Connect with us

Censorship Industrial Complex

If you find Trump’s VP choice “weird”, it’s because you’re still paying attention to legacy media.

Published

1 year ago

5 minute read

Opponents of Donald Trump are trying a new line of attack. For the last few years both the Democratic party and much of the legacy media have been claiming that electing Trump to a second term will somehow pose a deadly “risk to democracy”.  That line of attack is on hold for now, and it’s being replaced by a new approach to smear Trump and especially his choice for VP, JD Vance.

What’s interesting in this compilation video below is that not 0nly are the interviewees engaging in this attack, but so are the interviewers!

Below the video ‘supercut’ is an article from The Daily Caller regarding this new line of attack.

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By NICOLE SILVERIO

‘Fox & Friends’ Host Brian Kilmeade Says Many Voters May Resonate With Trump, JD Vance Being ‘Weird’

Fox News host Brian Kilmeade said on Tuesday that voters may resonate with Republican nominee Donald Trump and vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance for allegedly being “weird.”

The Democrats’ new line of attack ahead of the 2024 election has been to attack Trump and Vance for being “weird.” Kilmeade said the Democrats’ label for the Trump-Vance ticket will fail among independent voters in the same way many of their previous lines of attacks have fallen apart.

“You know what wasn’t working? Saying Trump’s a threat to democracy, because no one thinks that,” Kilmeade said. “There are people who don’t like him that think that, but you’re not winning over independents, it wasn’t resonating. So you’re trying to scare people, you try to put him in court, you try to put him in jail, that didn’t work. Then you say he’s a threat to democracy, that wasn’t effective. So now you go, okay, now let’s just say they’re weird.”

“I’ve got news for you,” Kilmeade continued. “There’s a lot of people in America that go, ‘you know what? I’m a little weird, my friend’s a little weird, my parents are a little weird, so, you know, I kind of relate to somebody that’s not perfect, a little quirky.’ You cannot define Donald Trump to anybody on this planet, they already made their opinion. And for J.D. Vance, maybe this approached him, but you watched the movie, you read the book, you know about his upbringing, you watched him run for Senate, you’ve seen him in the last six years or year-and-a-half, but you watched him run for one, so I don’t know how much weird is there.”

Co-host Ainsley Earhardt said the Democrats’ talking point will likely not turn off candidates to Trump and Vance, while Kilmeade said every person they watched on television growing up was “special” due to their quirkiness.

“Almost everybody that we watched on television was quirky and weird, that’s what made them special,” Kilmeade added. “Right? We’re starting then. So I just think that weird is cool, actually. I don’t have any problem with weird.”

“Well, they’ll do it for two days, it’s not gonna stick,” Earhardt said.

Democrats have particularly branded Vance as a “weird” candidate by pointing to the “childless cat lady” remark he madein 2021 during an appearance on Fox News’ former show, “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” Vance mocked Democratic women, including Vice President Kamala Harris, by branding the political left as a party of anti-family values.

Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz used the new term against Vance in an interview last week, sparking Democratic politicians and liberal media pundits to repeatedly accuse the vice presidential candidate and Trump of being “weird.” Harris said during a campaign event that Vance’s commentary and viewpoints “are just plain weird,” and Democratic Illinois Rep. J.B. Pritzker repeated that terminology during a Sunday appearance on ABC News.

Featured Image Credit: Screenshot/Grabien/Fox News

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
International / 2 hours ago

FBI may have finally nabbed the Jan. 6 pipe bomber

espionage / 2 hours ago

Digital messages reportedly allege Chinese police targeted dissident who died suspiciously near Vancouver

Business / 3 hours ago

Carney’s Toronto cabinet meetings cost $530,000

Censorship Industrial Complex

Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis slams Liberal plan targeting religious exemption in hate speech bil

Published on December 3, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Bill C-9 is being called an attempt to criminalize sections of the Bible, Quran, Torah, and other sacred texts in Canada.

Canadian Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis blasted a federal government plan to criminalize parts of the Bible as an attack on “Christians,” warning it sets a “dangerous precedent” for Canadian society.

“The Liberal government has agreed to remove the religious exemption in their hate speech bill, C-9, to secure Bloc support and push this bill through Parliament,” Lewis wrote Tuesday on X.

“This is not a minor adjustment. This shift comes at the direct expense of Christians and other religious communities across Canada.”

As reported by LifeSiteNews, a government insider revealed that the Liberal government of Prime Minister Mark Carney plans to remove religious exemptions from Canada’s hate-speech laws by modifying a bill.

Bill C-9, the Combating Hate Act, as reported by LifeSiteNews, has been blasted by constitutional experts as allowing empowered police and the government to go after those it deems have violated a person’s “feelings” in a “hateful” way.

A recent media report states that the Carney Liberals and the separatist Bloc Québécois want to amend Bill C-9, which would “criminalize sections of the Bible, Quran, Torah, and other sacred texts,” Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre noted yesterday on X.

Lewis warned that “no government” should “ever negotiate away religious liberty in exchange for political support.”

“No party should decide which beliefs are acceptable and which ones carry criminal risk,” she warned.

She added that the Liberal government of Carney’s plan to amend Bill C-9 is a “dangerous precedent.”

Poilievre blasted the Liberals’ plan as well, warning Liberal-Bloc amendments to C-9 will “criminalize sections of the Bible, Quran, Torah, and other sacred texts.”

“Conservatives will oppose this latest Liberal assault on freedom of expression and religion,” he noted on X earlier this week.

In response, the party launched a petition over fear that religious texts could be criminalized.

Liberal MP Marc Miller had said earlier in the year that certain passages of the Bible are “hateful” because of what it says about homosexuality and those who recite the passages should be jailed. As reported by LifeSiteNews, he was recently appointed as a government minister by Prime Minister Mark Carney.

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

A Democracy That Can’t Take A Joke Won’t Tolerate Dissent

Published on December 2, 2025

By

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Collin May

Targeting comedians is a sign of political insecurity

A democracy that fears its comedians is a democracy in trouble. That truth landed hard when Graham Linehan, the Irish writer behind Father Ted and The IT Crowd, stepped off a plane at Heathrow on Sept. 1, 2025, and was met by five London Metropolitan Police officers ready to arrest him for three posts on X.

Returning to the UK from Arizona, he was taken into custody on the charge of “suspicion of inciting violence”, an allegation levelled with increasing ease in an age wary of offence. His actual “crime” amounted to three posts, the most contentious being a joke about trans-identified men in exclusively female spaces and a suggestion that violated women respond with a swift blow to a very sensitive part of the male’s not-yet-physically-transitioned anatomy.

The reaction to Linehan’s arrest, from J.K. Rowling to a wide array of commentators, was unqualified condemnation. Many wondered whether free speech had become a museum piece in the UK. Asked about the incident, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer defended his country’s reputation for free expression but declined to address the arrest itself.

Canada has faced its own pressures on comedic expression. In 2022, comedian Mike Ward saw a 12-year legal saga end when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled five-to-four that the Quebec Human Rights Commission had no jurisdiction to hear a complaint about comments Ward made regarding a disabled Quebec boy. The ruling confirmed that human rights bodies cannot police artistic expression when no discrimination in services or employment has occurred. In that case, comic licence survived narrowly.

These cases reveal a broader trend. Governments and institutions increasingly frame comedy as a risk rather than a social pressure valve. In an environment fixated on avoiding perceived harm, humour becomes an easy and symbolic target. Linehan’s arrest underscores the fragility of free speech, especially in comedic form, in countries that claim to value democratic openness.

Comedy has long occupied an unusual place in public life. One of its earliest literary appearances is in Homer’s Iliad. A common soldier, Thersites, is ugly, sharp-tongued and irreverent. He speaks with a freedom others will not risk, mocking Agamemnon and voicing the frustrations of rank-and-file soldiers. He represents the instinct to puncture pretension. In this sense, comedy and philosophy share a willingness to speak uncomfortable truths that power prefers to avoid.

Aristotle, in his Poetics, noted that tragedy imitates noble actions and depicts people who are to be taken seriously. Comedy, by contrast, imitates those who appear inferior. Yet this lowly status is precisely what gives comedy its political usefulness. It allows performers to say what respectable voices cannot, revealing hypocrisies that formal discourse leaves untouched.

In the Iliad, Thersites does not escape punishment. Odysseus, striving to restore order, strikes him with Agamemnon’s staff, and the soldiers laugh as Thersites is silenced. The scene captures a familiar dynamic. Comedy can expose authority’s flaws, but authority often responds by asserting its dominance. The details shift across history, but the pattern endures.

Modern democracies are showing similar impatience. Comedy provides a way to question conventions without inviting formal conflict. When governments treat jokes as misconduct, they are not protecting the public from harm. They are signalling discomfort with scrutiny. Confident systems do not fear irreverence; insecure ones do.

The growing targeting of comedians matters because it reflects a shift toward institutions that view dissent, even in comedic form, as a liability. Such an approach narrows the space for open dialogue and misunderstands comedy’s role in democratic life. A society confident in itself tolerates mockery because it trusts its citizens to distinguish humour from harm.

In October, the British Crown Prosecution Service announced it would not pursue charges against Linehan. The London Metropolitan Police Service also said it would stop recording “non-crime hate incidents”, a controversial category used to document allegations of hateful behaviour even when no law has been broken. These reversals are welcome, but they do not erase the deeper unease that allowed the arrest to happen.

Comedy survives, but its environment is shifting. In an era where leaders are quick to adopt moral language while avoiding meaningful accountability, humour becomes more necessary, not less. It remains one of the few public tools capable of exposing the distance between political rhetoric and reality.

The danger is that in places where Agamemnon’s folly, leadership driven by pride and insecurity, takes root, those who speak uncomfortable truths may find themselves facing not symbolic correction but formal sanctions. A democracy that begins by targeting its jesters rarely stops there.

Collin May is a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a lawyer, and Adjunct Lecturer in Community Health Sciences at the University of Calgary, with degrees in law (Dalhousie University), a Masters in Theological Studies (Harvard) and a Diplome d’etudes approfondies (Ecole des hautes etudes, Paris).

Continue Reading

Trending

X