So we need to know if it's the maternal fevers that are causing autism or the current treatment which you say is paracetamol.
In your head are those the only two possible causes of autism? Wow.
Read every post I've made in the last two pages, I'm the one who has put forward more possible environmental/genetic causes than anyone. So to answer your unpleasantly put question: NO.In your head are those the only two possible causes of autism? Wow.
You find what I'm arguing against is the binary "diagnostic versus paracetamol" theme to the majority of posts over the last two pages.
Suggesting that it's not just an increase in diagnosis and that several environmental factors should also be considered (including medication) is what's leading to the unpleasant piss taking aimed at me, so read back and see if you want to reconsider your "wow".
Just seen Nigel being asked about paracetamol. Nigel lives abroad, won’t criticise Trump, won’t give a clear answer on the paracetamol debate. Just wondering if he has a secret account on here.
Have a read of Descartes and the philosophy of doubt,
I'm not really sure how Descartes would be relevant here?
You find what I'm arguing against is the binary "diagnostic versus paracetamol" theme to the majority of posts over the last two pages.
Whilst some people mention that plenty of others are commenting on the environmental factors far more accurately than you are.
You are not a lone hero valiantly standing up against big pharma but someone who is helping spread misinformation.
There are lots of people trying to understand what factors contribute to autism but currently outside of a genetic component nothing has been clearly identified as contributing although several things have been well studied and are probably ruled out.
Currently the best studies show no link to vaccines and no link to paracetamol use during pregnancy.
Just seen Nigel being asked about paracetamol. Nigel lives abroad, won’t criticise Trump, won’t give a clear answer on the paracetamol debate. Just wondering if he has a secret account on here.
Assuming this Nigel is Nigel Farage perhaps he is gearing up for when he becomes UK Prime Minister?
I understand that the current UK Prime Minister refuses to publicly criticise Donald Trump and he is leaving it to his underlings to criticise Trump's latest nonsense concerning paracetamol.
Btw I am very confident that Farage doesn't live abroad, unfortunately.
Re The last sentence: let's play the ball.
I'll take Drac's humour and spin's confusion over Descartes as compliments. 😎
I'm not really sure how Descartes would be relevant here?
He believed that the mind is a separate thing to the body.
Trump's mind is definitely not connected to anything
The UK government have been very clear... in a way Farage has not... DON'T PAY ANY ATTENTION WHATSOEVER TO WHAT DONALD TRUMP SAYS ABOUT MEDICINE.
It strikes me a study to test the outcomes of different strategies is needed to decide whether it's the fever or the paracetamol treatment that increases the risk of autism.
And you assume that such a study has not been undertaken, and only you have spotted the possible confusion of cause and effect ?
You are not a lone hero valiantly standing up against big pharma
Read back, I've never claimed to be, that's your invention. No need to put words in my mouth and play dirty. Just concentrate on what I've actually written.
The UK government have been very clear... in a way Farage has not... DON'T PAY ANY ATTENTION WHATSOEVER TO WHAT DONALD TRUMP SAYS ABOUT MEDICINE.
Individual government ministers have, and to his credit the London mayor has pulled no punches, the Prime Minister on the other hand hasn't.
I have no doubt that Starmer's reluctance to openly criticise Donald Trump is for exactly the same identical reason as Farage.
Neither of the grovelling sycophants want to upset Donald Trump's fragile ego.
Although obviously it isn't acceptable when Nigel Farage does it but very sensible pragmatism when Sir Keir Starmer does it.
The problem is selling those two different standards to UK voters. Will they fall for it?
Seems a lot of people don't want to upset Trump. All those people from all those counties listening to his shit yesterday and not just laughing all at once or at least making clear everything he was saying was complete crap that they don't agree with when it comes to other peoples turn to speak.
"I ended seven wars, dealt with the leaders of each and every one of these countries, and never even received a phone call from the United Nations," Mr Trump said.
Why has this man not received the Nobel Peace Prize??
And you assume that such a study has not been undertaken,
Well if you're so convinced such a study exists and the results published, link it.
So far we have people who've cited the Harvard report and Swedish report. There isn't just one Sweedish report but I'm assuming that it's the sibling control one that's being held up as the reference. All done with data, number cruching and assumptions. When we're talking about an uncontrolled over the counter drug.
I have no wish to rubbish the work that has been done in either Harvard or Sweden, I'd like to wait for the results of work still being doneon possible autism environmental causes before getting off the fence. As Drac notes " won’t give a clear answer on the paracetamol debate". What I've read doen't convince me there is a clear answer, it's work in progress.
Just concentrate on what I've actually written.
Given how you dont give anyone else the same courtesy I am not sure why you demand this from others?
I can see why you are coming down on the Trump side of things. Lack of scientific knowledge combined with over simplistic arguments and an overwhelming conviction that you know best.
Seems a lot of people don't want to upset Trump.
I don't see much to be gained from upsetting him. In fact I can think of a whole lot of reasons not to. Even the perceived slight of not being grateful enough upset him with negative consequences.
Soooo I just had a look through the harvard study
https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-025-01208-0
While Ive spent the last 25 years as a scientist ( mostly cancer stuff) , Im not a statistician, so I cant critique the stats, the outcomes from the meta study (thats a study that collates data from multiple studies) show an increase association with autism and paracetamol use and they do allow for biases in age, smoking, other illnesses, socioeconomic status etc etc and it holds true, but.... the study really runs into trouble when it looks at sibling studies which are considered a more accurate take, because they can eliminate a lot of biases that are implicit in others studies-, they either showed no association or the opposite, thats especially important to note as autism is 20% more likely to occur when a sibling has it. And the biggest sibling study was actually the biggest study that they looked at overall. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2817406 They did address this in the paper but couldnt explain it away completely and thats a big red-flag
They do offer several potential mechanisms of action, but none are investigated fully - and would require a lot more research to nail down. (pick any drug, synthetic or natural compound and any disease and I can show you a paper where a relevant biological pathway interacts) - Thats why medical research takes so fricking long.
The other issues with the study (ignoring the sibling stuff) is that they couldnt fully account for the fact that the you only take paracetamol when you are feeling sick and that the illness may be the cause (they skip over the fact that fever in pregnancy has been shown to have a higher association with autism than they show from paracetamol https://molecularautism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13229-021-00464-4- )
They also only used qualitative data, ie the reports of paracetamol use and autism incidence, not any actual measured studies, because the type of measurements were too diverse to combine, so it very much weakens their case and also that the association increased in these self-reported studies as more people became aware of a link- they do point this out and caveat their findings quite heavily and infact they conclude that women SHOULDNT stop taking paracetamol during prgenancy!
So id take the whole lot with a pinch of salt (unless you are pregnant obvs, because that can cause hypertension and pre-eclampsia that is also equally weakly associated with increased autism https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143400425003042)........
Basically theres no way that a government would announce such a huge policy change based on this study unless it was run by absolute ****ing morons*
*my own confirmation bias may be showing tbf
I don't see much to be gained from upsetting him. In fact I can think of a whole lot of reasons not to. Even the perceived slight of not being grateful enough upset him with negative consequences.
So Nigel Farage was wise not to?
The man doesn't seem to get enough credit.
So Nigel Farage was wise not to?
The man doesn't seem to get enough credit.
I don't see much to be gained from upsetting him. In fact I can think of a whole lot of reasons not to. Even the perceived slight of not being grateful enough upset him with negative consequences.
There is much more to be lost in the long run with just going along with him though but it would need some unity across many countries. If 100 leaders stood up and called out his bullshit I am pretty sure that would help but realise that will never happen in such a screwed up world.
I can see why you are coming down on the Trump side of things. Lack of scientific knowledge combined with over simplistic arguments and an overwhelming conviction that you know best.
It should be really easy to quote me and point out the holes in my logic but instead you're misquoting, inventing and insulting. I find it remarkable how a reluctance to be adamantly state there's no link between paracetamol and autism so offends you. It's not as if I'm stating there's a definite link, I'm just not entirely dismissing the possibility. We're talking possibilities and probabilities here not absolutes, that's science once statisticians start crunching numbers. Probabilities.
It's got to the going round in circles and unpleasantness stage, I've made my contribution, nothing new has been added for a page or so. Time to leave you good people to get on with enjoying your lives. I look forward to seeing some amusing Trumps memes the next time I look in.
I'll take Drac's humour and spin's confusion over Descartes as compliments.
Obviously too subtle for some.
So Nigel Farage was wise not to?
The man doesn't seem to get enough credit.
farage is a nobody in this context, Starmer is trying keep Trump onside re tariffs on cars, medicines, steel, food, also influence on Ukraine, Gaza, climate change, data centres, SMRs.....
I think it is rather you who is being disingenuous kimbers. Farage intends to be UK Prime Minister in about 4 years time, which under the present circumstances seems like quite realistic prospect.
Farage is perfectly entitled to curry favour with the US president as the current UK Prime Minister is.
These sorts of hypocritical double standards might seem perfectly logical to you, as when the Labour Party was outraged when a Tory government invited Trump to the UK on a state visit, as is the protocol, and yet once in government Labour wasted no time in inviting Trump on a totally unprecedented second state visit, for which there is no protocol.
However I am afraid that many voters simply don't see that way, they just see it as hypocritical double standards. And there lies the problem.... it undermines legitimate criticism of Nigel Farage.
Talking of being disingenuous reminds me kimbers that I signed the public petition you launched calling for Trump's second state visit to be withdrawn.
Withdrawing Trump's second state visit would have been even more insulting than not offering it to him in the first place, especially as he never expected to be offered a second one.
Btw getting back to Nigel Farage and him being asked what he thinks of Trump's views of paracetamol, who gives a **** about the medical opinions of a self-confessed chain smoker who has stated, quote, "I think the doctors have got it wrong on smoking"?
Although to be fair when asked Farage did say that he didn't share Trump's opinions on paracetamol.
It's not as if I'm stating there's a definite link, I'm just not entirely dismissing the possibility.
And yet lets have a look at what you started with.
"A bit a anti-paracetamol propaganda won't do any harm....The publicity being given by Trump seems a good thing to me."
Not really simply "entirely dismissing the possibility" is it? Supporting someone who is making an extremely strong and unfounded claim but then announcing that you are simply not dismissing the notion.
I'll take Drac's humour and spin's confusion over Descartes as compliments.
Have a go at unconfusing me then because I really don't see how Descartes is relevant to the point you were making
The first place I'd look is in existing data to find if there is a lower incidence of autism in children with mothers suffering maternal fever and alergic to paracetamol so they didn't take any.
What makes you think these 'existing data' actually exist? The more obscure the correlation you are trying to examine, the less likely that it would be a question asked for any of the large cohort datasets.
So you'd have to design your own study, and recruit women from the estimated <1% of the population that have hypersensitivity to paracetamol, excluding those who were not diagnosed during their pregnancy. Since autism remains relatively uncommon, you'd have to recruit many thousands of these women to come up with anything approaching a meaningful number whose child went on to develop it.
I'm not sure how the small numbers you'd get would serve you better than simply asking women if they took it not.
Fishing an actual contributing environmental cause out of a stew of potential ones is desperately difficult, and expensive. I admire all those who are designing studies and putting in the mammoth effort to recruit for them.
And all the time you have conspiracists trying to derail their work by 'doing their own research'. Anyone can put one line of text into an AI these days and come up with something.
EG:
A bit a anti-paracetamol propaganda won't do any harm. A family member put themselves in hospital with a low level overdose thinking another couple of tablets would be OK - one of the 10s of thousands that put themselves in NHS hospitals each year with parcetamol poisonning. It's the drug that has (or had because I can't be arsed to check recent figures) the highest mortality from overdose. The Harvard research cautiously suggests a link between autism and the mother taking paracetamol, pregnant women avoiding the drug seems a very good idea till more is known. Paracetamol poissoning is the biggest cause by far of liver failure and the need for transplant. That it is still an over-the-counter drug beggars belief. The publicity being given by Trump seems a good thing to me.
The whole post for context dissonance.
The whole post for context dissonance.
I’m not sure that does much to advance your cause. On the basis of a brief review of the literature it seems to me (I am not a biologist of any sort) that there is a (relatively) established link between fever and autism, and not with paracetamol ( see the paper linked above). On that basis letting a fever run on in order to avoid paracetamol would be misguided.
Paracetamol poissoning is the biggest cause by far of liver failure and the need for transplant. That it is still an over-the-counter drug beggars belief.
Good job you havent heard of alcohol, and tobacco then.
We've been here before DrJ read back.
I'm not sugesting a fever should be left to run, read back. It would be really nice if you people actually read what I post.
Lets sum up my views then I really can close the thread.
1/ Paracetamol is an over the counter drug that is the most used drug in at least one country (the one I live in). Overdose results in 10s of thousands of hospitalisations every year and lots of deaths (UK). The maximum advised dose is surprisingly close to toxic levels so overdose is quite easy. Some people have allergic reactions. It used to be handed out like smarties in schools but that has been banned for a few decades now.
2/ Given the known toxicity, risk of alergic reaction and the fact it is so abused by the population I think it should be a prescription drug. Pack sizes have been decreased and on-line sales banned here but my view is that the authorities should go further and make it a prescription drug.
3/ Were it a prescription drug then pregnant women would be advised by their doctors on whether is was necessary, appropriate and the best treatment for whatever they had consulted for.
4/ I'll watch research into links with autism with interest. I'm very open to the idea that there is an environmental factor in autism which means cases are increasing rather than just increased diagnosis. As for those environmental factors I think it would be unwise to categorically dismiss any on the basis of what I've seen so far. I've read the Harvard and Swedish reports with interest and will continue to sit on the fence till there's better. There's an element of chicken and egg (what comes first) in the maternity fever, paracetamol to reduce the fever, and autism. Anyhow, that's not my business, let the doctors decide what's best for their patients, I'm confident that doctors won't be taking much notice of Trump.
5/ I'm no fan of Trump. However some of the stuff he comes out with provokes debate (as here). Debate and awareness are good. I smiled when someone checked my "10s of thousands" and expressed surprise = awareness raised. I mix with people from many backgrounds and of various political leanings. I don't know any that take what Trump says as gospel, even those on the far right. I'm really not worried that his statements on paracetamol are going to impact what happens in my local maternity ward.
And breathe, and chill. Over and out.
*turns off computer because it's to tempting while it's stil on*
Out of interest, is anyone aware of any studies that attempts to quantify the impact of making paracetamol prescription only?
I'd imagine that getting an appointment to see a GP would be MUCH harder than now, as their surgeries would be even more clogged up than currently....
Still, we could just just train more GPs I suppose (and extend A&E departments). That really easy to do, right?
Debate and awareness are good.
Hmm… let’s be honest, this “awareness” will result in women taking other over the counter drugs, or “soldiering on”, both of which present a higher risk to their child. It’s dangerous misinformation spread by Kennedy and Trump. Don’t flatter them with false claims of positive outcomes.
He believed that the mind is a separate thing to the body.
Very good.
Still curious to know why Edukator thinks Descartes' method of doubt is relevant to being sceptical about scientific studies. Descartes wasn't a sceptic and the scepticism he applied to knowledge was mostly global skepticism rather than local. His method of doubt had a very specific purpose and was not intended as a generalized approach to thought.
Shooting at an ICE place in Texas today.....
Shell casings found with anti ICE engravings.
Ironically two detainees dead and another injured.
Has the Kirk shooter emboldened others to take a stand against the regime?
Going on about Autism still, there's also the question of a person with autism or autistic person. A lot of people don't understand the distinction.The former is an understanding of autism purely as deficit, the latter, the understanding of autism as being autistic, as inseparable from who the person is (the cause of autism is procreation). Autistic people don't want a cure, it would be like saying you're determined to find out the cause of dark skin in order to cure that - rather than finding out the cause of skin cancer. I am extremely sceptical that Trump & JFK aren't doing the former with autism. Look at how they treat other undesirables, governments have a poor track record for their treatment of all minority groups, and Trump is undoing a lot of the work that has been put into reversing that poor treatment of minority groups. Why would their treatment of autistic people be any different?
I heard a Republican cheerleader earlier, describe what he said as ‘hate speech’.
Ignoring the fact that it most certainly wasn’t, I thought these freedom of speech warriors were against using that as a definition for anything, even encouraging people to set fire to buildings with people inside?
As in “we’re all for freedom of speech and expression, just as long as it’s speech and expression we approve of.”
Is somebody going to ask him to what these 7 wars are that he keeps claiming to have stopped?
Apparently, one boiled down to the equivalent of an argument over a parking ticket for an overstay in a supermarket car park… 🤷🏼♂️
a warning such as "exceeding the maximum recommended dose may result in liver failure and death, consult your doctor before taking during pregnacy" seems appropriate on something you can buy over the counter.
Unfortunately, a significant part of the problem concerning overdosing with Paracetamol, is that there are quite a few over the counter medicines, cold and flu remedies, pain relief, etc, which are sold with a manufacturers name on the box, but it’s not immediately obvious that the active ingredient is paracetamol, so people can take a number of different medications, sometimes close together, and o/dose without realising.
I’ve never really felt that paracetamol has much benefit for me as a pain relief drug, I use ibuprofen, or usually a Naproxen when I get up, and Amitriptyline when I go to bed, and a couple of ibuprofen during the day if necessary, which I try to avoid. I’ve arrived at that particular regime more by accident than by design, but it was through discussion with a doctor, and it works well without needing to overdo the consumption of OTC medication to control pain from arthritis.
I do also have a prescription for CoCodamol, which I do use occasionally, but it’s not something I use that frequently - more a last resort if my knee or thumb joints are especially painful, but I’m mindful of mixing with other medications.
Edited as duplicate.
Autistic people don't want a cure, it would be like saying you're determined to find out the cause of dark skin in order to cure that - rather than finding out the cause of skin cancer.
Errmmm - is that not ignoring people badly disabled by autism. I know one severely disabled person that hates being who she is
Shell casings found with anti ICE engravings
Are we sure they aren’t just manufacturers logos, like the alleged Trans engraving on the bullet that killed Kirk ?
Soooo I just had a look through the harvard study
Sanity prevails.
Timely link to:
https://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
Autistic people don't want a cure, it would be like saying you're determined to find out the cause of dark skin in order to cure that - rather than finding out the cause of skin cancer.
That's quite a big claim. Have you asked them?
Autistic people don't want a cure
Joining the party - what leads you to believe this?
accidental overdose is relatively easy but the vast majority of hospitalisations for overdose are non accidental.1/ Paracetamol is an over the counter drug that is the most used drug in at least one country (the one I live in). Overdose results in 10s of thousands of hospitalisations every year and lots of deaths (UK). The maximum advised dose is surprisingly close to toxic levels so overdose is quite easy.
some people have allergic reactions to latex, we don’t suggest condoms should be prescription only! Serious allergic reactions to paracetemol are very rare, and virtually unheard of in people who have taken the medication before without difficulty.Some people have allergic reactions.
no idea what happened in France, but it’s probably actually desirable that there is some mechanism for people (girls with period pain in particular) to access analgesia to safeguard their education.It used to be handed out like smarties in schools but that has been banned for a few decades now.
you seem to be looking at one side of a risk benefit analysis.2/ Given the known toxicity, risk of alergic reaction and the fact it is so abused by the population I think it should be a prescription drug. Pack sizes have been decreased and on-line sales banned here but my view is that the authorities should go further and make it a prescription drug.
unless they either couldn’t get an instant appointment, couldn’t afford the consultation fee or found it easier to access an alternative drug which was actually worse for them / their child! I don’t think there is any evidence that paracetemol taken at the correct dose causes harm to mother or child.3/ Were it a prescription drug then pregnant women would be advised by their doctors on whether is was necessary, appropriate and the best treatment for whatever they had consulted for.
entirely possible - but it seems very unlikely that paracetemol (invented a decade after autism was first diagnosed!) is the main cause!4/ I'll watch research into links with autism with interest. I'm very open to the idea that there is an environmental factor in autism which means cases are increasing rather than just increased diagnosis.
how many women should suffer, or unborn children die or suffer preventable lifelong consequences from uncontrolled maternal fever whilst people “play safe”?As for those environmental factors I think it would be unwise to categorically dismiss any on the basis of what I've seen so far. I've read the Harvard and Swedish reports with interest and will continue to sit on the fence till there's better. There's an element of chicken and egg (what comes first) in the maternity fever, paracetamol to reduce the fever, and autism.
well in a properly functioning democracy with an independent regulator that might be the case. However, my worry isn’t that the regulator or individual clinicians will pay attention to trump (or you) but rather that the seeds of doubt create fear in women to use/seek medical help and they at least suffer and possibly die because people, like you, are giving some media weight to a crackpot.Anyhow, that's not my business, let the doctors decide what's best for their patients, I'm confident that doctors won't be taking much notice of Trump.
im not sure all debate is useful - saying that suggests some sort of equal weight should be given to flat earth, antivax, arguments etc even although planting the seeds of doubt will have negative consequences. The “we must be balanced and open to other arguments” can lend credibility and air time to stuff that is nonsense. That doesn’t mean scientists and regulators should not be free to have the debate - but the President of the USA should be deferring medical and regulatory questions to the independent regulator not grandstanding.5/ I'm no fan of Trump. However some of the stuff he comes out with provokes debate (as here). Debate and awareness are good. I smiled when someone checked my "10s of thousands" and expressed surprise = awareness raised. I mix with people from many backgrounds and of various political leanings. I don't know any that take what Trump says as gospel, even those on the far right. I'm really not worried that his statements on paracetamol are going to impact what happens in my local maternity ward.
And making paracetamol prescription only won’t achieve the benefits you hope - all that happens is either people who really need it quickly can’t access it on time and end up as emergencies or people build up an at home stock from left overs from previous prescriptions and use it off prescription anyway. Worse people may use other, less safe, medications because that’s what they have access to.
some people have allergic reactions to latex, we don’t suggest condoms should be prescription only!
Don't be giving Donald and Jnr more ideas about how they can further entrench themselves with the right wing fundamental christian lobby!
Hmm… is this where challenging Kennedy and Trump’s misinformation gets you now?
EDIT: Doh! Seeing that on half the threads posts I can see now… added by the users themselves I presume. Self declaration as a protest.
Do we need a separate autism thread to try and keep this one vaguely on topic?
Posts about Trump are getting buried now
I did wonder that. But generally people don't engage with me much for some reason, so I'm not going to create the thread and put my username to it.
Additionally, it is about Trump, it's about what he's trying to do about autism.
Autistic people don't want a cure, it would be like saying you're determined to find out the cause of dark skin in order to cure that - rather than finding out the cause of skin cancer.
That's quite a big claim. Have you asked them?
I've asked myself. I've seen plenty of other autistic people talk about it in that way online. Some of them may be influencers so that probably invalidates their opinion though, right?
edit: see also top of these pages:
https://www.nhsinform.scot/illnesses-and-conditions/brain-nerves-and-spinal-cord/autism/life-as-an-autistic-person/
https://www.autism.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/topics/strategies-and-interventions
Errmmm - is that not ignoring people badly disabled by autism. I know one severely disabled person that hates being who she is
Yes I'll admit. It wasn't intentional. But that's where I think people say the old Aspergers diagnosis alongside Autism was useful (and this probably is what should be in another topic) but it got rolled into one, due to Asperger's involvement in eugenics (and other reasons?).
What's wrong with being Antifa....?
Given the opposite of anti fascism is fascism I don't see the problem.
Do we need a separate autism thread to try and keep this one vaguely on topic?
Posts about Trump are getting buried now
Rather proves the deadcatting playbook.
Gotta admit they’d be pretty annoying if for some reason you were a fascist..
What's wrong with being Antifa....?
Given the opposite of anti fascism is fascism I don't see the problem.
If you have a problem with antifascists, it's probably best not to publicise it.
Seen some excellent memes of WW2 American war graves with captions relating to the soldiers being antifa.
Hegseth apparently calling most generals to emergency meeting. Is USA going to declare war on Venezuela? As bonkers as it sounds, it's Trumps administration we are talking about.
Or possibly a purge like 3rd world dictators tend to do when civil unrest is brewing.
Trumps UN speech was a disaster. It's seems very convenient his teleprompter didn't work which encouraged him to go off on his usual loggorhea.
Maybe South and central America should stop sending drugs to the US for a while, I imagine the panic on wall street would be a hundred times that of the on again off again tariffs.
It's seems very convenient his teleprompter didn't work which encouraged him to go off on his usual loggorhea.
While he blamed the UN, they just replied, "no it was you chumps operating the teleprompter"
Hegseth apparently calling most generals to emergency meeting. Is USA going to declare war on Venezuela? As bonkers as it sounds, it's Trumps administration we are talking about.
Or possibly a purge like 3rd world dictators tend to do when civil unrest is brewing.
Trumps UN speech was a disaster. It's seems very convenient his teleprompter didn't work which encouraged him to go off on his usual loggorhea.
It wouldn't supprise me...
Anything to divert the news channels away Epstein story I guess.
Those dead cats just a keep on gettin' bigger!
The Kimmel thing keeps on giving. He’s on a mission!!
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lzkjvc4ftj2u
Hegseth apparently calling most generals to emergency meeting. Is USA going to declare war on Venezuela?
"I stopped 8 wars. Nobody has stopped more wars..."
Hegseth apparently calling most generals to emergency meeting. Is USA going to declare war on Venezuela?
I think he's going to sack a few because he thinks they aren't aligned with the programme, maybe give the others a pep talk about being tough warfighting men.
Yes - the teleprompter was Trumps own system - but I guess there's always a chance not all the nodding idiots are being sincere.
What better opportunity to show what an idiot Trump is if put in a position where he can just ramble on about whatever is upsetting him at that particular time; it certainly worked.
Another problem he has, is despite offering to bail out his farmers who face bankruptcy because of his silly tariffs. He will not get countries buying the same amount off USA again - so even when China buys soya beans etc again, it won't be anywhere near what they did previously, so not all farms are going to survive even with short term bail outs.
Just for the record and to inform those who'd never heard of Charlie Kirk, the media have been lying about him quite egregiously. The quotes you've seen from him have been taken wildly out of context. People have been saying that he said gays should be stoned to death etc, this is untrue. Did he say those words? yes. Was he saying that he wanted that to happen? no. Context is everything.
Charlie Kirk was a good man. I didn't agree with some of the things he believed but he did things the right way, through discourse. He had his views and invited anyone who disagreed to come and debate him, that is how a democracy should operate and he got shot for it.
Anyone who thinks he deserved to die, or that he brought it on himself for saying things that they don't like should be ashamed. I find it disgusting.
He had his views and invited anyone who disagreed to come and debate him,
College kids with little debating experience mainly, to help Kirk look better.
People have been saying that he said gays should be stoned to death etc, this is untrue. Did he say those words? yes. Was he saying that he wanted that to happen? no. Context is everything.
He did say that but wasn't say he wanted it to happen? You might need to explain that to me.
Anyone who thinks he deserved to die, or that he brought it on himself for saying things that they don't like should be ashamed. I find it disgusting.
I agree.
Charlie Kirk was just meat. He was meat that wore suits because it was a fetish. No one really cares if meat gets shot.
Now, is that technically correct? Yes. Did I just say it? Yes. Do I 'believe' that? No.
The context is that I am showing you Charlie Kirk's debating 'technique'. I get to say something insulting with plausible deniability and then I get to own you with my superior debating skills.
The main difference is that you are a random on the internet while his target was whatever marginalised group he figured would make the easiest prey at that particular moment.
But yes, the media has been lying about him quite egregiously. He was a grifter who appealed to racists. That's about it. Everything else is just supporting the aims of the fascists to turn him into the next Horst Wessel which politicians and the media have been far too keen to accommodate.
I think the thumbnail of this post will be 'BruceWee owns deluded Charlie Kirk fanboy!!'
Got a nice ring to it.
Charlie Kirk was a good man
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-quotes-beliefs
https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/charlie-kirk-quotes
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/youre-wondering-charlie-kirk-believed-130017574.html?guccounter=1
I dunno... Seems like textbook stochastic terrorism if you ask me. In which case he was not a good man in the slightest.
he got shot for it.
I also think it's a galaxy-sized stretch to claim he got shot for inviting people to debate.
Sure, although I'd recommend you go look for yourself and make up your own mind.
I found it quite difficult to find the clip with context, the best I did find offered maybe 30s before he said the words and 0s after. It seemed he was debating a fellow christian and that the argument she was making was that Jesus said to love thy neighbour so christians should be onboard with trans stuff. He countered with something like, the bible also says we should stone gays to death. The clip then ended. I think the point he was making was that the bible says a whole bunch of stuff and maybe it would be wise to not take it at face value, it seemed to be part of a much longer and deeper discussion.
I'm making assumptions but that is where it seemed to be going. As I said I was unable to find to full thing so I cannot say for sure.
My point is that there's nuance to all of this. It's the easiest thing in the world to clip someone out of context and make them look like a terrible person, both sides do this and it needs to stop. Personally I always try and find the source material before making a judgement on a fellow human.
People have been saying that he said gays should be stoned to death etc, this is untrue. Did he say those words? yes. Was he saying that he wanted that to happen? no. Context is everything.
In what context did he say "gays should be stoned to death"? I'm intrigued as how to spin that as a good thing.
What was the context that makes it acceptable when he said "It's worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year, so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal"?
Or "If I see a Black pilot, I'm going to be like, boy, I hope he's qualified"?
You read those things (and plenty of others) and come to the conclusion "Charlie Kirk was a good man"? Really? Why do you think he was a good man? Genuine question.
Again the quotes linked above are completely without context. Every single person here could be clipped without context and made to look terrible.
Again the quotes linked above are completely without context. Every single person here could be clipped without context and made to look terrible.
You are going to have to explain the context, perhaps post the entire quotation.
Again the quotes linked above are completely without context. Every single person here could be clipped without context and made to look terrible.
Show me the context that makes those quotes acceptable.
I'm not going to go through every quote someone throws out, find the source material and provide context. This would be laborious and annoying. Feel free to think he was a terrible human, I disagree.
OK, good talk.
I'm not going to go through every quote someone throws out, find the source material and provide context. This would be laborious and annoying. Feel free to think he was a terrible human, I disagree.
Why are you prepared to give him a free pass on saying those terrible things (unless you agree with them), when you've effectively admitted you don't know the context in which he said them?
Charlie Kirk is dead - gone - forget about him - it’s what he would have wanted - zero empathy