Mocking death of the President

[CdnFox]

30 minutes ago, John Stone said:

Kimmel didn't advocate for anyone to murder Trump ........

He did.  When you suggest that someone is "glowing and happy" that their currently alive husband is dead you are definitely advocating for it, don't be a child. 

 

Quote

.......... 'glowing like an expectant widow' is NOT advocating murder. 

Absolutely is .

Quote

Sorry counselor, wouldn't hold up under cross. 😁

Oh but trump saying that they should "Lawfully' protest the electon is advocating an insurrection?

Bullshit.  

When you suggest that it's EXPECTED that trump will be killed shortly, and that his wife would be happy you absolutely are.  SImple as that 
 

Quote

 

Elementary school children  would understand this! 🙄

 

 

They would, and they'd recognize you were wrong.  If you went up to most elementary kids and say "is it ok if someone says to you that your mommy would be happy if your daddy was killed" do you think they'd say that was fine? Nope. 

The left is all about hatred and violence these days. 

[John Stone]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

He did.  When you suggest that someone is "glowing and happy" that their currently alive husband is dead you are definitely advocating for it, don't be a child. 

 

Absolutely is .

Oh but trump saying that they should "Lawfully' protest the electon is advocating an insurrection?

Bullshit.  

When you suggest that it's EXPECTED that trump will be killed shortly, and that his wife would be happy you absolutely are.  SImple as that 
 

They would, and they'd recognize you were wrong.  If you went up to most elementary kids and say "is it ok if someone says to you that your mommy would be happy if your daddy was killed" do you think they'd say that was fine? Nope. 

The left is all about hatred and violence these days. 

'The left is all about hatred and violence these days"

haha .............. just cut to the chase - however, 😁repetition does nothing for u or ur arguments.   

Edited May 14 by John Stone

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, John Stone said:

'The left is all about hatred and violence these days"

 

Exactly. Glad we agree

You're literally sitting here arguing in favor of advocating for someone's demise.

And denial doesn't make something false

[John Stone]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Exactly. Glad we agree

You're literally sitting here arguing in favor of advocating for someone's demise.

And denial doesn't make something false

🙄 ........... are we at that state - parsing text?

 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, John Stone said:

🙄 ........... are we at that state - parsing text?

 

Parsing text?

We seem to be at the state where you cannot defend your ridiculousness and are becoming cryptic and incoherent. 

It is not ok to suggest a person should die, especially not a president in this heated political climate. What he did was entirely wrong. It is NOTHING like being glad someone who did die is dead 

Pretty simple stuff. It's disappointing that the left needs to have that  explained. 

And your defense that 'but but but he said he was glad someone died' is pretty silly given how many on the left here cheered when kirk got shot, and when a medical insurance executive got shot, etc etc. 

 

[John Stone]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Parsing text?

We seem to be at the state where you cannot defend your ridiculousness and are becoming cryptic and incoherent. 

It is not ok to suggest a person should die, especially not a president in this heated political climate. What he did was entirely wrong. It is NOTHING like being glad someone who did die is dead 

Pretty simple stuff. It's disappointing that the left needs to have that  explained. 

And your defense that 'but but but he said he was glad someone died' is pretty silly given how many on the left here cheered when kirk got shot, and when a medical insurance executive got shot, etc etc. 

 

 

Forgive me for saying that u seem to be engaged in a busy but ultimately futile activity - great effort expended without making meaningful progress? 😁

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Barquentine]

14 hours ago, CdnFox said:

many on the left here cheered when kirk got shot

Can you quote any instances of anyone doing that on here?

[John Johnston]

Kimmel for President! 

[CdnFox]

On 5/15/2026 at 6:44 AM, Barquentine said:

Can you quote any instances of anyone doing that on here?

Sure, soon as the search feature is back. But it wasn't exactly rare. Refused to condemn others who literally made up happy songs as well.  

And it was even MORE support for the death of the medical insurance executive. 

You people are all about hate and violence these days. 

[Barquentine]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sure, soon as the search feature is back. But it wasn't exactly rare. Refused to condemn others who literally made up happy songs as well.  

And it was even MORE support for the death of the medical insurance executive. 

You people are all about hate and violence these days.

Example: site:https://repolitics.com Poilievre

Now you've got no excuse to weasel out ( and you're welcome for me doing your work for you.) You people are all about lies and laziness these days.

[Barquentine]

On 5/14/2026 at 4:17 PM, CdnFox said:

When you suggest that someone is "glowing and happy" that their currently alive husband is dead you are definitely advocating for it

You have no sense of humour, no understanding of the difference between a joke and a horrible comment, no wisdom, just an ultra-partisan hatred.

A young trophy wife with a morbidly obese 80-year old, ultra rich husband she obviously doesn't even like? When he's gone she'll gladly take the money and disappear from the public eye.

That was a f*ckin funny joke.

[John Johnston]

1. What is known with direct documentation: deaths tied to orders or agencies

The clearest, directly documented fatality count linked to current Trump administration operations in the reporting is that ICE reported 46 people died while in ICE custody between January 2025 and March 18, 2026; reporters and researchers flag both the rising count and contested cause-of-death designations in specific cases [1].

2. Short‑to‑medium term modeled domestic impacts: healthcare and regulatory rollbacks

Peer‑reviewed and academic analyses model sizable domestic harms tied to Trump-era policies: one analysis of the administration’s proposed One Big Beautiful Bill estimated more than 16,000 additional U.S. deaths per year from Medicaid cuts and coverage losses under that bill [2], while The Lancet Commission’s comparative analysis attributes roughly 461,000 “unnecessary” U.S. deaths in 2018 to a spectrum of long‑running policy failures that were worsened during the Trump years—this is a counterfactual comparison to G7 death rates, not a headcount of individually attributed deaths [3].

3. International and indirect effects: aid cuts and climate policy

Two independent lines of modeling find very large international death tolls that would be indirectly linked to policy changes: a Center for Global Development update estimates lives lost from USAID cuts could plausibly be in the range of 500,000–1,000,000 based on outlays (and 670,000–1,600,000 based on obligations), while analysts of climate-policy rollbacks warn of cumulative millions of additional temperature‑related deaths globally tied to expanded fossil‑fuel trajectories associated with an “America First” agenda [4] [5]. Both are model outputs that depend on long chains of assumptions about budgets, global emissions pathways, and vulnerability in poorer countries.

4. How projections add up under three plausible scenarios (10‑year horizon)

Using only direct, documented deaths produces a minimal 10‑year total of roughly 46 recorded ICE‑custody deaths [1]. A conservative policy‑impact scenario that counts the BMJ study’s healthcare‑bill estimate (16,000 excess U.S. deaths/year) yields about 160,000 excess U.S. deaths over ten years, plus the known ICE deaths [2] [1]. A higher‑impact domestic scenario that treats the Lancet Commission’s comparative figure (461,000 excess U.S. deaths in a single year attributable to systemic policy failures) as indicative of ongoing, annual excess mortality implies roughly 4.6 million excess U.S. deaths over ten years—this is a counterfactual estimate and controversial in method [3]. Adding international models—CGD’s 500,000–1,000,000 (or up to 1.6 million by obligations) and ProPublica/Guardian warnings of large climate‑related death tolls—produces aggregate multi‑million global death projections over a decade, but these are cumulative, model‑dependent projections rather than counted fatalities [4] [5].

5. Caveats, competing perspectives and hidden agendas

The estimates reflect different methods and implicit agendas: watchdog and humanitarian groups emphasize global lives lost (CGD, ProPublica) and may use worst‑case assumptions to motivate policy reversal [4] [5], commission reports like The Lancet use G7 counterfactuals to highlight systemic gaps but do not prove single‑cause attribution [3], and some advocacy pieces frame early‑term actions as producing “millions” of deaths to create political urgency [6]. Independent journalists and peer reviewers caution these model outputs rest on many assumptions; other sources (e.g., administration statements touting crime declines) offer a competing narrative about improving public safety but do not directly reconcile the mortality modeling [7].

6. Bottom line for a ten‑year tally

There is only one narrow, directly documented toll in these sources—46 ICE custody deaths [1]. Any larger ten‑year number depends entirely on which published models and counterfactuals one accepts: a focused policy effect (BMJ) implies ~160,000 excess U.S. deaths over ten years [2]; a broad counterfactual comparison (Lancet) implies millions over a decade if treated as ongoing [3]; international aid and climate models add hundreds of thousands to millions more globally [4] [5]. The reporting does not produce a single, authoritative 10‑year “Trump death count”; it produces competing, methodologically distinct estimates that must be read as scenarios, not precise tallies.

 

I don't really give a shit about Trump, his family or his sycophants when they die. Just sayin....  let alone getting upset about a damn joke. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Example: site:https://repolitics.com Poilievre

Now you've got no excuse to weasel out ( and you're welcome for me doing your work for you.) You people are all about lies and laziness these days.

Doesn't really help much, it's too general and doesn't let you do advance searches. 

But here's a few quickies i ran across, 

"Isn’t this the 2nd Amendment remedies conservatives have talked about?"  

Boges actually got banned for his comments suggesting Charile deserved to get shot, 

Some other snippets:

No one deserves to get murdered, Well maybe Donald Trump does

I think Nationalist coined the term "You git what you pay for" or something. That's my sentiment here.

 

And on it goes, with several suggesting he 'deserved' it because he said things they didn't approve of

So you could have looked that up yourself. 

Looks like the lies and laziness is all about you kid   LOLOLOL

 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Barquentine said:

You have no sense of humour,

This isn't an issue of humor. It's not hard to make a threat look like a joke.  If someone says "the only good jew is  a dead jew and doesn't the world need more good jews? hahaha" they can pass it off as a joke, but the fact is it's not. 

You can't call for the death of a president and then pass it off as a joke

I mean it's been tried before. Kathy griffin held up his severed bloody head and tried to pass it off as humor because she's a comedian. Or was.

And people like you tried to defend her as well.

It's not okay to suggest that the president of the united states should be killed whether it's in the form of a joke or not

You are a disgusting pile of shit who revels in the idea of the deaths of people you don't like. That's literally what you are

 

[Legato]

2 hours ago, John Johnston said:

1. What is known with direct documentation: deaths tied to orders or agencies

The clearest, directly documented fatality count linked to current Trump administration operations in the reporting is that ICE reported 46 people died while in ICE custody between January 2025 and March 18, 2026; reporters and researchers flag both the rising count and contested cause-of-death designations in specific cases [1].

2. Short‑to‑medium term modeled domestic impacts: healthcare and regulatory rollbacks

Peer‑reviewed and academic analyses model sizable domestic harms tied to Trump-era policies: one analysis of the administration’s proposed One Big Beautiful Bill estimated more than 16,000 additional U.S. deaths per year from Medicaid cuts and coverage losses under that bill [2], while The Lancet Commission’s comparative analysis attributes roughly 461,000 “unnecessary” U.S. deaths in 2018 to a spectrum of long‑running policy failures that were worsened during the Trump years—this is a counterfactual comparison to G7 death rates, not a headcount of individually attributed deaths [3].

3. International and indirect effects: aid cuts and climate policy

Two independent lines of modeling find very large international death tolls that would be indirectly linked to policy changes: a Center for Global Development update estimates lives lost from USAID cuts could plausibly be in the range of 500,000–1,000,000 based on outlays (and 670,000–1,600,000 based on obligations), while analysts of climate-policy rollbacks warn of cumulative millions of additional temperature‑related deaths globally tied to expanded fossil‑fuel trajectories associated with an “America First” agenda [4] [5]. Both are model outputs that depend on long chains of assumptions about budgets, global emissions pathways, and vulnerability in poorer countries.

4. How projections add up under three plausible scenarios (10‑year horizon)

Using only direct, documented deaths produces a minimal 10‑year total of roughly 46 recorded ICE‑custody deaths [1]. A conservative policy‑impact scenario that counts the BMJ study’s healthcare‑bill estimate (16,000 excess U.S. deaths/year) yields about 160,000 excess U.S. deaths over ten years, plus the known ICE deaths [2] [1]. A higher‑impact domestic scenario that treats the Lancet Commission’s comparative figure (461,000 excess U.S. deaths in a single year attributable to systemic policy failures) as indicative of ongoing, annual excess mortality implies roughly 4.6 million excess U.S. deaths over ten years—this is a counterfactual estimate and controversial in method [3]. Adding international models—CGD’s 500,000–1,000,000 (or up to 1.6 million by obligations) and ProPublica/Guardian warnings of large climate‑related death tolls—produces aggregate multi‑million global death projections over a decade, but these are cumulative, model‑dependent projections rather than counted fatalities [4] [5].

5. Caveats, competing perspectives and hidden agendas

The estimates reflect different methods and implicit agendas: watchdog and humanitarian groups emphasize global lives lost (CGD, ProPublica) and may use worst‑case assumptions to motivate policy reversal [4] [5], commission reports like The Lancet use G7 counterfactuals to highlight systemic gaps but do not prove single‑cause attribution [3], and some advocacy pieces frame early‑term actions as producing “millions” of deaths to create political urgency [6]. Independent journalists and peer reviewers caution these model outputs rest on many assumptions; other sources (e.g., administration statements touting crime declines) offer a competing narrative about improving public safety but do not directly reconcile the mortality modeling [7].

6. Bottom line for a ten‑year tally

There is only one narrow, directly documented toll in these sources—46 ICE custody deaths [1]. Any larger ten‑year number depends entirely on which published models and counterfactuals one accepts: a focused policy effect (BMJ) implies ~160,000 excess U.S. deaths over ten years [2]; a broad counterfactual comparison (Lancet) implies millions over a decade if treated as ongoing [3]; international aid and climate models add hundreds of thousands to millions more globally [4] [5]. The reporting does not produce a single, authoritative 10‑year “Trump death count”; it produces competing, methodologically distinct estimates that must be read as scenarios, not precise tallies.

 

I don't really give a shit about Trump, his family or his sycophants when they die. Just sayin....  let alone getting upset about a damn joke. 

In other news, Jimmy Kimmel's jokes are already dead before he fosters them on a sycophantic audience.

[John Johnston]

10 minutes ago, Legato said:

In other news, Jimmy Kimmel's jokes are already dead before he fosters them on a sycophantic audience.

Kimmel for President!!  👍🥳😎

Hey Diaper Don, there is a song for you....

Now, don't hang on
Nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky
It slips away
And all your money won't another minute buy...

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, John Johnston said:

Kimmel for President!!  👍🥳😎

 

Considering you supported a guy who had complete dementia, this comes as no shock  

[Barquentine]

23 hours ago, CdnFox said:

"the only good jew is  a dead jew and doesn't the world need more good jews? hahaha" they can pass it off as a joke, but the fact is it's not.

You don't know the difference between a good joke and a dumb statement.

[Barquentine]

23 hours ago, CdnFox said:

"Isn’t this the 2nd Amendment remedies conservatives have talked about?"

Just throwing conservative words back at them.

"Many cheered"? Not even close.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Barquentine said:

You don't know the difference between a good joke and a dumb statement.

Actually I do. Which is why I'm calling you on your bullshit.

Like I said, Kathy tried the same stick you did.  

It's easy to blow off that kind of thing by pretending it's a joke. But when you're a joke is reliant on the idea that the president should be dead then you have walked over the line into an area where you are advocating or normalizing the death of the president and not through natural means.

You're a 100% complete hypocritical twat. 

he crossed  the line he shouldn't have crossed and democrats like you once again rise up to defend the idea of calling for the death of the president because you don't like him

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Just throwing conservative words back at them.

"Many cheered"? Not even close.

There's plenty of others. Take your pick. Like I said one guy got banned over it because everybody knew what he was saying. 

And democrats around the world cheered like crazy as well. here's some democrats singing about killing charlie and talking about who's next

(62) The other side of America on Charlie Kirk being killed - YouTube

 You got burned by your own bullshit kiddo and now you're big mad because it turned out i was telling the truth.  Kid... you should have learned by now. I don't open my mouth unless i know i'm right. 

[herbie]

Mocking? No.
Dancing in the streets, the general public out tearing down of golden statues and Arches, looting of the Ballroom and every Trump tower?
Maybe likely.

Vance granting total family immunity and passing a law against p1ssing on his grave, very likely.

Edited May 19 by herbie

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, herbie said:

Mocking? No.
Dancing in the streets, the general public out tearing down of golden statues and Arches, looting of the Ballroom and every Trump tower?
Maybe likely.

Vance granting total family immunity and passing a law against p1ssing on his grave, very likely.

LOL - stay classy Herbie  

 

[Barquentine]

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I don't open my mouth unless i know i'm right. 

Mum's the word then.

[CrakHoBarbie]

On 5/19/2026 at 9:38 AM, CdnFox said:

I don't open my mouth unless i know i'm right. 

I see.

Allow me to introduce you to our Constitution. 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi5vbTwusiUAxVvLEQIHWZeKCgQFnoECH0QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.archives.gov%2Ffounding-docs%2Fconstitution&usg=AOvVaw0r_-IvkTmFGOsP0wthnPWz&opi=89978449