#supreme court bullshit | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

debunkingtherightwing · 4 months

Text

A Deranged Dingus Discusses The De-Balloting of Donald

Charlie's expression here is how I react to pretty much everything that comes out of his mouth. (Photo Credit: Turning Point USA/The Charlie Kirk Show)

Well, I figured we'd take a look at the American Rights commentary on the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling that Trump was ineligible to appear on ballots in the state of Colorado, and who better to represent the right than the guy who's organization this blogs name takes a jab at?

So, Charlie Kirk posted a thirty minute video on YouTube about this event and his analysis on what happened....it's not great.

00:54, Charlie Kirk: "The Colorado Supreme Court yesterday ruled Donald Trump not allowed on the ballot. The left is constantly warning us about fascism, dictatorship, and civil war, and talk about rrrrr-democracy (sic). Now remember, every time you hear democracy what's the word you replace it with? Oligarchy."

It's unlikely that this decision is even going to get past the Supreme Court, plus the court is staying their ruling until January 4th which is the day before names go on ballots in Colorado. With that being said, the Democrats had no part in the initial suit that led up to this.

The suit was commissioned by nine voters from Colorado who alleged that Donald Trump was illegible to take office due to his role in the execution of the January 6th insurrection attempt. All of these voters were eligible to vote in the GOP primary which means that according to Colorado State Law they aren't registered Democrats, the left had absolutely nothing to do with this.

And like I said before, it's extremely likely that the Supreme Court will overturn this.

Now, about this oligarchy nonsense. Even in the unlikely event that this goes through, voters in the state of Colorado still have the right to vote for another GOP candidate in the primaries (for example, Ron Desantis). The Democrats still have the ability to lose the election even if Trump isn't allowed on primary ballot in Colorado.

Trump can also run in all 49 other states. Colorado isn't particularly important to his campaign because, as Charlie points out, it's a left leaning state. Trump lost it in 2016 and still won. It's extremely unlikely that other states have enough time to do what Colorado did.

01:20, Charlie Kirk: "They don't mean representative government, they don't mean election, they don't mean power to the people. They mean people in closed rooms who get to decide your future."

So if you couldn't already tell, Charlie isn't really taking this all particularly well.

He is inflating this issue to a way larger thing than it is and completely ignoring the fact that the United States Supreme Court is very likely to overturn this. Not to mention the fact that Colorado is an extremely unimportant state for Donald Trump's campaign, he is extremely likely to win the GOP nomination and the election even without Colorado.

01:32, Charlie Kirk: "They do not want representative government, they want a philosopher king, a ruling class."

Charlie is misusing the term philosopher king here. The term philosopher king was coined by Plato to describe a ruler who governs in a way that applies philosophy. I'm convinced he just threw that term in there to sound smarter.

01:52, Charlie Kirk: "Now I have to take a detour here. Colorado is without a doubt one of the saddest political stories of the last couple decades. Colorado used to be a ruby red state."

Colorado's change into a blue state is the result of a demographic shift. The youth, mainly ones coming from California, came to Colorado and brought with them more progressive politics and viewpoints and the Democratic Party capitalized on those viewpoints.

The huge turnout for Joe Biden in Colorado is also partly because Donald Trump is so extreme that he probably turned a lot of fence-sitters and old-school Republicans off from voting for the GOP.

It also feels like Charlie is admitting that Colorado isn't all that important due to it being a blue state.

02:45, Charlie Kirk: "In some ways Colorado is worse than California. I know that sounds extreme but Colorado in some ways is more Marxist and more captured than parts of California."

Ah yes, "Marxist", the rights new favorite buzzword. The Cultural Marxism theory is nothing more than red-scare propaganda repackaged into a new shiny conspiracy.

States that are more progressive aren't communist. California for instance is the home of multiple corporations and is actually quite a capitalist hub. There is absolutely no state in America that isn't capitalist and to say differently is to ignore reality.

03:02, Charlie Kirk: "And by the way, the Christians and the conservatives have been beat into submission in Colorado."

How? Is living in a left-wing state as a conservative really that much of a battle? Charlie is acting as if the police will come to your home and harass you if you are a conservative in Colorado.

Colorado is also still a majority Christian state according to Pew Research. 64% of adults in Colorado identified as Christian and 55% identified as strongly believing in God. But I forgot, those aren't real Christians because a lot of them probably don't agree with Charlies far-right political views.

03:38, Charlie Kirk: "And by the way, what is Colorado? Colorado is the second most college educated state in the country."

This isn't the gotcha that Charlie thinks it is.

"Yeah, everybody on my side is uneducated. Get them smart people outta here!"

03:56, Charlie Kirk: "Why would Colorado have the second most college graduates of any state in the country? Lot of tech companies, beautiful place to live, and a lot of people who graduate from college get their degrees, come to Colorado, they keep their toxic ideology and they've turned Colorado into a dystopian hellscape."

This is one of the most insanely overdramatic things I have ever heard from one of these right-wing weirdos, and I've listened to a lot of Matt Walsh for this blog.

In case you are wondering, no Colorado isn't a dystopian hellscape just because it's a blue state.

4:37, Charlie Kirk: "Well Donald Trump is currently under indictment but not even under indictment for anything that would disqualify him from ballot access."

This wasn't about whether or not Trump is convicted of insurrection, it's about whether or not the court deemed him to have attempted to commit an insurrection. What section three of the 14th amendment says is as follows;

“No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath … as an officer of the United States … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

Legal experts such as the CRS (Congressional Research Service) generally agree that a conviction isn't required. Quote; "Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary".

In short, Charlie is lying his ass off about Trump needing to be indicted.

05:38, Charlie Kirk: "Hold on, even if Donald Trump was an insurrectionist he's allowed to run for office. Just holding office and running are two different things technically."

The operative words here are "having previously taken oath as an officer of the United States". The implication there is that the person cannot run again as if they ran and won they would be holding office.

Even Charlie knows that this isn't what the Constitution meant which is why he threw in that "technically".

05:55, Charlie Kirk: "But he's not an insurrectionist because January 6th was not an insurrection."

Yes it was. Those people violently stormed the capitol with the intent to overturn the election and were motivated to do so both by Donald Trumps repeated lies that the 2020 election was stolen and by his and others comments at the Save America Rally.

Charlie himself is complicit in what happened, bragging the day before the election that he was sending 80+ buses to the Capitol to fight for the president and then deleting the tweet when he presumably realized that it could get him into serious legal trouble. Charlie knows this was an insurrection, after all if he didn't think it was he would have left that tweet up. If it wasn't an insurrection he did nothing wrong, however if it was he is complicit in trying to overturn an election.

05:58, Charlie Kirk: "Where are the weapons? You have an unarmed insurrection?"

There were weapons at the capitol on January 6th. According to D.C police officer Daniel Hodges the D.C police had seized multiple guns from the rioters. Quote,

"I didn’t want to be the guy who starts shooting, because I knew they had guns — we had been seizing guns all day,” (Washington Post).

Whats more, photos show the rioters armed with clubs and flagpoles. Stun guns were also used. But here are some images of the rioters with weapons in case you don't believe me.

A Trump supporter holding a metal post and weapons seized by the FBI (Credit: CNN)

A Trump supporter holding a sledgehammer on January 6th (Credit: NPR)

06:02, Charlie Kirk: "Where's the meeting where Donald Trump met with the Proud Boys or the Oath Keepers?"

Ah, so he admits that it wasn't a "fedsurrection" like he claimed during his speech at AmericaFest. What is true is that Donald Trumps rhetoric spurred these people on and that they wouldn't have tried to overturn the election if Trump didn't claim that it was stolen. While the totality of Trumps actions such as claiming the election was stolen were what led up to the riot and saying that what Trump did on the day of was solely responsible for what happened plays into the hands of people like Charlie Kirk, let's take a minute and look at Trump's actions the day of;

Even before his speech on January 6th, Donald Trump tweeted out "Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!" Many supporters of the former president said that Trump's posts on Twitter encouraged them to be there. This includes Stephen Ayers who testified quote;

"He basically put out, you know, come to the 'Stop the Steal' rally, you know, and I felt like I needed to be down here,"

Trump and Rudy Giuliani both delivered speeches that incited the crowd. During his speech, Donald Trump said quote;

"And we fight. We fight like hell And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

"Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness, you have to show strength and you have to be strong.”

Giuliani was even more overt calling for a "trial by combat".

So even if we ignore the broader picture of Trumps behavior before the day of January 6th, him and his cohorts really did incite violence at the Capitol.

06:09, Charlie Kirk: "Or, if this was an insurrection this would be the fakest, dumbest, insurrection in history."

I don't agree with it being the fakest but me and Charlie can find a little common ground in calling it the dumbest. Also, this argument makes no sense. Insurrections aren't judged by how successful or how competent they are, they're judged by if they are insurrections or not. If the insurrection were successful none of this stuff in Colorado would have happened because Trump would probably be America's new dictator!

Charlie plays a brief clip of Trump saying "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard", which is a cherrypicked quote that ignores all the other stuff Trump said in that speech and like I said before, the totality of Trump's actions inspired the insurrection, not just the speech on January 6th.

07:03, Charlie Kirk: "It was a deep state insurrection if anything. It was the intel agencies embedding, infiltrating, and provoking activity and of course there were a handful of people who acted improperly, of course there were a handful of people that did things that they shouldn't have done inexcusably, but 99% of the people there on January 6th did nothing wrong."

Charlie knows that this the "feds did it" thing is complete bullshit, otherwise he wouldn't throw in that "99% of the people at January 6th did nothing wrong" which turns his argument into "The feds did it but even if they didn't do it, the rioters did nothing wrong when they tried to overturn the election!"

Charlie knows that if this is an insurrection, his side looks very bad and he may bear some responsibility since he provided transportation for many off the rioters, so he makes up multiple completely incongruent stories with the hope that one sticks. It's completely ridiculous.

08:19, Charlie Kirk: "We are in the middle of a slow motion civil war of the Washington D.C regime against the citizenry."

This makes zero sense. If we are in the middle of a slow motion civil war between the DC regime against the citizenry, why haven't they done more to take "truth-tellers" like Charlie Kirk and Alex Jones off of the air? Not to mention all the MAGA people in the government!

08:53, Charlie Kirk: "For our entire lifetimes the standard for controlling speech in this country has been that if you are accused of criminal speech you must incite imminent lawless action and that doesn't even include vaguely saying 'We should overthrow the government.' It means specific time place and manner."

Even by Charlie's flawed logic, this argument falls apart pretty quickly when you remember the be there will be wild tweet we mentioned earlier. In that case it would mean that the specific place and command is "Be there (the Capitol) and be wild", the place is obviously the Capitol and given the context of Donald Trump saying that the election was stolen for months before the 6th "be wild" could only mean "fight to stop the stolen election".

Also, the charges for Trump regarding the insurrection are 2 felony counts of obstructing an official proceeding, 1 felony count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, and 1 felony count of conspiracy against rights under. So while those charges involve the remarks Trump made about the election (particularly obstructing an official proceeding), they aren't necessarily speech charges.

10:23, Charlie Kirk: "The party of democracy says that you do not have a constitutional right to vote for a former president"

As said prior, the Democratic Party had nothing to do with the initial suit here. This rhetoric is turning the case into something that it isn't.

Charlie plays a clip of Rachel Maddow calling into MSNBC because she's the right's hate crush. She says and I quote (this is important because Charlie's interpretation of it is completely batshit insane);

"I mean listen, I think in the broad strokes in terms of our democracy there are very few magic wands. That said, it is not a crazy thing for a democracy to do, this is something that our own congress did in 1868 after our own civil war specifically to preclude anybody from holding office in this country who had engaged in insurrection against this country and so it's not unheard of but it would be an incredible wildcard."

So, she's essentially saying that the situation is surprising but not unheard of. To prove this, she cites the fact that the United States government did a similar thing after the civil war to preclude Confederates from running for office. It's an example and it's not referring to Trump in any way. Now, here's how Charlie reacts to it.

12:33, Charlie Kirk: "Wait hold on, this is why this all ties together. We are in the midst of a cold Civil War, we don't know it but they think it. They call us Confederates. So Rachel Maddow says 'Well, it's not a crazy thing to do if Jefferson Davis is running for the presidency'. She's basically calling Donald Trump a slave owning Confederate."

This is so ridiculous. So pointing out a historical use of this amendment is apparently calling Donald Trump a slave owning Confederate. She's not even attempting to compare Donald Trump to a Confederate.

Now you guys see what I meant in the AmFest episode when I said that Charlie has made a career out of making an embarrassment out of himself.

12:58, Charlie Kirk: "They're doing this for a variety of reasons. They wanna justify violence against you, they wanna justify if it happens, an assassination attempt against President Trump."

I can't put myself in the headspace where I would get all that out of a twenty second Rachel Maddow clip. Ironically enough, in making people this terrified of the left and making people feel as if the left is coming for them, Charlie is justifying violence against people on the left!

13:45, Charlie Kirk: "They're setting the optics and the narrative and the philosophical rationalization and justification to kill you, to raid your home, put you in prison, and take out the leader of the movement and there is not an ounce, an inch, or a sliver of an iota of an exaggeration of that."

Translation; FEAR, FEAR, FEAR, FEAR, BUY MY SHIT AND WATCH MY SHOW, FEAR, FEAR, FEAR, FEAR!!!!

Charlie is preying on his audiences emotions, especially when he knows he's probably going to get more web traffic because of this ruling, and making them afraid of something that will never happen.

14:16, Charlie Kirk: "Thankfully the Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court is going to weight in on this."

So, let's say that Charlie is correct and the left controls DC and is waging a cold civil war against the citizens of America. How would it make sense that the Supreme Court weighing in on this is a good thing?! In this world that Charlie has constructed for his audience they will probably allow this to go through and maybe kick Trump off ballots in every state because he's the president of the people or whatever.

I do think that the Supreme Court will overturn this and judging from this so does Charlie, which makes all that stuff about how the left is waging a cold civil war against you and how they're gonna kill Trump nothing but mindless fearmongering.

14:31, Charlie Kirk: "Now one of the most revealing things about this ruling is that of the 7 justices on the (Colorado) Supreme Court, 4 of them went to elite top fourteen law schools and three of them went to the regional University of Denver Law School and that is exactly the breakdown of Tuesday's ruling."

So, I've noticed something about Charlie Kirk, and that is that he is a professional college dropout. He constantly bashes higher education and says that it produces indoctrinated leftists, completely ignoring the possibility that just maybe the reason that college produces so many leftists is because leftists tend to skew on the more intelligent side. He even wrote a book on it.

The reason I call Charlie a professional college dropout specifically is because he himself dropped out of Harper College and allegedly wasn't the greatest student. I truly believe that this part of his career stems from him lashing out due to being angry at not succeeding academically and wanting to justify that lack of success by saying that he was too much of an "enlightened conservative" to fall for the leftist tricks of higher education.

15:32, Charlie Kirk: "Arlington National Cemetery, can we have a picture of this monument guys? It's worth putting up. (for clarity, he's talking to the crew). This monument at Arlington National Cemetery is one of the great pieces of work, it's America's most noteworthy sculptors, Moses Ezekiel a Jewish man."

Considering the weird phrasing of "It's America's most notable sculptors" with sculptors said after a brief pause, I am 95% sure that Charlie was going to say "sculpture" but remembered this other kind of obscure sculpture called the Statue Of Liberty and back peddled.

What Charlie is leaving out is that this statue glorified and sanitized the Confederacy by promoting false narratives that the South was a noble lost cause. Certain elements such a slave woman holding a white officers baby make slavery out to be less brutal than it was and this was on purpose.

The creation of the statue was funded by a group called "The United Daughters Of The Confederacy" which was an organization dedicated to romanticizing Confederate veterans, so it is essentially a Confederate propaganda piece meant to make the south look "not that bad after all".

Anyway, Charlie is really mad about this statue being taken down.

16:10, Charlie Kirk: "But now the monument is being ripped down pointlessly, not for the sake of reconciliation but the exact opposite, to create hatred, anger, and discord."

It's one statue. In the grand scheme of things it being taken down isn't a huge deal and getting rid of Confederate monuments is a good thing for society. Very few people would even care if the right wasn't making such a federal case out of this.

16:18, Charlie Kirk: "Why would the left do this? This is all connected. Trump off the ballot, January 6, the national security state, the 2024 election, and statues at the Arlington National Cemetery, it's all working pieces of the same operation. It's because the left sees us in a Cold Civil War already."

Did...did I hear that correctly? Is Charlie seriously trying to declare that taking down one problematic statue is proof that there is a CIVIL WAR going on?! I haven't heard a take that dumb since, well, the last blog post where Michael Knowles declared that all kids programs have secret leftist messaging in them!

I honestly don't understand how anybody with an ounce of critical thinking could take this verbal bile seriously. It's like journalistic Calvinball, he's making shit up as he goes along!

I am both dreading and excited for when I go onto Rumble and debunk full episodes of the Charlie Kirk Show, because if this is the stuff that he feels is good enough for YouTube, the stuff that didn't make it to YouTube must be remarkably dumb.

17:11, Charlie Kirk: "They will deploy their activist proxies in the streets, they will kick us off of social media, they will keep our patriots in pre-trial gulag style solitary confinement detention. That's how you act when you're at war."

Let's go through all three of these really quickly.

1): There's absolutely no evidence that activists are being paid by high-level people on the left. There is however evidence that Charlie Kirk is being paid by high-level people on the right.

2): I'm watching this video on YouTube and Charlie is syndicated on multiple radio stations so he cannot whinge about being "censored". On top of that, the left has nothing to do with people getting kicked off of social media, that is the decision of private companies who don't want to be associated with certain rhetoric that they feel is damaging to their brand image.

3): I'm assuming he means the people at January 6th by patriots, in which case those people are awaiting trial in jail because they tried to overturn an election and that is nobodies fault but their own.

If this is evidence that the left is waging a civil war than we are really bad at waging civil wars.

18:48, Charlie Kirk: "So they take down the monument and then this affirmative action moron Mara Gay, who probably is related to the other affirmative action moron who runs Harvard Claudia (sic, I know it's Claudine but Charlie pronounced it Claudia in the video) Gay."

Charlie Kirk Racism Count: 4

If you don't remember AmFest (which is good because I too have tried to block it from my mind) Charlie at one point played a video where he challenged someone on the left to find something racist he said and after a five second google search I managed to find three racist things said.

Since Charlie seems to still be set on being a bigot, introducing the Charlie Kirk Racism Counter™. While the racism counter was at three previously, calling successful black women "affirmative action morons" brings the racism counter up to four.

19:27, Charlie Kirk: "This is a New York Times reporter. She reveals the whole ballgame. She tells you that they believe they're in a civil war."

The only person that believes that we are in a Civil War is Charlie.

Charlie then plays a clip of Mara actually calling Trump a Confederate. What she's saying is that by trying to overturn the presidential election, Donald Trump betrayed the country. She's not saying that the left is in a Civil War with American's, she's saying that Donald Trump tried to overthrow the government and that makes him a traitor.

21:18, Charlie Kirk: "She's saying that if you went to January 6th, you're a traitor to the country."

She is correct, storming a government building and committing insurrection is treasonous. It's also telling that Charlie assumes that a lot of people watching his show went to January 6th.

Charlie then plays a clip of Tucker Carlson saying that the people he's interviewed who were at January 6th were actually the good guys and that the election was stolen, no bias in that source /s. Charlie declares that they should release all the tapes at Jan 6th, which is unrealistic given the fact that it's classified info. Reads a quote from Rush Limbaugh, not important. Charlie than undermines his entire AmFest speech.

27:33, Charlie Kirk: "More and more people that have wealth, that have stature, are waking up. There is not this malaise, that's one of my takeaways from America Fest, it was top and bottom, full spectrum, people are getting the stakes."

Wait a minute, didn't Charlie say that we were living in a top-down revolution and that the elites are all coming after the people? I guess the wealthy doners at TPUSA changed his mind. At AmFest Charlie said and I quote;

"We're living through a top-down revolution everybody. We're living through a revolution that's different than most others. It is a cultural revolution, similar to Mao's China, but this revolution is when the powerful, the rich, the wealthy, decide to use their power and their wealth to go after you."

He also said;

"This country has never lived through the wealthiest hating the country."

Charlie can't keep his beliefs straight because he doesn't have beliefs, or if he did he doesn't care about them anymore. Charlie is a grifter who does whatever he can to keep the money flowing into TPUSA. Who wants to bet that Charlie's wealthy doners didn't like all that talk about a top-down revolution and told him to switch gears?

Charlie declares that the Supreme Court will overturn this and the show ends."

Conclusion:

Well that was dumb. Charlie doesn't really have anything here outside of "January 6th was a false flag and even if it wasn't nobody did anything wrong". Really weak stuff here.

2 notes · View notes