whiskybravo

He just got back in. Anybody who has met @cubsfanknows he one of the nicest guys you ever going to meet.

And laughably will in the end help the right. Like that joke you told last week.

What did @cubsfando to get banned?

Sounds like he is testing the Federal jurisdiction in DC by prosecuting crimes under federal law. Courts can decide.

Turning Point has received a large number of inquiries from people wanting to start new campus chapters. The political pendulum is swinging back to the right. How long can they hold back the tide in Western Europe?

I’m keeping up from Italy, but they’ve been impressive so far! Caught part of their game against Texas, and the defense looked really solid.

I suspect you may look to your countrymen Judas Priest for the answer

I’ve had the same frustration. The left leaning guys here are great outside of politics, but once politics comes up, the tone can shift, more snark, less interest in honest context. Some have internalized the idea that politics equals morality. So if you disagree, you’re not just wrong, you’re immoral.

That’s one way to look at it, but I think Moat’s point about religion is about cultural resilience. The argument isn’t that religion made America or won WWII, but that religious tradition provided a moral framework that helped hold Western societies together. Moat’s posts reminded me of views I’ve heard from people who grew up in former Soviet countries. A lot of them are really skeptical of the Western left. Not because of economics, but because of how ideology tends to creep into media, schools, and institutions. For them, things like calling someone a fascist feels familiar as a way to shut down debate. They’ve seen how moral certainty can become a weapon. And Christian tradition often gets seen as the last line of defense, not just for religion, but for preserving a deeper moral order that resists that kind of top down control.

I’ve watched some of his videos and he seems respectful to those he’s debating. I don’t agree with everything he says, but he’s reasonable. I mean he is a religious conservative. It is ridiculous to think he wants to stone gays. He was arguing against the tendency of people to cherry-pick Biblical passages. His beliefs are anathema to progressives, so he gets villainized .

The Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart gives the appearance of neutrality through its tidy symmetry, but it’s not ideologically neutral. One of its key backers, Gaingels, is a venture group explicitly committed to advancing DEI and LGBTQ+ representation in corporate leadership. That mission inevitably shapes how bias and reliability are framed. In this context, someone like Charlie Kirk, who openly rejects DEI in favor of meritocracy and promotes traditional family values, doesn’t just appear biased, but becomes ideologically incompatible. What’s labeled extreme is often just nonconformity to a dominant cultural framework. The chart’s polished balance masks a deeper alignment with progressive institutional norms. German media slinging mud within 24 hours of his death reflects the same dynamic, nonconformity to the prevailing moral framework is recoded as moral deviance.

And the discouraging thing is, as is often attributed to Jonathan Swift, you can’t reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into.

That “don’t meet your heroes” line made it sound like you were implying he was a hero of mine which isn’t the case. What I know of Charlie Kirk I’ve learned in the past two days. Our politics may differ, but we cool.

No harm no foul, BUT this is not the first time you have made an incorrect assumption about how I think based on some stereotypical judgment. The only thing I said about Charlie Kirk was that I admired his willingness to engage with ideological opponents in a respectful manner and that his death sickened me. Beyond that he has had zero mindshare from me.

I can confirm I had so many decent wonderful Muslim colleagues through the years. In North America, I guess we are tending to see more highly educated Muslims. In Britain for instance perhaps one is more likely to see concentrated communities which adhere more closely to traditional religious tenets. It is those traditional religious practices that can conflict with Western societies.

Good feedback from the local perspective. To me that makes it more perplexing that there was such a delay in national coverage. Yes, murders occur every day, but that’s what makes this more disturbing, not less. A small minority of murders involve strangers. Even in those most are associated with robberies or such things as bar fights. Instead in this case a woman, a refugee, was stabbed in the back by a complete stranger with a long criminal record on a train. Don’t you think that that’s the kind of thing that should lead to a conversation about public safety and accountability.

Who is the redacted name? Is it Nick Fuentes? Is so, Kirk described Fuentes as disgusting and a racist.

You’re right that some people absolutely used Ms. Zarutska’s murder to make a political point, specifically, to call out perceived media bias or what they see as selective outrage. And there does appear to be a case for that. I mean the media was all over Daniel Penny who was trying to neutralize a menace, someone who others in the subway car were frightened of. Throw in the young lady’s refugee status, her being in America to be safe and we ultimately didn’t protect her. One story was an immediate media sensation. The other not. Maybe from your political point of view you could frame it just because it’s a MAGA narrative doesn’t mean there’s not truth to it. And of course you are free to disagree. Regards.

Hey @Buckeye I’ve appreciated your perspective and our recent back and forth. That said, I think this take is off. You’re assuming bad faith. That people only cared about the Ukrainian woman to score points, and that they’ll now drop her because Kirk was killed. People care deeply about both tragedies. If anything, many are reacting so strongly now because two horrific things happened so close together.

You are stripping context to imply Kirk is advocating or justifying political violence, when the quote clearly refers to general societal risk, not targeted violence or murder.

I admire the way he respectfully hosts open Q&A sessions where ideological opponents can challenge him. I am sickened.

https://open.substack.com/pub/doomberg/p/mosaic-theory?r=9iue0&utm_medium=ios Here’s a summary I wrote based on the second half of a subscriber only post from Doomberg. The first part is free to read in the above link. The piece explores a potential strategic pivot in U.S. foreign policy, particularly under a second Trump term. I’m sharing this in my own words, not quoting directly, and I encourage others to subscribe if you’re interested in deep energy/geopolitical analysis. The U.S. appears to be undergoing a major strategic pivot under Trump, shifting focus away from distant allies like Ukraine, Europe, Japan, and South Korea, and toward consolidating power closer to home. With military stockpiles depleted and a potential Russian offensive looming, Trump may be abandoning support for Ukraine, leaving Europe to handle the consequences. Sanctions against Russia are increasingly seen as symbolic, while U.S. attention turns southward. In Latin America, upcoming conflicts may center more on control of oil and gas than on drugs, with cartels deeply entrenched in Mexico and Colombia’s energy sectors. The U.S. is also maneuvering in Argentina to support pro-American President Javier Milei amid political setbacks, and in Guyana, where stable elections secured ExxonMobil’s interests. Meanwhile, Brazil, the only BRICS member in the Western Hemisphere, could become a geopolitical flashpoint as the U.S. escalates tensions with the BRICS bloc. The question now is whether a broader confrontation with Brazil is on the horizon.

Perhaps they could release stuff related to Trump without sharing everything about other people involved. But it’s gotta be tricky. They would have to make sure they don’t accidentally reveal stuff that could hurt someone else or mess up other cases. It’s not just about what’s in the files, but also about being fair and following legal rules.

I will leave it to others with greater legal knowledge, but my understanding is that one issue is that much of the evidence gathered in such a large investigation doesn't meet the necessary legal standard, whether because it’s incomplete, circumstantial, or otherwise insufficient. Making such details public would unfairly tarnish the reputations of individuals who may not have been involved in criminal activity. It could lead to defamation, legal challenges, or even complicate future prosecutions.

Agree. If there was any real evidence of Trump being a pedophile, there is zero chance Garland would have sat on it.