US Senate UNANIMOUSLY passes Remembrance Day Oct 14th for Kirk

[Mr.WeRP]

https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/us/senate-unanimously-passes-resolution-designating-october-14-as-national-charlie-kirk-day-of-remembrance/amp_articleshow/123984649.cms

Really Democrats, Fucking really? George Floyd’s birthday!?

Our party has lost its way.

[droidamus2]

1. Not real happy with this...

Not happy but from a political game point of view the negatives for voting against this one day remember ends bs would be worse than jyst holding your nose and voting for it. The rightwing propaganda network is already using the Kirk murder for all they can get out of it voting against it would give them more the left hates and condo nab ed violence messages. Will they do it anyway sure but why give them more fodder for their ridiculous talking piints

[robbob]

32. I hear you, droid...

But you know they’re just going to find another ridiculous talking point to bash us with.

(On edit) Just consider this for example: after Kirk’s death every major democratic leader, former President, spokesperson, etc. etc. stepped forward to condemn the attack. What did Fox “News”, tRump, and the Repug do in response? Jumped in to accuse us of “politicizing” the attack, gloating, celebrating, and anything else they could think of. Facts don’t matter to these people, they just make shit up and spew it out for their brain dead followers to lap up.

[choie]

176. So the fuck what?

Let them accuse us of it. Maybe the dems should stand there and rile off all of the many shootings perpetrated by people on the right. How hate is poured out each day by the far right/maga media. How convicted 34 times felon, sexual abuser trump spews hatred and perpetrates violence everyday through his ICE thugs? Oh that's right - that's divisive..when the Democrats do it.

[Crunchy Frog]

53. It makes our party look weak and submissive. I'm not sure that voters find those traits appealing.

If the shoe were on the other foot, I doubt the republicans would do the same. And their base would eviscerate them if they did.

Why not a "Victims of Gun Violence Remembrance Day" instead?

[vanlassie]

68. Weak?

I think it’s small potatoes to a bunch of adults in the room dealing with children.

[Wiz Imp]

184. 99.99% of voters will have no idea such a vote ever even happened.

[RVN VET71]

234. Agree completely

When I heard our Senators queued up to vote in favor of an evil man like Kirk, I gasped. No, literally. I gasped. I wonder, did Chuck Schumer write one of his strongly worded letters commemorating the man who once said that black women were unintelligent, that empathy was a woke joke, that women are by nature subordinate to men, and that the slaughtering of children at their desks was a necessary evil to sustain our need -- our fucking need! -- for completely untrammeled gun rights?


I swear to god, if we had a viable 3rd party in this Country, I'd be moving away from the Democratic Party and its weak livered Senators. (I said "viable" as in a party that could challenge the 2 existing parties for serious power, which we don't have.

But I digress. If the Democratic Senators got together and decided to kiss Trump's ass on this issue, I give up. Oh I'll vote against Fascism, even if the only viable alternative is these buttheads. (I know what you might be thinking: but these men and women have done much good for America and are really the bulwark against the further destruction of Democracy by the now thoroughly Fascist former GOP. Sorry. They still have my vote. But not my confidence or admiration.)

[Miles Archer]

121. Republicans would be running ads with Kirk's KIDS.

"THESE children LOST THEIR FATHER...they will grow up hardly knowing him...he was GUNNED DOWN by an assassin's bullet...and the DEMOCRATS..."

You can SEE and HEAR that ad, right? Because it's painfully easy to see the Republicans' long game from WAY down the road.

[lapucelle]

253. The headline is fake news. At least 50 senators were not in the chamber

when the resolution was agreed to by unanimous consent which requires neither a vote nor a quorum.

The resolution was not "passed". That requires a quorum and a vote.

From the Congressional Record:

Mr. SCOTT of Florida: Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 403, which was submitted earlier today.

snip-------------------------------------------

Mr. LANKFORD [of Oklahoma]: I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER: The clerk will call the roll.[/b]
The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. LANKFORD: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.MORENO): Without objection, it is so ordered

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-171/issue-153/senate-section/article/S6713-1

[JT45242]

2. I'll remember that he was a racist asshat and film flam salesman

Spreading hate and lies even in death.

[Rebl2]

10. Best

Way to remember him. He was full of hate, racist and favored taking rights away from women as well as others.

[Crunchy Frog]

60. I'll choose to remember the 1st Amendment. RIP.

[Rebl2]

94. Exactly!

[dalton99a]

3. Make it a national holiday already - and don't forget to erect a statue for the dead troll

[CrispyQ]

29. "He had the face of a cabbage-patch doll."

I read that on FB & can't forget it. So perfect.

[Ilsa]

217. I thought he looked a bit like Charlie Brown. Big head. nt

[womanofthehills]

240. Actually- South Park had an episode with a cartoon Charlie Kirk

I believe they pulled it. They actually called him The Master Debater repeatedly & they had a Master Debater school.

[Ilsa]

244. I believe I saw that episode. Laughed so hard. Looking forward

to it being restored to the episode lineup.

[Montauk6]

275. For me, he looks like a Terry Gilliam animation from Monty Python's Flying Circus

[Mr. Evil]

45. Sure, why not.

Let's use that day to flood the internet to remind everyone what a vile racist, bigoted, misogynistic, piece of shit, tent revival charlatan, grifter he really was.

[yardwork]

70. The best way to deal with this, absolutely!

[Diraven]

120. They'll probably replace MLK Day with Kirk Day soon

They'll claim since all the Democrats just voted to fully support and honor Kirk, who once said:

"MLK was awful. He's not a good person. He said one good thing he actually didn't believe."

Then that means that Democrats must agree with that too so it's would be a fitting tribute. Also MLK Day is woke DEI and Trump made that illegal.

[democrank]

4. Right....Let's honor Kirk.

It would have been more to their credit if Democratic leaders had gathered outside with a billboard-sized sign of Kirk quotes. Let’s see how many voters would honor him after reading that crap.

Chances are our under 30% approval rate won’t improve after this Charlie Kirk Day vote.

[KS Toronado]

51. The word "UNANIMOUSLY" used here was probably wrong

I can't see any Democrat voting for this crap let alone every D Senator.

[tritsofme]

77. The Senate passed the resolution by "unanimous consent"

Any senator could have objected and forced a roll call vote, none did.

[LymphocyteLover]

112. I guess no one wanted to stick their neck out and object given the climate around this shooting. It's like 9/11 all over

again.

[Evrytingfinemon]

220. Our sp called leaders are all bent.

Pathetic and cowardly.

[KS Toronado]

122. Did a www search on this subject

Everyone's reporting unanimous, was a surprise for me.

The Charlie Kirk Day resolution now heads to the House of Representatives, where Democrats are
grappling with how to respond.

Some party members fear that opposing the resolution could hand Republicans a political victory,
allowing them to portray Democrats as unsympathetic to Kirk’s assassination or free speech rights.

However, Representative Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) said she plans to vote against it: “I’m not sure
what is honorable about many of Mr Kirk’s past statements,” Crockett told Axios.

House just voted on it, 95 Democrats voted yea, 58 voted nay, 38 present, and 22 not voting.

[tritsofme]

127. It passed without objection or "unanimously" in the Senate.

There was no roll call vote as in the House.

[Wiz Imp]

188. The House did NOT vote on the day of remembrance for Charlie Kirk.

(BTW, it's not Charlie Kirk day - it's a single day not permanent since resolutions like this have o force of law behind them. It's strictly performative - pretty much meaningless in the grand scheme of things). Only the Senate introduced the resolution for the day of remembrance and they did it by calling for unanimous consent while no Democrats were present, or the Democrats otherwise walked out).

The House vote referenced is the vote for the resolution "honoring" Charlie Kirk. Again, non-binding, performative, and pretty much meaningless, but a no vote by some Democrats can and will be attempted to be weaponized against them in next year's elections.

[niyad]

223. Thank you. I was reaching for the phone to yell at my two.

[Wiz Imp]

186. That's because no Democrats were in the Chamber when the call for unanimous consent was made.

[tritsofme]

264. That is highly implausible, but downright dangerous if true.

If that were true, they technically could have called up any House-passed bill, or any other bill for that matter and moved it by unanimous consent.

Do you have a link? That aspect would seem to be truly the most important part of this story.

[Wiz Imp]

266. No they couldn't have done it with just any legislation

Last edited Sat Sep 20, 2025, 06:54 PM - Edit history (2)

They could do it because it was a largely meaningless non binding resolution. This video at the 46 second mark shows Tuberville calling for unanimous consent. When he says "all in favor say aye", you can only hear one person say aye - that is presumably Rick Scott. Based on the Congressional Record, Senate Press Gallery & video, Hagerty, Tuberville, Moreno & Lankford were there and I assume Blackburn was also still present. But it's obvious the Senate was virtually empty.

On Edit: the distinction between legislation and a resolution relates to the fact that for a resolution like this, Democrats didn't care if Republicans passed it on their own so they didn't object to the lack of a quorum. However, for any remotely significant legislation, the Democrats would be sure to have someone there to ask for a quorum call to prevent Republicans from passing legislation with like 5 people present.

From the actual Voting and Quorum Procedures in the Senate:
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/96-452#:~:text=A%20straightforward%20reading%20of%20the,3

A straightforward reading of the Constitution's quorum requirement would seem to require a simple majority of Senators, or a minimum of 51 if there are no vacancies in the body, to be present on the floor whenever the Senate conducts business. As any observer of the Senate soon notices, typically only a handful of Senators are present during floor debates. It is unusual for as many as 51 Senators to be present on the floor at the same time unless a roll call vote is in progress.

As a regular practice, however, the Senate presumes that it is complying with the Constitution. Therefore, it presumes that a quorum is always present unless and until the absence of a quorum is suggested or demonstrated:

The Senate operates on the presumption that a quorum is present at all times, under all circumstances, unless the question to the contrary is raised, or the absence of a quorum is officially shown, or until a point of no quorum is made even though a voice vote is taken and announced in the meantime.

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-171/issue-153/senate-section/article/S6713-1

https://www.dailypress.senate.gov/thursday-september-18-2025/

[tritsofme]

269. Why do you think the Senate is prohibited from passing legislation by unanimous consent?

That’s not correct, it is in fact routine.

If there were actually no Democrats on the floor, it was nothing but the good manners of Senate Republicans that prevented them from passing any and everything.

[Wiz Imp]

272. That's not what I said. What I said is they can't pass legislation with only a handful of people

on the floor because the Democrats would object due to lack of a quorum. They didn't object to lack of a quorum on the day of remembrance resolution because it's largely meaningless - let the Republicans do their performative bullshit but don't expect us to give you something to weaponize against.

I have no idea where you're getting legislation can't be passed by unanimous consent, I said nothing of the sort.

[lapucelle]

260. There was no quorum: 51 senators were not in the chamber.

The consideration of the resolution by unanimous consent proceeded outside of regular order.

From the Congressional Record:

Mr. SCOTT of Florida: Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 403, which was submitted earlier today.

snip-------------------------------------------

Mr. LANKFORD [of Oklahoma]: I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER: The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. Tuberville: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.MORENO): Without objection, it is so ordered

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-171/issue-153/senate-section/article/S6713-1

[tritsofme]

263. That does not necessarily mean that fewer than 51 senators were present

But even if there were, it doesn’t make the resolution’s passage less valid.

The Senate can, and routinely does, waive its quorum requirements by unanimous consent

[lapucelle]

265. Sorry to disappoint anyone, but yes it does.

Presuming that there are 100 senators (and there are), the minimum quorum is 51.

-------------------------------

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

From the Congressional Record:

Mr. SCOTT of Florida: Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 403, which was submitted earlier today.

snip-------------------------------------------

Mr. Tuberville: I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER: The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. LANKFORD: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.MORENO): Without objection, it is so ordered

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-171/issue-153/senate-section/article/S6713-1

=================================

Voting and Quorum Procedures in the Senate

The Constitution states that "a Majority of each [House] shall constitute a quorum to do business." The Senate presumes that it is complying with this requirement and that a quorum is always present unless and until the absence of a quorum is suggested or demonstrated. This presumption allows the Senate to conduct its business on the floor with fewer than 51 Senators present until a Senator "suggests the absence of a quorum."

Except when the Senate has invoked cloture, the presiding officer may not count to determine if a quorum is present. When the absence of a quorum is suggested, therefore, the presiding officer directs the Clerk to call the roll. The Senate cannot resume its business until a majority of Senators respond to the quorum call or unless, by unanimous consent, "further proceedings under the quorum call are dispensed with" before the last Senator's name has been called. If a quorum fails to respond, the Senate may adjourn or take steps necessary to secure the attendance of enough Senators to constitute a quorum. It usually takes the latter course by agreeing to a motion that instructs the Sergeant at Arms to request the attendance of absent Senators.

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/96-452

[tritsofme]

270. The quorum call was rescinded by unanimous consent.

I’m not seeing why this is problematic.

[lapucelle]

273. Yes, I know. That doesn't mean there was a quorum.

The motion for rescission of the quorum call was made by a Republican

Had the roll call proceeded and had it been determined that the quorum requirement had not been met, the resolution would have been tabled rather than approved by those members present, once again by unanimous consent.

[Wiz Imp]

271. Thank you. I'm not sure why people insist on arguing this point

The Senate can conduct business without a quorum - even as few as just a handful of people present as long as nobody objects. Anything important will always require a quorum because the other side would object to passing it without a quorum. The Democrats clearly deemed the Kirk Day of Remembrance resolution as unimportant so they let Republicans pass it wiht hardly anyone there.

[lapucelle]

274. Fun fact: Schumer's use of a blanket hold on unanimous consent was what slowed confirmation

and created the backlog of Trump's nominees.

[travelingthrulife]

5. This makes me very angry.

We have no adult representation.

[Wiz Imp]

189. see post 188

[LearnedHand]

6. I am so angry it's hard to breathe

I thought there might be a spine or two, or that they’d vote present at a minimum.

[Wiz Imp]

190. see post 188

[Ping Tung]

7. "It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is worse to be oppressed by a majority." Lord Acton

[ImNotGod]

8. Well, poodles got to poodle. The poodles should write a how to book on how to not inspire people to show up and vote.nt

[Wiz Imp]

191. See post 188

Plus 99.99% of voters will have no clue such a vote ever took place.

[Heidi]

9. No can do. I'll be busy celebrating the Rocky Horror Picture Show's 50th anniversary.

?si=ShJvlmoX_c1PPbLD

[Mr.WeRP]

13. Damn excellent idea

This kind of non resistance from our leaders makes me just want to say “fuck it, I’m out”

[Heidi]

16. LOTS of more worthwhile October 14 celebrations!

https://nationaltoday.com/october-14/

[niyad]

222. Defenders of Ukraine Day. Ada Lovelace Day. National Dessert Day.

[Heidi]

228. YES!

Good morning, niyad!

[niyad]

230. Good morning, heidi!

[hunter]

25. 50 years? How?

It seems like yesterday.

[Heidi]

49. I have no answer except the march of time.

But they can never take my precious memory of the first time I ever saw the RHPC on the big screen with audience participation. I was 17, raised Southern Baptist, and at this midnight event after senior prom. It’s no exaggeration to say it changed my life trajectory for the infinitely better. I’m not sure I’d ever experienced genuine FUN until that night.

[Mossfern]

85. My daughter used to act out Janet

I still have her pink dress in her closet.

[Heidi]

109. You raised her right!

Thank you for that, Mossfern. :love:

[bedazzled]

149. Tim curry is doing his autobiography!

I can't wait!

[wackadoo wabbit]

182. I can never watch that scene too many times!

Tim Curry is a national treasure.

[Lars39]

11. We don't have to celebrate it their intended way.

[Vinca]

12. Wonderful. Can we have a day of remembrance for Charlie Manson, too? Standards are gone.

I'm really fucking annoyed with Congressional Democrats.

[Wiz Imp]

192. Congressional Democrats did not vote for a Day of Remembrance

A resolution for a day of remembrance was introduced ONLY in the Senate, NOT the House. In the Senate it passed by unanimous consent meaning either no Democrats were present in the Chamber when the call for unanimous consent was meant, or any Democrats present walked out. NO DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR A DAY OF REMEMBRANCE!

Also to be clear, resolutions like this are strictly performative and mostly meaningless. They have no force of law behind them. And the day of remembrance is a one time thing, nothing permanent.

[questionseverything]

221. You keep saying, no democrats were present or walked out... do you have a link to support that?

[Wiz Imp]

235. I can find no evidence anyone was on the Senate Floor when the resolution

was introduced and unanimous consent called for beyond Rick Scott (who introduced the resolution), Marsha Blackburn, and Bill Hagerty. This happened at 1:15 pm on Thursday. The last Democrat to speak before Scott was Senator Hassan at 12:43 pm (and she spoke for at most 3 minutes). The next Democrat to speak after the resolution "passed" was Senator Warner at 2:58 pm.

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-171/issue-153/senate-section/article/S6713-1

https://www.dailypress.senate.gov/thursday-september-18-2025/

I can find no video of the Senate at that time showing any Democrats on the floor.

[questionseverything]

237. Finding no evidence they were there is very different from proving they weren't there

[Wiz Imp]

239. This reddit comment confirms there were more than 90 Senators absent

and this video confirms the Senate was virtually empty when the call came for unanimous consent.

https://www.reddit.com/r/California_Politics/comments/1nl7y4d/removed_by_moderator/

The Senate did not "unanimously" vote on anything. This was a vote where more than ninety Senators were absent. No Democrats were present. Calling it "consent" when, in reality, the two California democratic Senators were simply unaware that a minor vote was called by two of their colleagues, is a clear attempt to divide the Democratic voter pool and discourage blue voting.

Here's the actual "vote" (at about the 46 second mark). When he calls for everyone in favor to say "aye", you can only hear one voice (presumably Scott). The Senate floor was clearly virtually empty.

[questionseverything]

242. Have you changed from no dems to "two California democrats weren't aware "

I’m not saying you are definitely wrong, but you don’t know for sure and yet you’re up and down the page presenting your opinion as a certainty

[Wiz Imp]

245. I'm saying NO DEMOCRATS WERE PRESENT ON THE FLOOR.

The evidence from the video pretty much proves that TRUE. The Senate chamber is clearly effectively empty.

That was a stupid way for that reddit commenter to characterize it because it's totally irrelevant why they weren't there. The fact is, NO DEMOCRATS WERE PRESENT. Why you continue to deny reality in order to bash Democrats, I have no idea.

[questionseverything]

248. You presented the reddit commenter as proof , not i

I think it’s pretty clear that the “unanimous consent “ is not what the title suggests, it was technically “unanimous consent “ because no one objected but clearly this didn’t have the support of the full chamber

But

You still don’t show proof of your assertion that no democrats were present, and the name calling isn’t necessary and doesn’t prove anything

[Wiz Imp]

251. What name calling? There was no name calling.

The video that shows there is clearly nobody else present in the Senate is proof. I can't help it if you refuse to accept it.

[questionseverything]

254. The video doesn't show the entire senate floor , only the podium

[lapucelle]

243. At least 50 senators were not in the chamber.

The Congressional Record shows that cloture was not invoked (Senate rule XXII) and a quorum was not present.

From the Congressional Record:

Mr. SCOTT of Florida: Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 403, which was submitted earlier today.

snip-------------------------------------------

Mr. LANKFORD [of Oklahoma]: I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER: The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. LANKFORD: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.MORENO): Without objection, it is so ordered

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-171/issue-153/senate-section/article/S6713-1

[lapucelle]

241. Cloture was not invoked, and there was no quorum. At least 50 senators were not in the chamber.

From the Congressional Record:

Mr. SCOTT of Florida: Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 403, which was submitted earlier today.

snip-------------------------------------------

Mr. LANKFORD [of Oklahoma]: I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER: The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. LANKFORD: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.MORENO): Without objection, it is so ordered

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-171/issue-153/senate-section/article/S6713-1

[Wiz Imp]

246. See this video at the 46 second mark.

When he calls for all those in favor to say "Aye", only a single voice is audible. It's quite possible that the only person who actually said aye was Rick Scott though based on the Congressional Record & video, Hagerty, Tuberville, Moreno & Lankford were there and I assume Blackburn was also still present.

[lapucelle]

247. Meanwhile, there are folks roasting Democrats based on inaccurate, right-wing rage bait. N/T

[Wiz Imp]

255. There is so much disinformation or misinformation on this thread.

And while an unfortunately large amount of it comes from other DU users most of that is unintentional because they have been misled into believing things that aren't true. The original source of it is the pathetic media. So many media stories have published things about this that are either misleading or flat out false.

Most of the media is saying the Senate voted unanimously. They must be taking that straight from Republican talking points. There was no vote. There was a call for unanimous consent while there were no more than a handful of people in the Senate. It appears only a single person actually voted AYE. So I guess one person can be unanimous but the media characterizing it as a unanimous vote is intentionally misleading people into thinking all Democrats supported it when the opposite is true.

Many stories said both the House & Senate voted for a Day of Remembrance for Kirk. Again, that is flat out false. The House has NOT voted on a resolution calling for a Day of Remembrance. They only voted on a resolution "honoring" Kirk. Most democrats strongly objected to the language in that resolution which is why a total of 118 refused to vote for it. By continually citing 58 no votes, the media are intentionally misleading and making it sound like the Democratic opposition was much weaker than it really was.

The media has presented these votes as being especially meaningful when in fact they are mostly meaningless. They are strictly performative. They are non binding. They have no power of law. Many media seemed to purposely write about them in such a way to make people think they were creating a special day to honor Kirk every year for eternity. They appeared todo this strictly to make their non-MAGA readers angry. Ultimately, these votes are not worth getting upset about because 99.9% ovf voters will never know they even ever occurred.

It's really been a shameful display by the media.

[Vinca]

224. Congress encompasses both the House and the Senate. It doesn't just mean the House of Representatives.

[Eliot Rosewater]

14. The guy who said all Gay people should be stoned to death

[flor-de-jasmim]

15. Or at least to be balanced, rememberance day for George Floyd AND the other one.

[Heidi]

22. Better: NO remembrance day/celebration the VILE Charlie Kirk.

Last edited Fri Sep 19, 2025, 12:52 PM - Edit history (1)

No one should be killed for their opinions but CK was lucky to have died a fast death. George Floyd was accused of but NEVER convicted of passing a counterfeit $20 and suffered—calling out for his mother—for 8 minutes and 46 seconds at the hands of the state. CK enjoyed enormous privilege even in death. There is no POC in the US who would have enjoyed such privilege for public behavior anywhere close to the shit CK spouted.

[Wiz Imp]

193. see post 192

[ananda]

17. I know. We're so lost.

Up is down, wrong is right,
life is death.

[slightlv]

43. Yippers... welcome to Orwellian living standards!

[Johnny2X2X]

18. He was a racist, sexist, and homophobic troll

It's sickening we're honoring hate now. But politically, it was necessary.

[Mr.WeRP]

19. It was absolutely fucking not necessary for a single Democrat to support this

They could have all voted no and it would still pass.

[BannonsLiver]

20. There's basically no argument to be made that it was "necessary"

Unless one thinks this will somehow placate the maga mob and their media acolytes. Spoiler alert: It won’t.

[slightlv]

46. Not only do I agree with you Bannons,

but I'll add I'm sick and tired of it being said we have to do "this" or not do "that" because it's too political. Bullcrap! That's one of the things that got us into this mess in the first place. If we'd screwed politics and just ran on and then executed what was RIGHT for the American people, we might have avoided all this in the first place. People let the R's set the propaganda, the media ran with it, and everybody else just lapped it up and repeated it. Happened when we were yelling about RvW, too. Frack politics! Do what is Right, Moral, and Ethical and make no excuses for it. We're likely to have a few more killed because of this, now... and I just can't help thinking it didn't have to be this way!

[Wiz Imp]

195. see post 188 & 192

[NCDem47]

34. The day will only have significance for the trolls in the swamp

for once, most not paying attention to ANYTHING will be of benefit.

Still…it’s just the principle of it all.

[Wiz Imp]

194. see posts 188 & 192

[Autumn]

21. Well shit. Lets make his birthday a federal holiday and name some institutions

after him. the White Hose can be the Charlie Kirk Bed and Breakfast. the Smithstonian can be the Charlie Kirk Oddities and Curiosity Gift Shop and the INS can be the Charlie Kirk Halloween Torture Chambers

[moniss]

23. They could have abstained, been absent or

voted present.

[tritsofme]

81. That is essentially what happened. No one actually cast a vote for the resolution, it passed by unanimous consent

Meaning no one actively objected to its passage.

[moniss]

130. They knew it was on the agenda and could have

been absent from the chamber.

[onenote]

170. I suspect some probably were.

No roll call vote. No way to tell who was on the floor at the time.

[Wiz Imp]

183. They were. No Democrats were present when the call for unanimous

Consent was issued.

[lapucelle]

102. There was no vote. N/T

[lark]

24. Stupid! Celebrating the Kirk hate machine is definitely unAmerican.

Dems are such cowards, sometimes.

When they won't stand up on this, why would we expect them not to cave on the CR?

[Wiz Imp]

196. see posts 188 & 192

[rurallib]

26. NO KINGS 2. October 18th - be sure to protest!

[StarryNite]

27. unfuckingbelievable

[Sneederbunk]

28. Limbaugh didn't even get this.

[DavidDvorkin]

30. Spineless.

[CrispyQ]

31. If I hadn't already changed my affiliation to non-affiliated, I'd do so today.

And they wonder why they're polling so low.

[Hartpi978]

33. Really

Please stop posting Onion headlines. This can't be real.

[Mr.WeRP]

72. We are living in an evil version of Idiocracy

[BigMin28]

36. The grifting punk

gets a remembrance day, yet the thousands of children murdered and traumatized by gun violence are ignored. We are scolded should we mention them. MAGATS... A pox on all your houses!!!

[littlemissmartypants]

37. Sleeping with the enemy.

[milestogo]

38. What are these Democrats so afraid of?

[Wiz Imp]

197. see posts 188 & 192

[liberalgunwilltravel]

39. Works for me.

I will remember him as the worthless. racist piece shit he was and ceremonially piss on his grave at every opportunity.

[Bev54]

40. WTF? As a Canadian, I am absolutely disgusted by this move from democrats in the senate.

I am afraid that unless the masses rise up there is no hope. These are supposed to be the sensible ones and they turn around and do this? Sick and twisted.

[oldinmtdem92]

118. just what i thought.

my first reaction was wtf .our country is in serious trouble , i pitty the young i am old unless they get thier heads out of their backsides their fucked .

[Martin68]

41. The perfect day to remind everyone about what a hate-filled monster Charlie Kirk was.

[Xavier Breath]

42. Pardon me while I go practice my shocked face.

Cowards.

[Orrex]

44. Perhaps a cheerleader can remind us that Democrats are doing all that they can

How better to obstruct Trump’s fascist agenda than by canonizing an extremist Reichwing propagandist?

[Wiz Imp]

198. see posts 188 & 192

[pdxflyboy]

47. I'm in Hell.

No.....Really............I'm in Hell.

[Heidi]

52. YOU'RE not. But *someone* is. (nt)

[Crunchy Frog]

48. I wouldn't count on our party doing too well in the midterms.

I hope I'm wrong about this.

[Blue Full Moon]

50. Where's Melissa Hortman's?

This will be remembered.

[MichMan]

73. Passed unanimously on June 25th

The U.S. House unanimously adopted a resolution Wednesday condemning the June 14 attacks on former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, who were killed by a gunman, and state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, who were wounded.

The resolution, sponsored by Rep. Kelly Morrison, who represents Minnesota’s 3rd District – which includes Brooklyn Park, where the Hortmans lived – also condemned political violence. Each of the seven other members of Minnesota’s bipartisan U.S. House delegation co-sponsored the legislation and spoke in support on the House floor this week.

No House member spoke against the resolution during brief floor debate Tuesday. It passed 424-0 Wednesday, with eight members not voting.

https://www.eplocalnews.org/2025/06/26/u-s-house-approves-resolution-denouncing-minnesota-shootings-political-violence/

[Ocelot II]

137. She wasn't a promoter of bigotry and she didn't get a special, permanent day of remembrance.

Big difference.

[MichMan]

146. The poster I replied to asked where was the resolution for Hortman?

I was just pointing out there was one.

[onenote]

171. It is not a "permanent" day of remembrance.

It's a one-time thing. See the resolution. And because it is a resolution, it does not have the force of law. It merely is an expression of support for the designation of October 14, 2025 as a day of remembrance for Kirk. While that's too much, imo, it is important to understand what it isn't as well.

https://www.rickscott.senate.gov/services/files/993626FC-E3F5-4014-A16A-E1681E9CACBE

[Wiz Imp]

199. There is no permanent day of remembrance

see post 188 & 192

[Crunchy Frog]

187. Did it just condemn the political violence? Or was it also an exercise in hagiography?

[Wiz Imp]

200. The resolution for the day of remembrance was just to declare a one day day of remembrance

and was only passed in the senate. Separate resolutions "honoring" Kirk were passed by both the House and the Senate. The House resolution had all kinds of sickening stuff about how wonderful Kirk was which is why a total of 118 Democrats refused to vote for it. The senate resolution was very short, didn't have all the disgusting stuff that the House one did. It was mostly just a condemnation of political violence. It also called him a devoted father and extended condolences to his family, and pointed out he founded Turning Point USA. It did not try to paint him as a saint like the House version which is probably why Democrats were OK with it. It passed by unanimous consent several days ago.

https://www.rickscott.senate.gov/services/files/55A19212-1EC1-4868-A72B-8E271E2D81B2

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-resolution/391/text

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/719/text

[Crunchy Frog]

218. Thanks for the informative answer.

[niyad]

225. Thank you.

[betsuni]

268. Thank you.

[MichMan]

203. Feel free to go look it up

[niyad]

226. Thank you.

[Nanjeanne]

54. I'm disgusted beyond all reason. Shame.

[CanonRay]

55. Horst Wessel Day!

[Hope22]

56. Never once passed a vote for the dead kids!

When is the last time they did anything unanimously! I suggest if they are too afraid to do what is right and stand up to that monster….quit your job!!! These people are gutless!

[Whyisthisstillclose]

57. Our leadership is lost. Soon to have many fewer to lead, I'm afraid.

[Wiz Imp]

202. see posts 188 & 192

[Ocelot II]

58. I can't believe that my MN Senators voted for this obscenity

especially after the murder of Melissa Hortman.

[MichMan]

80. Why not? They sponsored one several weeks ago that passed unanimously

June 25

The U.S. House unanimously adopted a resolution Wednesday condemning the June 14 attacks on former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, who were killed by a gunman, and state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, who were wounded.

The resolution, sponsored by Rep. Kelly Morrison, who represents Minnesota’s 3rd District – which includes Brooklyn Park, where the Hortmans lived – also condemned political violence. Each of the seven other members of Minnesota’s bipartisan U.S. House delegation co-sponsored the legislation and spoke in support on the House floor this week.

No House member spoke against the resolution during brief floor debate Tuesday. It passed 424-0 Wednesday, with eight members not voting.

https://www.eplocalnews.org/2025/06/26/u-s-house-approves-resolution-denouncing-minnesota-shootings-political-violence/

[Ocelot II]

92. Kind of a different thing.

This resolution not only condemns Kirk's murder, which is appropriate, but goes on to glorify him and designate a day in his honor. Melissa Hortman wasn't a bigot whose free speech consisted of complaints that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was an unqualified DEI hire; that the Civil Rights Act was a mistake; that gay and trans people weren't entitled to basic civil rights; that gun deaths were the necessary price of the freedom provided by the 2nd Amendment, and on and on. It's one thing to deplore a political murder but it's something else altogether to honor someone as destructive as Kirk.

[MichMan]

95. Why did you single out Minnesota representatives?

[Ocelot II]

98. Because I live in Minneapolis and was chillingly familiar with the incident.

The morning after the murder the entire metropolitan area was advised to stay home and not go to the scheduled No Kings protest because the murderer was on the loose. We went, of course. Melissa Hortman was well-known and well-respected and it was a very upsetting situation for people who live here.

[MichMan]

104. OK, I've just seen multiple posts from people unaware that the House passed a resolution regarding Hortman weeks ago

[Ocelot II]

136. I was aware of the resolution, but it wasn't the same

as glorifying a racist bigot like Kirk.

[MichMan]

142. I suggest you contact your representatives and tell them how angry you are with their vote then

[Wiz Imp]

204. You're misinformed

see post 188, 192 & 200

[KPN]

110. Melissa Hortman didn't promote malevolence...

unlike CK. Big difference.

[GJGCA]

155. They (almost certainly) didn't

vote FOR it, they just didn't vote AGAINST it, or 6/half-dozen OBJECT to unanimous consent.

[Ocelot II]

156. You're right; it wasn't based on a vote, but on unanimous consent -

but dammit, they shouldn't have unanimously consented.

[Wiz Imp]

201. They didn't

[Kid Berwyn]

59. And Fascism becomes the New Normal

Fucking hell.

[themaguffin]

61. Don't waste time on this move to real issues

[Mr.WeRP]

64. Bullshit. We need to stand for principals. This is submission

And it will not inspire the base to get out the vote; worse, it will act as a drag.

Why the fuck should we fight if our elected representation won’t?!

[niyad]

227. principles.

[Xavier Breath]

252. When I was a kid, maybe fifth grade, someone had written "principal" when the correct word to use was "principle."

Our teacher seized the opportunity and told us that, to keep the two words straight, we should always remember that the school's principal was our "pal." We let out a collective groan, but her quick, improvised lesson has stuck with me to this day.

[niyad]

256. A very good way to remember!

[fujiyamasan]

140. Yeah just like Pelosi said about Epstein

[themaguffin]

154. We have to pick our battles & keeping Kirk in the headlines isn't helpful. FFS. And no this isn't like Pelosi's comment

about Epstein. Oof.

[Shoeless Louis]

216. How about an Epstein Files Remembrance Day? n/t

[nwduke]

62. Just a reminder! This is who these zealots are honoring!🤬

Things Charlie Kirk has said.
Gay people should be stoned to death
Most people are scared when they see a black pilot flying a plane
Taylor Swift should reject feminism and submit to her husband
No one should be allowed to retire
Leftists should not be allowed to move to red states
British Colonialism was what "made the world decent"
The guy who assaulted the Pelosi's should be bailed out
Religious freedom should be terminated
Multiple black politicians "stole white people's spots"
MLK Jr was "an awful person"
The Great Replacement Theory is reality
Hydroxychloroquine cures COVID
Vaccine requirements are "medical apartheid"
Guns deaths are acceptable in order to have a 2nd amendment
Women's natural place is under their husband's control
Parents should prevent their daughters from taking birth control
George Floyd had it coming, the Jan 6th protestors didn't
The 1964 Civil Rights Act was a "huge mistake"
Encouraged parents to protest mask mandates

[oasis]

185. Thanks nwduke. I'll bookmark "Kirk's list" and

Kick

[wishstar]

63. I'll reserve my remembrances and praise for Robert Redford

[bif]

65. Why don't we celebrate Hitler's Birthday while we're at it?

[SocialDemocrat61]

86. That's 420

So technically we do. Just not in a way to honor Adolph.

[JustAnotherGen]

66. Is this a thing

Every year? Or just this October?

[Mr.WeRP]

69. Every damn year.

[JustAnotherGen]

101. So we undo it

This will be brought up a few weeks before next year's mid terms. We can leverage it during early voting.

[onenote]

172. FALSE.

It is a one-time thing. It's a resolution, without any force of law. And it expressly declares October 14, 2025 as a day of remembrance

Look, it's an abomination that it was introduced and passed. But you shouldn't be spreading misinformation about it here.

https://www.rickscott.senate.gov/services/files/993626FC-E3F5-4014-A16A-E1681E9CACBE

[LeftInTX]

163. Since it's a resolution, that passed via consent I think it's only this year.

It seems like ever session here, they need a resolution for things that are frequently repeated. Like Truck Month (Well, I'm joking on that one)

But things like, designating, "Rodeo month", "Charro Day", "Hector Garcia Day", "Jovita Pilar Day", non holidays, but having to do with customs and routines, but not officially forever designated, are via a consent resolution.

[Wiz Imp]

206. It's pretty meaningless to be honest

Resolutions like this are non-binding and have no power of law behind them. Votes are strictly performative. The day of remembrance resolution passed by the senate declares a single day (October 14, 2025). Also, such a resolution only passed the Senate NOT the House. So the day of remembrance is "official" only so far as the Senate is concerned. There is no legally recognized day of remembrance.

[3catwoman3]

67. I can't even find words for how perverted this is.

[some_of_us_are_sane]

71. Next, these misinformed assholes

will want to make his remembrance day GOOD FRIDAY.

[JTOL]

74. Dun(kirk)

The Repugs passes a Remembrance day for the wrong Kirk. Although both share a similar name, Dun-kirk. Not one senator would even under stand (or heard of) the atrocities of the battle of Dunkirk which unfortunately, cost considerably more lives than 1 propagandist. It is disgusting!

[Abstractartist]

75. I'll celebrate

I’ll celebrate this day. I’ll remember that he is no longer spewing his crap. He is or will be buried and gone from our view.

[lostincalifornia]

76. Pure politics. Meaningless crap. Hopefully it will divert attention from a racist pig back to

the real issues.

The real issue is if the Democrats will hold strong on the government shutdown and not cave to trump.

That will be the real test.

[Mr.WeRP]

87. It's fucking terrible politics, are you serious

This is absolutely demoralizing to their base!

And as far as holding out on the shutdown, this stunt doesn’t bode well for that!

[lostincalifornia]

93. I didn't say it was good. I just speculated what I thought their motivation was.

As far as the “base” being demoralized, are they not going to vote Democratic in the midterms?

2016 and 2024 were evidence that not voting Democratic was not a good strategy.

If we don’t win one of the Houses in 2026, we won’t have to wait until 2028, our Democracy will be over.

[lostincalifornia]

160. I also question the accuracy of the OP. No way Sanders would have voted for this.

[lapucelle]

250. At least 50 senators were not in the chamber when the call for unanimous consent went out.

The Congressional Record reflects that a quorum (a simple majority of 51) was not present.

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-171/issue-153/senate-section/article/S6713-1

[lostincalifornia]

259. Thank-you lapucelle. Another misleading headline from the MSM.

[lapucelle]

249. What "stunt"? At least 50 senators were not in the chamber when the motion for unanimous consent was called.

The Congressional Record reflects that cloture was not invoked (Senate Rule XXII) and that there was no quorum.

From the Congressional Record:

Mr. SCOTT of Florida: Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 403, which was submitted earlier today.

snip-------------------------------------------

Mr. LANKFORD [of Oklahoma]: I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER: The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. LANKFORD: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.MORENO): Without objection, it is so ordered

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-171/issue-153/senate-section/article/S6713-1

[Mr. Sparkle]

78. Our party has no leadership

Last edited Fri Sep 19, 2025, 12:04 PM - Edit history (1)

We badly need a change at the top.

[NoMoreRepugs]

79. I'm done - zero $$ to the Democratic Party from me. They don't have my back.

[fujiyamasan]

141. Yep fuck their pathetic begging emails

The party’s leadership seems like a bunch of grifters.

[Wiz Imp]

208. see posts 188 & 192

[BadgerMom]

82. I just shouted down the phone in Sen. Heinrich and Lujan's offices.

I hate when I do that. I’m just so angry. Would Republicans weaponize Democratic pushback? Of course. But they’ll weaponize whatever we do or do not do. We know that like we know the sun will rise in the east. So why not repeat our mantra of “assassination, bad; Kirk, problematic, but not deserving of death”? Prepare and organize for the pushback, but speak for those of us with no microphone.

By not standing up for principle—for the blacks, women, gun control advocates, non-Christians, Palestinians, Paul Pelosis, Joe Bidens of this party who are asked to honor a person who threatened or belittled us—we’re demonstrating we will not protect them. We’re not displaying leadership. Not a single Democrat spoke up? I am abandoned. And I am steamed.

[Wiz Imp]

210. see posts 188 & 192

[Alice B.]

83. ARE YOU FING SERIOUS?

I can't. I can't with this. Why are we still offering cookies to the side backing white and Christian nationalism?

[LS0999]

84. They made a saint out of a racist shock jock

Fuck Donald Trump and Fuck Charlie Kirk

[angrychair]

88. I find this incredibly disconcerting

This is disgusting. The guy was a self-avowed racist, misogynist, antisemitic and a bigot.

I genuinely feel betrayed.

[Jarqui]

89. I don't know what to say any more

How they could "honor" or want to remember this person who said so many ugly, hateful things is beyond me

[Bluetus]

90. Damned cowards. THey should have boycotted the vote, but more importantly ...

marched their asses outside the Capitol for a news event explaining that they would happily vote for a resolution condemning ALL political violence, and ewmwmbweing ALL the people killed in politically motivated events.

And then, follow that with a demand to take real action on gun violence and mental health issues.

I don't know which is more disappointing: the cowardice or the inability to organize for tactics that can fight back.

They chose the worst of all possible alternatives. They covered in their bunker and failed to do anything to offer an alternative to the American public.

[lapucelle]

106. There was no vote. It passed by unanimous consent.

The Economic Times’s framing is rage bait.

[Bluetus]

134. Nonetheless, where is the Dem strategy here?

The strategy seems to be to just sit there and get pummeled instead of trying to take some initiative.

We had a terrible politically-motivated murder. And the political violence is growing by the day. What is the Dem strategy? What is the Dem message? Where is the opposition? Where is the direct challenge to the Republicans?

[Solly Mack]

91. Fuck that noise. I'll not be supporting an action that supports the false narrative about what kind of person Kirk was.

He was a hatemonger. Pretending otherwise won't save any of us.

[patphil]

96. He's not worthy of such an honor.

He's a misogynist, racist, right wing tool. I don't support his murder, but he simply wasn't someone who should be honored for what he did in life.

[Walleye]

97. Weenies!!

[Buddyzbuddy]

99. Have you lost your f.cking minds?

What about all of the women and minorities that sent you to D.C.
This guy was a racist misogynist and you vote to honor him. Were you afraid of getting canceled? You're already polling poorly.
DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND HOW PISSED WE ARE?
THE ONE THING YOU HAD WITHIN YOUR POWER WAS TO EXPRESS YOUR CONSTITUENTS ANGER BY VOTING AGAINST THIS AND YOU LICK MAGA A.S.
F.ck you all.

You dumbsh.ts fell for their trap and you chose wrong. You do take us for granted. You make me sick.

[Wiz Imp]

212. see posts 188 & 192

[LiberalArkie]

100. It is an annual? But it does seem to indicate where this nation is at this point in time.

[Wiz Imp]

211. see post 206

[Bengus81]

103. And if Paul Pelosi would have died from being BEAT WITH A HAMMER TO THE HEAD

Are we supposed to fucking believe that Republicans would honor his LIFE with a day of remembrance? FUCK NO they wouldn't. They just wouldn't have shown up. Maybe Dems could have got it passed but ZERO Republicans would be on record as present and agreeing with the consent.

[kerouac2]

105. wth? regardless of cause of death, awful humans do not deserve this.

they could have made it gun violence victims remembrance day...

[bluestarone]

107. At the very least the Democrats should have ADDED ALL school shootings to

The vote!! WTF are they thinking??

[angrychair]

111. Have we heard anything

About the justification or reasoning they voted for this?

[walkingman]

113. I'm surprised the Magat crowd doesn't want a national holiday for him.

[Stinky The Clown]

114. Maybe call it Bullies and Cowards Day

[twodogsbarking]

115. Oct 14 is party time. Let's boogie.

[leftstreet]

116. When the go low, we give them a Holiday !!!

[Wiz Imp]

213. There is no Holiday.

[Smilo]

119. Grrrrr

[twodogsbarking]

123. Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do and die: Into the valley of Death

[rsdsharp]

124. Good Lord! Two weeks ago 70% of the country couldn't have picked this guy out of a lineup.

[sop]

125. A Democrat should have at least stood and recited Kirk's own words from the well of the Senate,

to honor and commemorate the man, of course. How could any Republican object to that?

[bluescribbler]

126. WTAF?

nt

[Pachamama]

128. Horst Wessel Day

Heb die pfanne hoch

[Dawson Leery]

129. As you said.

[spanone]

131. 😡

[blm]

132. Right before the next No Kings Marches so left will be blamed for breaking the FAKE 'PEACE'

the Republican lie machine will have manufactured.

Sorry, but, DC Dems can be the most naive people and easily manipulated by the GOP at times like this.

Terry Schiavo to the nth degree.

[lapucelle]

133. The headline is inaccurate rage bait, and the Economic Times is a right wing source

Last edited Fri Sep 19, 2025, 02:15 PM - Edit history (1)

that routinely fails fact checks.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-economic-times/

[lapucelle]

135. NO DEMOCRAT VOTED FOR THE RESOLUTION because no vote was taken.

The resolution was "approved" by unanimous consent with no roll call vote. We don't even know how many Democrats were in the chamber when the resolution was approved without a vote.

Who benefits from the right wing rag's rage bait headline?

Cui bono?

Not Democrats.

[Mr.WeRP]

143. Mincing cowardly words are we? Typical cover for nonsense

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-resolution/403/all-actions?overview=closed#tabs

Action was a Voice Vote, no objections with current status as Agreed to By Senate.

In other words, UNANIMOUS.

[lapucelle]

167. Wait, do I still stand accused of *slandering* the the right-wing, fake news source?

Is that in addition to or instead of *cowardly mincing of words* for pointing out that according to Senate rules and Robert's Rules of Order a "unanimous vote" and "unanimous consent" are two distinctly different things?

So to review:
- The Economic Times is right-wing, fake news trash
- A resolution and a bill are two different things
- A unanimous vote and unanimous consent are two different things
- There was no "unanimous vote" in the Senate on the Kirk resolution
- I am one person, not a "we", although the quizzical flourish at the end of the question was super dramactic.

Query:
In the annals of the Crime of Insisting on Facts and Reputable Sources, which is the more serious crime, "mincing cowardly words" or slandering a right wing, fake news source?

[Cha]

205. Who are you calling "cowardly", Mr Werp?

"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

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

[lapucelle]

238. It appears that it's cowardly to call out right wing, fake news sources and the lies

that they tell.

My motto is not "Never let facts and truth get in the way of bashing Democrats".

Mahalo, my friend.

[Cha]

262. That's a Good Motto to have.. It goes Well

with Fighting FOR Our Democracy. Which I know is your Goal That I Appreciate So Incredibly Much!

Kindred Spirits!

[fujiyamasan]

144. The financial times is hardly right wing

That is nonsense. It is hardly the WSJ.

Besides, it doesn’t matter. The problem is with dem leadership and actually countering this canonization of Kirk.

[lapucelle]

161. The OP cites the Economic Times, not the Financial Times. I corrected my headline.

======================================

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

Overall, we rate the Economic Times Right-Center biased and Questionable based on numerous failed fact checks.

Detailed Report

Reasoning: Numerous Failed Fact Checks, Fake News
Bias Rating: RIGHT-CENTER (3.2)
Factual Reporting: MIXED (5.5)
Country: India
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MODERATE FREEDOM
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-economic-times/

[fujiyamasan]

166. The Economic times is a sensationalistic Indian newspaper

I’m familiar with Indian news, and I question the credibility of many of their newspapers. They have a few good ones though.

Much of their media takes a very pro government stance. I fear our own media is going the same direction.

I really wouldn’t place the paper on the American left-right political spectrum though. Their politics just don’t apply to us for the most part.

I didn’t check whether this article was an original by them or a feed from another agency. Sometimes their reporters won’t understand American political nuances, especially with parliamentary and legislative procedures and votes.

[lapucelle]

169. I stand accused of *slandering* the Economic Times for calling out the inaccuracy of its rage bait headline.

Thank you for your insights.

[Wiz Imp]

214. see posts 188 & 192

Of all things to get outraged about, this is not one of them

[Mr.WeRP]

147. Inaccurate yet you provide no evidence than to slander the source?

Here is the senate bill link:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-resolution/403/all-actions?overview=closed#tabs

Voice vote, no objections and AGREED TO IN SENATE. In other words, Unanimous!

[lapucelle]

152. To begin with, it was a resolution, not a bill, and no roll call vote was taken.

No Democrat voted for the resolution. It was not approved unanimously; it was approved by unanimous consent.

Difference from unanimous vote

Action taken by unanimous consent does not necessarily mean that it was taken by a unanimous vote. It does not necessarily mean that every member of the body would have voted in favor of the proposal. It may mean that members feeling that it would be useless to oppose a matter would simply acquiesce.

For example, passing legislation via unanimous consent does not require that every member of a legislature, a majority of members or even a quorum of representatives to be present to vote. Unanimous consent merely requires that no representative of those present has asked to take a recorded vote or has requested quorum verification.

For that reason, a claim that a piece of legislation was passed "unanimously", when it was really passed via "unanimous consent", can be misleading as to its level of support.

=====================================

I'm sure what to make of the charge of *slandering* a right wing source characterized as "questionable", but I am curious as to how it wound up here at DU.

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

Overall, we rate the Economic Times Right-Center biased and Questionable based on numerous failed fact checks.


Detailed Report

Reasoning: Numerous Failed Fact Checks, Fake News
Bias Rating: RIGHT-CENTER (3.2)
Factual Reporting: MIXED (5.5)
Country: India
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MODERATE FREEDOM
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-economic-times/

[lostincalifornia]

159. It seems very unlikely. I doubt Sanders voted for this, and also other Senate Democrats also

would not vote for this also.

Total distortion I think.

[Hotler]

138. Boo, boo, boo, boo,

[Blue Owl]

139. WTF

[fujiyamasan]

145. The way the party is doing

There’s got going to be a base left. Not sure who they’re trying to pander to.

[La Coliniere]

148. Dispiriting

[LudwigPastorius]

150. It will be a good day, set aside, to reflect upon....

what a racist asshole he was.

[Joinfortmill]

151. What the holy hell? They expect us to vote for them?

[LudwigPastorius]

153. This will go down in the annals of history as being even more consequential than...

National Marina Day!

https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/senate-resolution/217/text

[Bluetus]

175. I assume they worked across the aisle day and night to get that landmark legislation passed

[sakabatou]

157. Ugh....

[DownriverDem]

158. Hate it, but

having the MAGAs and MSM obsessing about who didn't vote for it would suck up too much air.

[bluestarone]

165. Remember RETHUGS are figuring out what we hate most. THEN

DOING IT!! Gonna be a long 3 years or maybe for eternity. THIS is killing me.

[Passages]

168. Shameful.

Republicans will never take responsibility for the level of gun shootings in this country, especially now.

They will never acknowledge Kirk as a white supremacist, especially now...this whitewashes Kirk.

[onenote]

173. Point of clarification. It's an abomination, but its not a law and its not permanent.

It's a resolution, not a statute. And its a one-time thing without force of law.

That doesn't mean it's not an inappropriate abomination, but let's not make it into something its not.

Link to resolution:

https://www.rickscott.senate.gov/services/files/993626FC-E3F5-4014-A16A-E1681E9CACBE

[Quiet Em]

177. Senate Democrats did not vote unanimously for the Republican's Charlie Kirk Day stunt

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.

[mdbl]

178. Disgusting.

That's all.

[BigmanPigman]

179. AND on Oct., 18th US citizens plan 2,000+ NO KINGS protests!

The fucking moron is even more stupid than I thought (how can you be more stupid than 100% but he somehow manages to outdo himself in this department).

Currently there are over 2,000 NO KINGS protests planned for Oct 18th, one month from now.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220403528

The NO KINGS protest on June 14th (tRump's birthday and his grand show of military tanks ripping up the streets of DC for his massive ego) had 2,000 protests and millions of marchers. It was the largest mass protest in US history.

The NO KINGS Oct. 18th protest already has over 2,000 protests planned with 4 more weeks to go!

His "Day of Remembrance" will drive even more people to protest. Hs really is a fucking moron.

tRump's "Remembrance Day" will bomb as much as his birthday bash. I guarantee that "Remembrance Day" will piss even more Americans off and drive even more citizens to the NO KINGS protest 4 days after his shit show.

No Kings https://share.google/bns3cEKjL6vtt8joj0

?si=C-KG3NQt-BvEjlmo

[usonian]

180. But will they honor his last wish?

[Historic NY]

181. Should play some of his greatest clips

[MrWowWow]

207. Garbage In EQUALS Garbage Out

GIGO

[dem4decades]

209. I quit, thanks for nothing.

[MichMan]

215. Can't believe all the angst over a stupid resolution

Congress passes them all the time to designate things like recognizing the KC Chiefs for winning the Super Bowl, the 75th Anniversary of NASCAR, or for "National Agriculture Day"

[onenote]

232. Yeah, but...

I agree that as a resolution, it doesn't carry the weight of law. But what it says, and what may follow from it is potentially concerning. The resolution "encourages educational institutions, civic organizations, and citizens across the United States to observe this day with appropriate programs, activities, prayers, and ceremonies that promote civic engagement and the principles of faith, liberty, and democracy that Charlie Kirk championed."

I have no doubt that some schools, "civic" organizations, and businesses will use the resolution as the basis for holding tributes to Kirk on Oct.14 and I have no doubt that in some instances, they will attempt to impose consequences on those who don't protest or don't participate. I wouldn't be surprised to see someone get fired from their job or suspended from school for not complying.

[IzzaNuDay]

219. BOO! HISS!

what a load of crap! Disgusting!
I will complain to my rep and senators.
this was the classic “peace before truth” paradigm.
don’t cause conflict by voting no…

[Emile]

229. Will they force employers to give workers the

day off with pay?

If not, it will be ignored.

[onenote]

231. No. It doesn't force anyone to do anything.

It "encourages educational institutions, civic organizations, and citizens across the United States to observe this day with appropriate programs, activities, prayers, and ceremonies that promote civic engagement and the principles of faith, liberty, and democracy that Charlie Kirk championed."

I fully expect that some "educational institutions and civic organizations" will have moments of silence or possibly some other plans for paying tribute to Kirk. Some businesses may do so also. Will students, employees, etc. be free to ignore such events? It will get interesting. If my place of employment or school was planning something like that, I'd call in sick that day or otherwise find reason to be absent.

[lonely bird]

233. Hmmm

I don’t give a flying fuck at a rolling donut whether not this performative bullshit was binding or whether it set up a permanent day or any other bullshit regarding the excrement known as Charlie Kirk. He was disgusting. His family did not deserve what happened to him although his wife, it appears, is moving to cash in on her sudden notoriety. Perhaps that is just an emotional response but I actually doubt it.

Beyond that? Republicans are disgusting, vile, lacking any moral center and any other descriptors you may like to add. They are the dark underbelly that has always been in America and the stupidity of the electorate brought them out into the light where they are flourishing.

So, no, I don’t care about the actual circumstances of this performative bullshit.

Fuck Republicans with a rusty rasp.

[DenaliDemocrat]

236. This is fucking stupid

Eom

[Donman]

257. Celebrate Remberance Day for the One and Only. Orange Asshole Day on June 14th, too.

[republianmushroom]

258. My remembrance will be 'thank God and grayhound your GONE'.

[GoodRaisin]

261. Sorry. I wouldn't be lowering my flag. Even if I had one.

[durablend]

267. I'll be sitting on the toilet taking a dump that day.

[flying_wahini]

276. Hope we can take this off our calendars later. I would hate to have to look at this very year.

Expungement of this BS.

[rzemanfl]

277. Unanimous consent is nothing more than

admitting the fascists have the votes.