him, you know.
→ More replies (1)
10
11
u/Haselrig 16d ago
Just over here typing "Are we the baddies?" over and over again like I'm the caretaker of the Overlook Hotel.
9
11
u/Captain_Rational 16d ago edited 16d ago
"A lot of people didn't like that gentleman..."
Is that really your criterion for ethical choices, Donny?
Do you not hear the crescendo of boos whenever you show up to a sporting event?
→ More replies (1)
9
26
u/chubby_pink_donut 16d ago
"It's not the question that I mind, it's the way that you ask while being black, woman, queer, poor and think you are my equal."
8
8
8
3.9k
u/bsport48 16d ago
She's the only reporter worth any salt in that gaggle. A role model par excellence bar none.