[amradio1989]

ABC was certainly complicit in what Jimmy Kimmel was doing. But they are now throwing Jimmy under the bus.

Jimmy was wrong to say what he said. At best it was a bad-faith assertion, at worst it was propaganda. It wasn’t even true, or likely to be true given what we knew.

The fact is that someone is dead. That is the strongest form of censorship. That is the strongest attack on “free speech”.

Jimmy pulled indefinitely? In my opinion it’s unfair. ABC is not innocent here.

But at least Jimmy didn’t have a bullet put into his neck.

[suzdude]

He showed a clip of the president. And he said:

> We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it

Which is factual. It does not make assertions about Mr. Robinson. It represents a factual observation that many of the "MAGA gang" are attempting to distance themselves.

[amradio1989]

Ah but you see theres the rub. It’s not factual. It’s almost all supposition. I don’t think he should be pulled from the air by the way. Let’s go line by line.

> We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately -snip-

Pretty loaded statement. Desperately? On what basis?

The “fact” is that MAGA didn’t have the slightest fear the shooter was one of them. They all assumed he wasn’t bc it made the most sense given context and available evidence.

Anger? Sure. Desperation? No lol.

> trying to characterize this kid

That shooter is 22. That’s a full blown adult. Calling him a kid is not only false but also gross in this context. It’s an attempt to evoke sympathy for a murderer.

> as anything other than one of them

Another false supposition. They are actually trying to characterize him as a far left nutjob. Not just “anything”, but “Liberal”. The thing about propaganda is certain words aren’t allowed in certain contexts.

Second, it implies the shooter was likely one of them which was highly improbable to all concerned — most especially to MAGA.

> and doing everything they can to score political points for it

What political points Jimmy? It’s more likely they are just upset that a good friend got shot and killed in broad daylight for speaking his views. Charlie Kirk was a huge ally of MAGA and a friend to many of them. So they want justice.

Of course Jimmy can’t say that (propaganda has rules), so here he is acting saying it’s about vague political points (sounds convincing) and not genuine grief/outrage.

[suzdude]

> Pretty loaded statement. Desperately? On what basis?

If you have watched any of the coverage, desperately is correct. Anecdotally, many conservatives on social media practically celebrated when the bullet cases were found with memes that could suggest the shooter was "left wing". How much coverage and how fast did that news spread?

> The “fact” is that MAGA didn’t have the slightest fear the shooter was one of them

MAGA is not a hive mind. You should not pretend that they are a unified entity. Many individuals did, because there has been more extremist right wing violence against moderate right wingers. Given the shooter was experienced with firearms, it certainly made things foggy.

> That shooter is 22. That’s a full blown adult.

Depends on who you ask. Car rental companies would disagree with you.

> Second, it implies the shooter was likely one of them which was highly improbable to all concerned

You clearly have not heard of Nick Fuentes.

> What political points Jimmy?

Now you're just making bad faith arguments. "We are under attack" is the political points they want to score. You don't have to be that clever to figure it out.