Yes, Kimmel's show was suspended for political speech. Not about Charlie Kirk. He said nothing disparaging about Charlie Kirk. He did not condone the murder or death of Charlie Kirk. What he said was about the Republican party and trump. That's why this happened. One of trump's yes men threatened ABC and it all went down.
I disagree with Kimmel's premise but anyone who believes this was about charlie Kirk is fooling themselves..........................
The ABC late-night host’s remarks constituted “the sickest conduct possible,” FCC chair Brendan Carr told right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson on Wednesday. Carr suggested his FCC could move to revoke ABC affiliate licenses as a way to force Disney to punish Kimmel.
“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said. “These companies can find ways to change conduct and take actions on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”
And speaking on Fox Wednesday night, Carr suggested broadcasters would see more of this kind of pressure in the future.
“We at the FCC are going to force the public interest obligation. There are broadcasters out there that don’t like it, they can turn in their license in to the FCC,” Carr said. “But that’s our job. Again, we’re making some progress now.”
Notably, Nexstar is seeking Trump administration approval to acquire another big US station group, Tegna. The deal requires the FCC to loosen the government’s limits on broadcast station ownership.
Minutes after Nexstar criticized Kimmel publicly, ABC said the show was being yanked nationwide.
Later in the evening, another big station group, Sinclair, said it had also told ABC that it was preempting Kimmel’s show on its ABC-affiliated stations before the network announced its nationwide decision.
Sinclair, too, has business pending before the Trump administration, and it made a bid for Tegna a day before Nexstar stepped in with its bid. The company announced Wednesday night that it will air a one-hour special tribute to Kirk on Friday night in Kimmel’s usual time slot.
Following ABC’s action to indefinitely pull Kimmel’s show off the air, Sinclair issued a statement saying the late-night host’s suspension “is not enough” and called on the network, the FCC and Kimmel to go further.
“Sinclair will not lift the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! on our stations until formal discussions are held with ABC regarding the network’s commitment to professionalism and accountability,” the company said in its statement. “Regardless of ABC’s plans for the future of the program, Sinclair intends not to return Jimmy Kimmel Live! to our air until we are confident that appropriate steps have been taken to uphold the standards expected of a national broadcast platform.”
Sinclair said it demanded Kimmel directly apologize to the Kirk family and make a “meaningful” donation to Kirk’s family and his organization, Turning Point USA. The FCC’s role
The FCC regulates the public airwaves, including broadcast signals and content. Before Trump appointed Carr to lead the agency, the FCC, for the most part, had taken a hands-off approach to broadcasters’ political content in recent years.
But Carr has taken a broader view of the FCC’s remit to serve the public interest, and has served as a political attack dog for Trump, threatening his perceived enemies in the broadcast media.
“I can’t imagine another time when we’ve had local broadcasters tell a national programmer like Disney that your content no longer meets the needs and the values of our community,” Carr told Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Wednesday. “So this is an important turning point.”
The Center for American Rights, which has previously lodged bias complaints against NBC, ABC and CBS, on Wednesday filed a complaint with the FCC over Kimmel’s comments, writing that “it is no defense to say that Kimmel was engaging in satire or late-night comedy rather than traditional news.”
“ABC’s affiliates need to step up and hold ABC accountable as a network for passing through material that fails to respect the public-interest standard to which they are held,” Daniel Suhr, president of the Center for American Rights, wrote in the complaint. “Disney as ABC’s corporate owner needs to act directly to correct this problem.”
SAG-AFTRA, the actors union, said Wednesday night that it “condemns” the suspension of Kimmel’s show.
“Our society depends on freedom of expression. Suppression of free speech and retaliation for speaking out on significant issues of public concern run counter to the fundamental rights we all rely on,” the union said in its statement.
“The decision to suspend airing Jimmy Kimmel Live! is the type of suppression and retaliation that endangers everyone’s freedoms.”
Kimmel has also been a frequent target of President Trump’s ire. Shortly after CBS announced the cancellation of Stephen Colbert’s late-night talk show — a move Carr publicly celebrated — Trump suggested that “Next up will be an even less talented Jimmy Kimmel.”
The trump administration is using the power of government to control political speech. That's far more worrisome and disgusting than anything Kimmel said. Silencing the opposition is the same thing every dictator has done.
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.
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?
Oh yeah. Markwayne later said he was informed that there was no audio. Probably made it up as you can't trust any of these politicians any farther than you can throw them.
Didn't stop him from Lying about it.. Did it? Trying to score cheap points for his fearless leader.
Typical political discourse. Attack the individual instead of admitting they have a point. No wonder the country is where it is.
Wonder where we all picked that up at. This [censored] starts at the top.
It starts at the bottom with what people on both sides allow and/or excuse. Trump is just taking advantage of the prevailing attitudes.
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....
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.
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!
We will see how that goes. I don't expect to see much different.
He is not all of a sudden going to become more mobile. The OL is not going to give him more time.
Joe is dependent upon having the team around being good. A run game to set up play action. Pass protection to give him time. Receivers who get open and can catch the ball.
If he is forced to move. Big trouble.
IMO he will play himself out of starting and it may be this week. Another week looking like last week with turnovers and KS will be forced to start Gabriel.
One would be hard pressed to find someone who didn't like Robert Redford movies. My favorite was "Lions for Lambs" which he directed and co-starred with Tom Cruise and Merryl Streep. Everything about it was excellent.
But I like the guy. He has been a long shot since he began playing and it has not stopped him.
He kind reminds me of another QB who was undersized, was said to have a week arm, and wasn't drafted till the 13th round of the 1972 NFL draft, and who spent TWO years on the practice squad without even seeing the field. He went on to Become the NFL MVP in 1980.
Still trying to frame this as one side is right the other wrong. smh. Also from AI
Key Polling Data YouGov/Economist Poll (2022): This poll found that 58% of Republicans believe the Democratic Party is "a party of socialism." While "socialism" and "communism" are distinct, in modern American political rhetoric they are often used interchangeably by those on the right to describe a far-left, authoritarian, and anti-capitalist ideology.
Pew Research Center (2021): Pew found that a majority of Republicans (57%) believe the Democratic Party is "too liberal," but more tellingly, a significant portion uses more extreme labels. Many conservative media figures and politicians routinely describe Democratic policies as "socialist" or "Marxist."
The Specific "Communist" Label: While harder to find a direct percentage for "communist," a Reuters/Ipsos poll from 2021 found that a majority of Republicans (52%) agreed with the statement that Democrats are "a threat to the American way of life." This aligns with the broader narrative that Democrats are not just a political opposition but an existential, un-American threat—a sentiment deeply connected to the "communist" or "socialist" label.
So, basically, the amount of Republicans that think the Dems are basically a "party of socialism" is roughly equal to the percentage of Democrats that think the president should be assassinated.
Thanks for doing all the tough research... tell us more!
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.
I think anyone that believes decisions will be made in order to save the Browns playoff chances are delusional. At 0-2, this team isn’t making the playoffs. This team drafted two mid-round QBs. There is speculation that they will be evaluated as potential future starters.
We have two first round picks in 2026.
These are the facts.
At the end of the day, the draft is the draft, now they are pros and need to be treated and evaluated as pros. As for the “why” a player gets drafted where they do, there are so many factors that determine it. You say early picks are there because they are considered more “ready”, I call BS. Many first round picks are a reach and fail because they are over drafted based on a perceived high ceiling. In the case of Gabriel, it is physical shortcomings. Gabriel had more experience than any other rookie QB in this draft class and many other draft classes. He is more “ready” than the typical draft pick.
This team doesn’t have a rookie to evaluate, they have TWO rookies to evaluate. Out of the two, Gabriel is expected to be the most ready AND better suited QB based on draft position AND all information coming out of Berea, including current depth status on the roster. So, it makes sense that he would be the first up in evaluation.
If they don’t think he is ready to play, why bring him in at all last week? Not only did they replace a healthy Flacco, he showed the game isn’t too big for him.
If the Browns are considering either or both rookies as potential future starters, they need to be evaluated. Not for miraculously turning this into a playoff caliber offense, but for the intangibles needed to lead them through development. If the intangibles aren’t there, they need to evaluate the 2026 class to determine who is worth what draft stock to get a potential starter. It’s imperative we have that information going into the offseason.The more games you can get the better the data.
Lastly, those saying throwing him in too early could “ruin” him… if he doesn’t get a fair chance at evaluating his skills, they may have to draft a high pick anyway and he may never get another chance. He has said he’s ready, the team traded away a veteran backup and gave him the job, so they think he is ready if Flacco goes down to injury. If Flacco can’t get the job done, then it’s time to begin the evaluation.
1, I imagine because they are really good lawyers and she can afford them.
2, the link to the 2nd twitter post, try actually opening it up:
"7/ The FINAL BLOW: The "trust" conversation with the Secretary. She claims the Secretary said he "could not trust" her. Mullin reveals the truth: "That isn't how that conversation went. And you know that, don't you?" He indicates the meeting was recorded, catching her in a lie."
If a recording exists, let's hear it. Prove her right or prove her wrong Either way, let's hear the truth
3, I don't know what YMMV means
...But can she afford them because she's on the take from corporations that produce vaccines? Or is big Pharma just providing the lawyers?
I started out intending to put that in purple, but honestly neither would surprise me. My faith in institutions and people keeps getting lower.
I just hate the thought of us turning over the reins to a rookie. Not fair to him but the entire team. If our offence continues to look like slop, we probably will. But it’s not just Joe.
The line hasn’t been good and wide receivers struggle to get open. Jeudy has been playing “Quincy Morgan football”, to quote drop king Q from 2004 or so.
....did you have to put slop and Joe in close proximity in my brain?
Every time I see Flacco I'm going to have the Sloppy Joe jingle going in my head now.
So dumb....
