You’re comparing him with a religious leader? Thazs vile.

Joseph Smith the religious leader from the 19th century USA?

The founder of the Latter Day Saints sect? The Mormons?

He was killed too you know. Precisely because he had a following.

You can be a lone wolf odd duck and be left pretty much alone.

But if you have a following you can be viewed as severely problematic by some.

But that’s actually an interesting perspective on this.

Who knows what the legacy is of controversial (and even terrible and hateful) people after they die. Republicans are trying to mythologize him and like other so called prophets of past, he died at a young age.

The indispensible word.

This is just pathetic groveling. Sorry, tired of this mythologizing and canonization of a racist piece of shit.

Let’s see how the party does without a base.

Clinton leading up to 2016 election, giving us trump.

I agree Kirk is a racist POS, probably worse. And everyone already knows that we consider him a POS. Time to lower tempature and prepare for midterms.

I’m more tired of losing, honestly.

We definitely don’t want this spiraling out of control.

But resolutions “honoring” Kirk in this regard shows that the party has no strategy. It’s simple capitulation to the right wing narrative. I’d argue it’s more dangerous doing this, because it shows that truth is irrelevant. It shows a complete inability or even attempt to counter this mythologizing and martyrdom.

Thought he was lowering the temperature.

Rolling over to fascists doesn't work.

who decided maybe we should move on to important things like winning, working on real issues like government threatening media, healthcare, etc.

The Democrats have been passive for the last 40 years. It's time to stop playing by the rules and start fighting for the country.
Honoring a creep like Kirk isn't the way to do it.

Is a failed election strategy. Kick the fucking shit out of them ALL. THE. TIME! The only time repukes act like they might have shame or ethics is when you call them racist. They will still do their racist bigoted shit but somehow calling them on it crosses their line. We are far too fucking nice to a government full of deplorables “Oh but we don’t want to upset their base,” Their base is the fucking reason repukes politicians do what they do — just so they can get re-elected

This should be an opportunity to condemn political violence, not lionize a bigot.

What the fuck is the prize if the party is showering praise on a virulent bigot?

Trump won both the popular and electoral vote in 2024.

Hopefully they will find our willingness, our sheer desire, to compromise with bigots as something worthy of their support.

I don't get why so many people find this disagreeable. Our appeal to the Right is, afterall, responsible for all our successes in 2024 - Why wouldn't we want to replicate what has already been proven to be a winning strategy?

...but could it be the incessant, persistent, never ending bullshit immediately swallowed, digested and spewed with the purpose of dividing Dems? Hm.

to try to win an election. Uh oh, divisive pseudo purity test fail. Big sin.

How's their revolution going? Trump voters chomping at the bit to vote for democratic socialists, the holy right and left populist alliance that will destroy their big enemy the Democratic Party and topple capitalism. Heh.

There’s a difference between acknowledging that and canonizing someone.

It was passed by Unanimous Consent, which merely means no one in the chamber objected , not that every Dem supported the measure. They only needed 51 senators present for a quorum, and republicans have 53.

Most of the Dems probably walked out, except maybe Fetterman.

This is all the GOPs racist fever dream. You're willing to sacrifice others' safety and dignity for a veneer of peace and order. Elevating Bigotry that is shrouded in Piety is elevating Bigotry.

Charlie Kreist was a Christo Fascist Bigot, but let's all calm down for the midterms and prostrate ourselves in the halls of congress.

Glad your glad of it.

How about NOT vote for the resolution?Shouting "Nay" is hardly yapping. It is a vote.

Seriously, are you saying that statements from people like AOC & leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus opposing are just yapping?

TheProle (3,690 posts)
6. More Info:
Reply to lostincalifornia (Original post)
Fri Sep 19, 2025, 06:09 PM
Driving the news: Republicans voted unanimously to pass the resolution.

The Day of Remembrance would be Kirk's birthday, October 14.
The resolution was introduced by Rep. Jimmy Patronis (R-Fl.) and Senator Rick Scott (R-Fl), with all Republican co-sponsors.
This is just a simple resolution, which means for now, it is not enshrined in the law and does not require a full Senate vote.


https://www.axios.com/2025/09/18/charlie-kirk-national-day-remembrance-senate

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=20658058

All it does is give cover to the Right to take away more of our rights and harm more people. Raising tension for those of us designated to pay the price for their privileges, and for those of us who care about them.

Fuck!

Link to tweet

Last edited Fri Sep 19, 2025, 09:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Divisive Premise is Wrong.

and King?

There have been several OPs saying the Senate unanimously approved a Charlie Kirk day of remembrance resolution, but

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220657987

It wasn't "unanimous" in the House. And, the Premise is Divisive and Wrong.

That means that either all of the Democrats and some of the Republicans were not in the chamber or that some Democrats and some Republicans were not there. Either way, at least 51 senators appear to have skipped the shit show.

Senate rules presume a quorum in legislative session. Scott (R) ("notwithstanding rule XXII" ) was careful not to invoke cloture. At the end of his ridiculous speech, Tuberville (R), suggested the absence of a quorum (most likely a procedural move), a roll call was ordered and then stopped when Lankford (R) asked for unanimous consent for the quorum call to be rescinded. The resolution was "approved" by a voice vote of those present in the chamber.

From the Congressional Record:

I don't know... playing bridge, paring my fingernails,
watching a good TV show, and laughing at the
comments on DU.

A blatant and unabashed racist, misogynist, homophobe, xenophobe, pseudo-Christian fascist and bully, and therefore a MAGA hero. They'll claim it's just because he was such a free speech advocate, so of course those who dare to speak about the other stuff must be intimidated into silence.

It's a great day for:

* Flying the flag at full height.

* Dancing in the streets to loud happy music. Remember, choosing what to wear, or what not to wear, is also a freedom granted to us by the Constitution. (In some states, restrictions may still apply. But let's get our country back and then work out those details.)

* Cursing and blasphemy just because we can; use good judgment in front of children, although they need to learn about free speech too.

If you do want to reference Charlie "Stone the Gays" Kirk -- as a starting point for decorous discussions about the first point of our Bill of Rights -- the links below have plenty of snippets suitable for projecting onto buildings, billboards, and houses flying Trump flags.

No kings. No martyrs.

---
Further research:

https://www.advocate.com/politics/charlie-kirk-anti-lgbtq-quotes

https://blacknews.com/news/charlie-kirk-did-not-like-black-people-called-mlk-awful-george-floyd-scumbag/

https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/09/11/charlie-kirk-lgbtq-views-shooting/

https://www.newsweek.com/charlie-kirks-own-words-hate-speech-used-against-pam-bondi-2130647

https://www.wired.com/story/charlie-kirk-tpusa-mlk-civil-rights-act/

https://www.factcheck.org/2025/09/viral-claims-about-charlie-kirks-words/

..Charlie Kirk will be forgotten as an issue for anyone other than diehard magats. There is a national emergency growing exponentially daily. We'll be worried about putin taking Europe by Christmas.

That means it can't and won't be a law. It's basically just a statement that ultimately does nothing lasting. Totally performative vote.

why couldn't the Dems have the some integrity to vote "no". It's nothing the republicans wouldn't have done if it had been a resolution for "Jimmy Carter Day". I'm so damn tired of our elected officials (most of them - and certainly my senators in NY) being such weaklings. Yes, it may be performative, but it says a whole helluva lot. And what it says is that they have no courage of their convictions. They do everything they can to avoid some kind of conflict so they won't be called out. And if they're called out - so the fuck what??

They were both different.

Not one Senate Democratic Senator voted for the "Charlie Kirk Day" nonsense stunt.

Could you kindly clarify - I guess I’m confused!

That means that either all the of Democrats and some of the Republicans were not in the chamber or that some Democrats and some Republicans were not there. Either way, at least 51 senators appear to have skipped the shit show.

Senate rules presume a quorum in legislative session. Scott (R) ("notwithstanding rule XXII" ) was careful not to invoke cloture . At the end of his ridiculous speech, Tuberville (R), suggested the absence of a quorum (a procedural move), a roll call was ordered and then stopped when Lankford (R) asked for unanimous consent for the quorum call to be rescinded.

Seemed obvious to me, but I don't hate Democrats.

so that everyone's vote would be on the record. In addition to honoring Kirk, the House resolution also condemned all political violence.

Some Democrats heeded Raskin's advice and voted "yes".
Some Democrats voted "no".
Some Democrats voted "present".
Some Democrats were absent.

The fact that the resolution was a trap was underscored by MAGA asshole Andy Biggs' insistence on a roll call.

99% of voters will never have any clue or care such a vote took place UNLESS the Republican candidate in a district tries to weaponize it against the Democrat. Getting upset about it is pointless.

...why present it as one?

There's no central dictatorship, and if you have an interest or concern that isn't supported by the majority in our party you should appreciate that.

The way it's presented by critics as Schumer or Jeffries as some sort of latter-day mob bosses is as absurd as it is a distortion of their role as the choice of the majority of the legislators there. They aren't self-appointed.

And I can't be the only one wondering why the Dems who didn't vote for this are being lumped into this screed against 'Democrats' and DUers, and the ones who didn't not mentioned at all.

How do people expect for the right votes to become the popular ones if all that's done is point to the things we object like we're in some sort of political straightjacket, and acting like criticizing the party as a monolith is the most genius move of genius political moves.

Tell us what you're for, what you support about what Democrats are doing. Highlight those things that you think are being done right by our legislators, along with these criticisms of what you don't want.

Look for them and post them. They exist.

...for George Lincoln Rockwell?

It was a no win vote and everyone knows it. Move on.

Why does somebody have to "win" or "lose" - why can't it just be for the truth of the matter - the truth that in no way does Charlie Kirk earn being remembered except as a hateful, bigoted bastard.

It was a trap. It's not important. Let it go. If you let it die and fade away it will be forgotten.

honoring Kirk and appears to only have been passed by the Senate, not the House. And the day of Remembrance is a single day, October 14, 2025. It does not establish a permanent day of remembrance.
https://www.rickscott.senate.gov/services/files/55A19212-1EC1-4868-A72B-8E271E2D81B2

See post #36

Resolutions like this are strictly performative, there is no power of law behind them.

They just didn't object to the call for unanimous consent because if they did it would have forced a roll call vote and it would have passed because Republicans are in the majority.

It was a Republican stunt that is non-binding and means nothing.

The Senate Democrats simply ignored the Republican stunt.

Waiting for the ugly hysteria and using literally anything to try to make people hate Democrats to die down.

It is just flavor of the month.

Comment? No of course not.

Whip up orgy of hate for Democrats (elections are so close convincing even a small number of voters not to vote for Democrats is all it takes). Ignore reality when it's pointed out, pretend orgy never happened. Do exactly the same thing tomorrow.

claiming that the Senate voted for the resolution "unanimously" when there wasn't even a quorum present.

It got 148 recs.