Nicole Scherzinger doubling down on the MAGA Train- Page 9

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 9/15/25 at 8:45pm

Can we talk about Debra Messing? She’s kind of unhinged on instagram with the stories she (re)posts. She shares a lot of Fox News and right wing propaganda. I’m shocked she’s fallen so far to the right. It’s incredibly disheartening that she’d knock down another Jewish woman just for sharing her opinion after winning an Emmy Award last night.

[Highland Guy]

Posted: 9/15/25 at 8:49pm

Matt Rogers said: "Keep it coming, Troll. Keep it coming.Keep making a fool out of yourself. You are an expert at it."

For trolls, negative attention is better than no attention at all.  

 

[binau]

Posted: 9/16/25 at 1:10am

Jay Lerner-Z said: "Binau... can you point to any leftist teachings thatadvocate assassination?

That might help persuade me.

Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk because he was a deranged lunatic with easy access to guns, his political beliefs notwithstanding."


So you don’t accept the idea that the dehumanising of your opponents, calling them Nazis and fascists might interact with a lunatic who has access to guns? You don’t accept that the shooter then implicitly repeats these ideas ‘Charlie Kirk was full of hate and spreading hate’, the anti-fascist symbolism etc has nothing to do with this?

You don’t accept that the horrific and shocking reaction to his death - glee of many - is not indicative of a higher level cultural problem feeding into the same problem?

it’s all just random is it?

Updated On: 9/16/25 at 01:10 AM

[SteveSanders]

Posted: 9/16/25 at 1:46am

binau said: "You don’t accept that the horrific and shocking reaction to his death - glee of many - is not indicative of a higher level cultural problem feeding into the same problem?"

People from both parties have throughout history expressed benign satisfaction when long-time opponents from the opposition have passed, albeit natural deaths.  For fellow progressives, I can easily recall this happening with Ronald Reagan, Pat Buchanan, and Anita Bryant.

The discourse now may be coarser (and louder because of social media amplification), but the "good riddance" core sentiment isn't all that different.

And even if we assume every horrific and shocking reaction to his death on social media is genuine when some percentage of them are bots or troll farm posts, they still represent a very small percentage of the population at large.

Further, we don't know how many of these deplorable and crass comments reflect actual beliefs people hold versus being flippant reactionary online comments. 

 

 

Updated On: 9/16/25 at 01:46 AM

[finishingthehat2]

Posted: 9/16/25 at 1:50am

Nicole is one the least talented singers ever. She's also had a lot of ease and privilege throughout her life. Despite that, she has no brain, which is common to encounter on Broadway. At a time when gay people were once again facing oppression beyond belief, they identified with her struggles while she ignored theirs.

-JPG

[binau]

Posted: 9/16/25 at 2:16am

SteveSanders said: "binau said: "You don’t accept that the horrific and shocking reaction to his death - glee of many - is not indicative of a higher level cultural problem feeding into the same problem?"

People from both parties have throughout history expressed satisfaction when long-time opponents from the opposition have passed. For fellow progressives Ronald Reagan, Pat Buchanan, and Anita Bryant are three that immediately come to mind.

The discourse now may be coarser (and louder because of social media amplification), but the "good riddance" core sentiment isn't all that different.

And even if we assume every horrific and shocking reaction to his death on social media is genuine when some percentage of them are bots or troll farm posts, they still represent a very small percentage of the population at large.

Further, we don't know how many of these deplorable and crass comments reflect actual beliefs people hold versus being flippant reactionary online comments.



"

Ok fair enough. Do you think it's appropriate that anyone should use the word 'nazi' to refer to any ideological beliefs or individuals on 'the right'? 

[SteveSanders]

Posted: 9/16/25 at 2:19am

I personally would not use Nazi, but I think it is perfectly acceptable, and even necessary, to call out people engaged in authoritarian or fascist behavior using those terms.

I mean you seem to be pretty comfortable tossing out terrorist as a label in many of your posts.

Updated On: 9/16/25 at 02:19 AM

[binau]

Posted: 9/16/25 at 2:27am

What is the definition of terrorism? Is it not using violence to achieve political goals? So I don't see it as a slur the same way 'nazi' is, it's the literal definition of the word and it's what's happening if people are suggesting that violence should be used (as some have here and many have online - I hope to your point it's not as widespread as it feels but it does feel that way). 

Do you think Charlie Kirk should be described as a nazi?

[binau]

Posted: 9/16/25 at 2:37am

Some commentary (>1 million views) from a woman of colour about the current state of the left....what it feels like right now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuyhOqU8UMU

do any of you recognise this? Is it complete fiction? Is it just a small minority of people and we’re blowing it out of proportion? 

Updated On: 9/16/25 at 02:37 AM

[abcd12]

Posted: 9/16/25 at 9:36am

It’s wild to me how someone can post multiple links to reputable articles and news sources citing Charlie Kirk’s racist, dangerous rhetoric and you three clowns immediately dismiss it. 

But YOUR source of support for your “arguments” come from YouTube videos of random people in their mom’s basement. 

It would be funny if it wasn’t so scary. 

[binau]

Posted: 9/16/25 at 10:38am

Are you referring to me? I’ve never once dismissed or challenged or really participated in a conversation about Charlie Kirk’s views. My main focus is understanding the ideology that led someone to kill him*. Or are you saying that if I understood his views I should want him dead? I don’t really see the relevance. Free speech is about protecting everyone’s right to speak so we can protect our own right to speak. 

* which is based on left wing news sources namely the BBC and CNN 

Maybe your post wasn’t directed towards me. 

Updated On: 9/16/25 at 10:38 AM

[SteveSanders]

Posted: 9/16/25 at 10:47am

binau said: "What is the definition of terrorism? Is it not using violence to achieve political goals? So I don't see it as a slur the same way 'nazi' is, it's the literal definition of the word and it's what's happening if people are suggesting that violence should be used (as some have here and many have online - I hope to your point it's not as widespread as it feels but it does feel that way).

Do you think Charlie Kirk should be described as a nazi?"

As I said previously, I would never use the term Nazi nor was I suggesting your use of terrorist is on par with it.  I was simply pointing out that you have frequently used language that others would consider incendiary, something that seems to be one of your core concerns.

 

[kdogg36]

Posted: 9/16/25 at 11:39am

BorisTomashevsky said: "People throw the term “bad faith” at me a lot on this subject. (Mostly because, I think, I reject their argument point by point. Which isn’t bad faith at all.) But there’s nothing more bad faith than someone sharing a video that refutes their position and then… not watching it."

Seb is an open advocate of the "great replacement" theory and conspiracy theories about the enforcement of Sharia law in Western countries. You are apparently a Sandy Hook denier and pusher of a "Black privilege" myth. Neither of you is a thoughtful conservative; you're right-wing conspiracy theorists peddling dangerous nonsense. Neither of you are going to get many takers here when you share articles or videos.

 

[kdogg36]

Posted: 9/16/25 at 11:42am

Matt Rogers said: “[Quoting Kirk] It should be legal to burn a rainbow or [Black Lives Matter] flag in public."

But it should be legal, right? Or any other flag you want to burn, if you own the flag and otherwise have a right to burn stuff at a particular location.

[kdogg36]

Posted: 9/16/25 at 11:45am

SteveSanders said: "People from both parties have throughout history expressed benign satisfaction when long-time opponents from the opposition have passed"

And we all grew up watching a film where a slew of people celebrate the violent death of their enemy with a jaunty song. Were the Munchkins terrorists, too?

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 9/16/25 at 11:48am

Kdogg, I guess context matters? If you want to burn them as an act of disposal out your backyward, fine. If you want to burn them as an act of provocation in a public park, well, maybe not so fine.

[kdogg36]

Posted: 9/16/25 at 12:03pm

Jay Lerner-Z said: "Kdogg, I guess context matters? If you want to burn them as an act of disposal out your backyward, fine. If you want to burn them as an act of provocation in a public park, well, maybe not so fine."

Would that apply to the US flag as well? That would put you in some rather surprising company regarding that particular issue. 

We'll have to disagree on this. I think you should be able to burn any flag, draft card, holy book, or whatever else you want to burn, as long as it's yours and you have a right to burn things there. Obviously I have no problem with content-neutral bans on burning anything in places where it would endanger others.

 

Updated On: 9/16/25 at 12:03 PM

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 9/16/25 at 12:42pm

I don't really approve of burning the US flag as an act of provocation, but I do agree it should not be illegal. Safety permitting. What is MUCH more debasing to it is MAGA jerkoffs flying it proudly on their front lawns.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 9/16/25 at 12:43pm

Boris, I knew you were bad, but I didn't know you were THAT bad.

[Islander_fan]

Posted: 9/16/25 at 12:44pm

kdogg36 said: "Jay Lerner-Z said: "Kdogg, I guess context matters? If you want to burn them as an act of disposal out your backyward, fine. If you want to burn them as an act of provocation in a public park, well, maybe not so fine."

Would that apply to the US flag as well? That would put you in some rather surprising company regardingthat particular issue.

We'll have to disagree on this. I think you should be able to burn any flag, draft card, holy book, or whatever else you want to burn, as long as it's yours and you have a right to burn things there. Obviously I have no problem with content-neutral banson burning anything in places where it would endanger others.

interestingly enough, there was a Supreme Court case in, I wanna say ‘89 on this very issue. The result was that the court said that while the flag has symbolic meaning, the act of burning the flag in protest is protected under the first amendment as it’s a form of self expression. They did point out that the act of burning the flag doesn’t change the fact that it has symbolic meaning. And, of course, for public safety, you’re not able to burn it just anywhere.

However, recently Trump signed an executive order banning flag burning and making it illegal sadly 

 

[MB124]

Posted: 9/16/25 at 12:54pm

So, this board is ok with silencing people who are calling out rampant lies and misinformation? 

I'm disgusted. 
 

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 9/16/25 at 1:03pm

They don't care, they do the bare minimum which is how this entire thing spiraled out of control. Boris/Seb/Binau have broken every single rule they have here. Thousands and thousands of times. They refuse to go to Truth Social because they think someone will listen to them here. They all fight the same way and should be banned for excessive, constant trolling. Their lack of mental ability is not our problem. Report all of their comments please, mods will get sick of it and eventually realize all I've said here. 

Drag Em!

Updated On: 9/16/25 at 01:03 PM

[verywellthensigh]

Posted: 9/16/25 at 1:04pm

binau said: "Are you referring to me? I’ve never once dismissed or challenged or really participated in a conversation about Charlie Kirk’s views. My main focus is understanding the ideology that led someone to kill him*. Or are you saying that if I understood his views I should want him dead? I don’t really see the relevance. Free speech is about protecting everyone’s right to speak so we can protect our own right to speak.

* which is based on left wing news sources namely the BBC and CNN

Maybe your post wasn’t directed towards me."

But that's the thing, binau.  We're never going to know the exact ideology behind why he did it, largely because investigations are being run by people who are in the pocket of the current administration and therefore quite likely to shape the narrative to fit their agendas.  And even if we DID find a definite reason, people are going to make up their own stories anyways.  Bottom line, unfortunately, is that we will be arguing about "the motive" for at least a decade and probably more.

Updated On: 9/16/25 at 01:04 PM

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 9/16/25 at 1:09pm

Meanwhile, there will be thousands of other victims of gun violence and nobody will give a fck.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 9/16/25 at 1:48pm

Jay Lerner-Z said: "Meanwhile, there will be thousands of other victims of gun violence and nobody will givea fck."

Exactly. There was a school shooting the day Kirk was murdered. Does anyone know the names of those kids?

Kirk thought gun deaths were "worth it". I'm sure he wasn't talking about his own.