DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump ally Charlie Kirk shot at event in Utah, source says

Forget it Fate.

Talking to those people is like talking to Whoopie or Rosie.

Says the leader of fake news and the trump brigade. lol… you Goper’s crack me up.

Show me where I spew fake news. Receipts please.

That's BS

That's BS

The hate was always there. Always. But it was Surpressed until Trump made it ok to let it out.. This is 100% on Trump....

I was Surpressed he let it all get out of hand so bardly.

But yur right, this is all 100% on Trump. And the drought too, all Trump. Doesn't believe in global warning? This is the price we pay for it.

Trump didn't make it okay. He wasn't the first. He signed no executive order. It's on everyone that lets hate out or excuses those that let hate out. If "the people" collectively hadn't voted for him, twice, he'd have no power.

Hate is still not okay. This using Trump as an excuse to spew hate is BS. (On both sides)

People have their own brains. People make their own choices. People decide what they feel is acceptable. Sadly, a lot of people accept a lot of BS.

Blaming a boogie man and holding no one else accountable for their actions is BS.

This isn't hard, I really thought anyone would realize that the claim in that statement wasn't true -- but I see that you are part of the problem. Even though it was a FAKE claim that 55% of Democrats feel as if assinating Trump would be "somewhat justified" - you took it to "Should be assisinated" I guess you interpret things how you want. Like calling people Fascist means they are calling for blood but calling them communist and Un-American is cool and groovy. But let me help you (from AI cut and paste):



The Short Answer
The claim is false and based on a severe misreading of a flawed study. The actual study from Rutgers never asked about assassinating Donald Trump, and it did not find that 55% of left-leaning Americans believe such an act is justified.

The claim originated from a mislabeled chart in a report and was subsequently amplified by bad-faith actors and media outlets to create a viral false narrative.

Detailed Context and Breakdown
1. The Origin: The Rutgers Study
The claim stems from a study published in June 2024 by the School of Public Affairs and Administration at Rutgers University-Newark, titled “Domestic Political Violence: Dangerous Narratives and Counter-Narratives.”

The Actual Question: The study did not ask about assassinating Trump. The relevant question was about the justification of political violence in a much more general and abstract sense. It was worded as follows:

“How much do you feel that the use of force is justified to prevent [the other party] from achieving their goals?”

The Mislabeled Chart: The error originated in Figure 5 of the report. The chart's label incorrectly stated: “Percent who agree that the use of force is justified to prevent the other party's leader from becoming president.” This mislabeling is what sparked the entire controversy.

The Correction: The authors quickly acknowledged this was a labeling error. The chart was actually displaying the answers to the general question above ("preventing their goals"), not a question about preventing a leader from becoming president. The report was corrected, and a note was added to clarify the mistake.

2. Where the "55%" Figure Actually Comes From
Even with the corrected label, the 55% figure is misrepresented.

The study found that when asked if using force is justified "to prevent the other party from achieving their goals," 55% of respondents on the left (Democrats/liberals) said it was "at least a little justified."

This is a far cry from advocating for assassination. The phrase "at least a little justified" to achieve a broad political goal is vague and encompasses a wide range of interpretations, from civil disobedience to violent acts. It does not specifically endorse or justify the assassination of a political figure.

3. The "Assassination" Angle is Fabricated
The leap from the study's actual question to the specific claim about "assassinating Trump" was made entirely by external actors, not the study's authors.

Bad-Faith Amplification: Right-wing media figures, commentators, and social media accounts seized on the mislabeled chart. They ignored the correction and deliberately conflated the idea of "using force to prevent goals" with the specific, horrific act of assassinating a former president.

Political Motivations: This misrepresentation was used to paint political opponents as violently unhinged and to create a narrative of victimhood and moral superiority. It is a classic example of disinformation—false information spread deliberately to deceive.

4. Broader Context of the Study
The Rutgers study was actually about the rising risk of political violence in general. Its key findings, which were largely ignored in the viral frenzy, included:

Similar levels of ambivalence toward political violence were found on both the left and the right.

The study focused on how narratives and counter-narratives can incite or prevent violence.

It was designed to understand the problem, not to assign blame to one political side.

Conclusion
To summarize:

False Premise: The Rutgers study never asked about assassinating Donald Trump.

Mislabeled Data: The "55%" figure came from a chart that was initially mislabeled and then corrected.

Misinterpreted Meaning: The actual question was about the abstract justification of "force" to prevent a party's goals, a much broader and vaguer concept than political assassination.

Deliberate Disinformation: The specific "assassination" claim was invented and spread by partisan actors to create a false and inflammatory narrative.

The truth is that the claim is a complete distortion of an academic study, fueled by a labeling error and amplified for political gain. It is not a reflection of the beliefs of any significant portion of the American public.

-------------------------------------------------------
A similar search on specific quotes for Trump calling Democrats and the Left Treasonous will also yeild you plenty of results. Maybe you missed them all idk. But I remember several of them.

Ooookay.

55% believe using violence to stop politicians from politicking is okay.

Plus, you remember other stuff that makes the other side bad.

This changes everything, thanks.

We disagree, he's the guy that made it OK to be anti Democracy

Then again, I don't know what I expected, He is the one that said Smart People don't like him!

I detect sarcasm but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

No that's not what it really said - the question was abiguous, and talked about if something might be justifiable. That in itslef is miles away from advocating for, miles away from "supporting" or even being "okay" with it. But that's a nuance. You either accept or you don't. Add to that - this wasn't a Left vs Right thing. It wasn't this is what the Democrats answered and here's a seperate % for the Republicans and how they answered. . . this was across ALL parties and demographics. It's right there in the conclusion: == Similar levels of ambivalence toward political violence were found on both the left and the right. == It was designed to understand the problem, not to assign blame to one political side. == The specific "assassination" claim was invented and spread by partisan actors to create a false and inflammatory narrative.

Talking of false narratives and spreading fake news - we had the same person who supplied the claim that $50M of US funding was earmarked for Condoms for Hamas. . . . we never heard an acceptance from that poster that they had spread lies. This new post is from the same poster - it also contains lies and fake news. What is the betting we get an acknowledgement that they've accidently spread bile and misinformation?

So dumb....

What is? Posting misinformation and never coming back to own the mistake?

j/c...

I'm not sure what "furry" means. Is Montell a furry? It sounds like he wants to cuddle with the killer.

Yet again so focused on men cuddling.

I hate how simply being famous is enough to have your opinion/platform blasted out all over media and social media.

IMO, Montell's take means about as much as mine.

Agreed. But it looks like CNN invited him onto their most popular news show to share his profound revelation. While his opinion is meaningless, not expecting backlash seems a bit contrived. This appears more like inviting it. Maybe that's what they do for ratings nowadays?

Along those lines, ABC experienced similar backlash...




I think his commentary is rather crude considering the circumstances, but whatever. Trying to "humanize" a killer seems a little too soon-ish. He issued a profound apology. Fair enough in my book. Too many on SM calling for his head imo.

This probably won't be popular to some conservatives, but pushing this narrative that nothing can be said apart from Charlie walked on water is unfortunate. That doesn't relate to these two episodes, as I think both are in poor taste, but some of the commentary calling for heads to roll for even rather innocuous statements are straight cringe. And Charlie wouldn't approve. Maybe use that as a guideline.

So according to you CNN knew exactly what his comments would be ahead of time.

I think the point is that no-one should give a rats patootie what Montell's opinion is. No? I mean it he was on some entertainment show and he popped out his political opinion it would be one thing, but why is he on CNN? That I do get.

Oober - in my book your opinion carries intinitly more weight!

I don't think they should give a rats patootie about what any of the talking heads opinions are. I think what people can do is extrapolate fact from fiction and not let the emotions of others to dictate their beliefs.

This cracks me up. I'm glad you quoted this and I can see Pit's post.

No Pit, I think he was casually walking by the studio and they invited him in to talk about anything.

I just checked -- he's been on two news shows in the last six months -- once to promote his special and once to promote his book. Yesterday he was on one to tell of the shooter's love story and reason for his actions. I'm sure the producer, host and network had no idea what he was going to talk about.

ICYMI, even cheap podcasts cover the ground of what they will talk about beforehand. Can't make it up. 🤣

So he was told the questions in advance means they knew his answer to his questions in advance? Being invited on the show in no way means they knew what he was going to say. Yes he has always been a hard core liberal but how is that in way different than how FOX News, OAN or Newsmax conducts business? Come on man.

It's sad that you have to depend on others to see my posts. That's a you issue. At least you found your own personal way to silence the opposition no matter how cowardly that may be.

Military leaders consider recruiting campaign centered around Charlie Kirk

Possible slogans discussed include “Charlie has awakened a generation of warriors.” There is talk of using Turning Point USA chapters as recruitment centers.

WASHINGTON — Pentagon leaders are considering a new recruiting campaign that would encourage young people to honor the legacy of assassinated conservative activist Charlie Kirk by joining the military, according to two officials familiar with the planning.

The idea would be to frame the recruiting campaign as a national call to service, the officials said. Possible slogans that Pentagon leaders have discussed include “Charlie has awakened a generation of warriors,” according to the officials.

Anthony Tata, who serves as undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, is leading the effort, the officials said.

As part of the potential new campaign, Pentagon leaders are considering using chapters of Kirk’s political organization, Turning Point USA, at schools across the U.S. as military recruitment centers, the officials said. That could include inviting recruiters to be present at events or advertising for the military at the chapters, one of them explained. President Donald Trump has credited Kirk and Turning Point USA with helping him win the 2024 election.

The officials did not know what the timing would be for rolling out the possible new recruitment campaign, and it’s not clear if it will ultimately happen. The idea is facing resistance from some Pentagon leaders who have privately warned those working on the effort that such a campaign could be perceived as the military trying to capitalize on Kirk’s death, the two officials said. Kirk did not serve in the armed forces.

Trump officials have sought to pay public homage to Kirk. The day after the assassination, Vice President JD Vance, who was close to Kirk, flew from Washington, D.C., to Utah to escort Kirk’s wife and his remains back to Arizona. Kirk’s casket was carried to Air Force Two by members of the military. And Trump, Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and several other members of the Cabinet are scheduled to speak at a memorial service for Kirk in Arizona on Sunday.

Those efforts have also extended to attempts to punish those who speak ill of Kirk or his assassination. As NBC News has previously reported, Hegseth last week told staff to actively search for any members of the military or others who work with the Defense Department who mocked or condoned Kirk’s death so that they could be punished, and called on members of the public to report posts critical of Kirk coming from people associated with the military.

Asked for comment by NBC News, the Defense Department provided a statement from chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell in which he said, “The media is so desperate to attack this administration’s success that they are now inventing lies about our recruitment efforts. Leadership matters, and under the strong leadership of President Trump and Secretary Hegseth men and women are coming out in droves to serve this great nation.”
Recruiting worries

The potential push comes as the Pentagon’s Military Service Recruitment Task Force, which Tata co-chairs, is warning of a possible drop in future recruits, according to two defense officials.

Trump and Hegseth have touted an uptick in recruiting since Trump’s inauguration, though it actually began under President Joe Biden after two years of shortfalls in 2022 and 2023. But that trend could be short-lived, in part because of societal and generational changes that are shrinking the overall number of Americans eligible to serve, and which show no signs of slowing. Kirk had a large following among young conservatives and Trump supporters, many of whom would be around the age a military recruitment campaign would typically target.

In June, the Pentagon established a recruitment task force to address military recruiting challenges, develop a forward-looking recruiting strategy and find ways to maintain momentum on recent recruiting increases. So far, none of its reports have been publicly released.

In a July press briefing, Parnell addressed the task force’s work, noting that the Pentagon believes 7% to 11% of Americans see military service as a viable path forward, down from 27% after 9/11. He praised recent recruiting wins but added that the great numbers “might not always be the case.”

He added, “While we have great recruiting numbers now, it might not always be the case. And so one of the things that we’re trying to achieve with this recruiting task force is answering the tough question about how do we set the conditions here culturally in this country to have more kids want to serve the country and see it as a viable career path.”

Hegseth was briefed last month on the task force’s findings and concerns about potential recruiting shortfalls on the horizon, according to one of the defense officials and an official familiar with the meeting.

Societal trends are also driving some concerns about a potential recruiting shortfall that could come soon, the defense official and another defense official said.

The U.S. saw a sharp drop in births after the economic downturn in 2007, 18 years ago, shrinking today’s pool of potential recruits. There are also fewer parents who have served in the military than in previous generations, resulting in fewer military kids following their moms and dads into service.

Recruiting has also been challenged by an increase in young people who do not qualify to serve because they are overweight, do not meet the academic testing requirements or have a history of taking medications that disqualify them from joining, such as antidepressants.

These trends, combined with challenges from the Covid pandemic, fueled the shortfalls in 2022 and 2023.

In 2022, the Army introduced the Future Soldier Preparatory Course, a program to help young people improve their physical fitness and their scores on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, known as the ASVAB test. According to the Army, almost 50,000 men and women have completed the course and moved to basic training, which has helped boost recruiting numbers.

But the task force has also found that part of the recruitment rebound in 2024 and 2025 has been due to the military dedicating billions of dollars to recruiting and retention bonuses, the two defense officials said.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/na...ampaign-centered-charlie-kirk-rcna231971

I suppose they don't see anything wrong with the death of the man being used to suit yet another trump administration objective.