I'D POISON TRUMP & KIM JONG-UN ... If They Asked Me to Cater

Just another in the long line of so-called celebrities who fantasize about murdering the President of the United States...



Madonna wants to blow up the White House. Kathy Griffin thinks it would be "funny" to decapitate the POTUS. Johnny Depp would do it the old fashioned way...shoot him.

Bourdain would use hemlock on No. 45 (and, in fairness, also Kim Jong-Un).

For those not schooled in the finer homicidal culinary arts...

Conium maculatum (hemlock or poison hemlock) is a highly poisonous biennial herbaceous flowering plant in the carrot family Apiaceae, native to Europe and North Africa. A hardy plant capable of living in a variety of environments, hemlock is widely naturalized in locations outside its native range.

Hemlock

At what point are Americans going to start exacting a real price (at the box office, at Stubhub, at the book stores/amazon, in viewership, etc.) for these clowns who think it is entertaining to suggest that the solution to an election result they disagree with is to murder the people's choice(s) for occupant of office?

In Bourdain's case, maybe just take away his cigarettes and alcohol...

Bourdain the Buffoon

He looks like he's really impacted by Trump being president. Poor little guy.

Maybe he just needs a warm cozy hug in a small cell..

the hell is wrong with people of so called celeb status being so distant from reality, I wonder.. could it be their big fat bank accounts keeping them in la la land..

meh, besides never heard of him. just looks like a wannabe twat. successful mind you, in that.

a reply to: mobiusmale

Luckily, he still has the right to say things like this. I hope he always can.
I'v herd he is an ass, but I still enjoyed his shows.

At what point are Americans going to start exacting a real price (at the box office, at Stubhub, at the book stores/amazon, in viewership, etc.) for these clowns who think it is entertaining to suggest that the solution to an election result they disagree with is to murder the people's choice(s) for occupant of office?

I think he was saying it to be a smart ass and humorous. Not sure what the big deal is here.

Guess people trigger too easily these days.

a reply to: badw0lf

meh, besides never heard of him. just looks like a wannabe twat

Yep, his wit and sarcasm are amateur at best, somewhat like his cooking.

Speaking of cooking, I'm sure he is still dancing with Mr. Brownstone, so taking his comments seriously would be asinine.

a reply to: mobiusmale

I had no love for Obama but I would never even joke about killing him.
Some lines should never be crossed.

Sounded like a joke to me - just trying to be funny and it was quite a witty answer to the question.

As for Depp - he was just drunk or high or both. Can't take that too seriously either.

There are some lunatics that actually do wish death on Trump (or anyone who disagrees with them) ... they tend to run around in black masks and smash things up in childish rages. Should be more focused on them that celebrities.

a reply to: mobiusmale


This young woman sums up celebrities and their political opinions quite well.

a reply to: mobiusmale

At what point are Americans going to start exacting a real price (at the box office, at Stubhub, at the book stores/amazon, in viewership, etc.) for these clowns who think it is entertaining to suggest that the solution to an election result they disagree with is to murder the people's choice(s) for occupant of office?

Hopefully never. Freedom of speech shouldn't have a price. No matter how stupid people find it.

If it happened, what next? A price for saying evolution doesn't happen, global warming is a myth, white bread is better than 50/50?

The guy is an old alcoholic, coke head and heroin addict...So definitely someone who's opinion all should value.

a reply to: mobiusmale

Secret service should take this idiot to a place where he won't need those sunglasses anymore.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: mobiusmale

At what point are Americans going to start exacting a real price (at the box office, at Stubhub, at the book stores/amazon, in viewership, etc.) for these clowns who think it is entertaining to suggest that the solution to an election result they disagree with is to murder the people's choice(s) for occupant of office?

Hopefully never. Freedom of speech shouldn't have a price. No matter how stupid people find it.

If it happened, what next? A price for saying evolution doesn't happen, global warming is a myth, white bread is better than 50/50?

Of course there should be a price - in the court of public opinion.

You should never be prevented from saying what you want (with the "fire!" exception of course), but you should expect that things once spoken will have one of three possible reactions from those hearing your speech...positive - neutral - negative.

If your speech gets a positive public reaction, you can expect your fortunes to rise.
If your speech gets a neutral reaction, then carry one.
If your speech gets a net negative reaction, you should expect fewer people to want to associate with you - or to buy what you are selling.

Free speech includes the right of the listener to express their freedom of speech in reaction...which can include comments on social media (for example), or the decision not to listen to the speaker any more, or to frequent their arena of business.

a reply to: network dude
Actually, making a terroristic threat against the president is not protected as free speech. He's clearly attention seeking, but may not enjoy getting a visit from the Secret Service.

a reply to: mobiusmale

And it's the publics freedom of choice to do so or not.

But you're wanting to punish people for their opinion (freedom of speech) by taking things away from them.

There's a huge difference between making a credible threat of genuine violence, and making a throwaway one liner gag that might or might not be funny.



Lots of folk complain about celebs getting 'triggered', but heavens, so many people on ATS get even more triggered by celebs making throwaway gags or comments.

originally posted by: introvert

At what point are Americans going to start exacting a real price (at the box office, at Stubhub, at the book stores/amazon, in viewership, etc.) for these clowns who think it is entertaining to suggest that the solution to an election result they disagree with is to murder the people's choice(s) for occupant of office?

I think he was saying it to be a smart ass and humorous. Not sure what the big deal is here.

Guess people trigger too easily these days.

Quite clearly he was trying to be witty, or clever.

The problem is that on the left side of society, exponentially increasingly since Trump's victory in November, it is not only okay...but fashionable (oddly)...for celeb types to openly call for violence (up to and including murder) against the elected chief executive of the country, and those who supported him, or those who are fellow elected Republicans.

Jest or not, just like there should be zero tolerance for Nazi-related associations or comments, so should there be for references to doing violence against elected officials (or people who simply wear a different political stripe).

For so long as democracy still exists, the only use-of-sword that should be advocated is the use-of-pen in the ballot box at the end of the next election cycle.

For example. I think Justin Trudeau is a complete moron and a wannabe-like-my-father Prime Minister of Canada (who never-will-be). Canadians who agree with me are not calling (so far as I have ever heard) for his untimely demise in various ingenious ways (either seriously or just for yuks) - but are just not so patiently waiting for the end of his current mandate, so that he can be sent back into political obscurity (those who disagree with me, of course, are looking forward to the day they can give him a new electoral mandate).

See...not so hard. Don't like a politician? Send him packing on the next election day - don't inject the common culture with the idea that the solution is to kill pols that we don't like - because some people might just decide that they will be heroes in the common culture if they do so (people like James T. Hodgkinson).

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: mobiusmale

And it's the publics freedom of choice to do so or not.

But you're wanting to punish people for their opinion (freedom of speech) by taking things away from them.

Let me try to simplify it for you, by use of an anecdote.

A family goes to a restaurant. One of the kids orders a double burger and fries, and the waiter says to the Dad, "Maybe your son should consider ordering the salad...he is already a real porker. And your wife just might want to stick with a glass of water "

Free speech freely spoken to be sure - maybe it would have even been true (or very good advice).

However, most likely (a) the restaurant will not get a dinner order at all on this visit, (b) that family will not likely ever come back again and (c) the family will tell all of their friends and extended family how horrible the service is at that restaurant.

Say what you want, it's a free country. But to expect there to be no reaction to/consequences for inappropriate (in some people's opinions) speech is unrealistic.

a reply to: mobiusmale

I never said there would be no reaction. I even said it would be people's freedom of choice to do something or not.

Doesn't mean you should punish someone for stating an opinion. And by punish, I don't mean not listening to them, stop watching their movies or whatever. I mean punish like you suggested by taking away smokes and alcohol from Bourdain.

a reply to: mobiusmale

The problem is that on the left side of society, exponentially increasingly since Trump's victory in November, it is not only okay...but fashionable (oddly)...for celeb types to openly call for violence (up to and including murder) against the elected chief executive of the country, and those who supported him, or those who are fellow elected Republicans.

I think you are taking the comments of the few to pain the entirety of the whole. The vast majority of the Left do not believe it is ok, nor fashionable, to call for violence.

Jest or not, just like there should be zero tolerance for Nazi-related associations or comments, so should there be for references to doing violence against elected officials (or people who simply wear a different political stripe).

What Bourdain said is not a call for violence. What he said is no different than saying he would serve Trump and Kim a turd sandwich. It was a smart ass comment to impart his dislike for both men. He did not call for violence or poisoning of the leaders.

See...not so hard. Don't like a politician? Send him packing on the next election day - don't inject the common culture with the idea that the solution is to kill pols that we don't like - because some people might just decide that they will be heroes in the common culture if they do so (people like James T. Hodgkinson).

That's not what he did here.

Again, I think you are making this out to be much more than it really is.

Who in the hell is this dude anyway as if any of us should care. I guess he is a celebrity of some sort.
This makes a difference to you I guess to bring this little message to the forums.
So I guess he is a celebrity and as such has done in his life something to please the masters of celebrity culture enough that his words gather attention more than Joe Blow on the street.
But to me he is Joe Blow on the street and what he says should have no more appeal than Joe's. And I will bet you that there are plenty of Joe's who would love to do away with Trump. I know there sure were plenty of Joe's who wanted to do away with Obama.

So my suggestion is STOP paying any attention to celebrity at all. To me, it makes no sense to point out the foibles of certain celebrities without condemning the entire culture of celebrity. What is it anyway but a bunch of people who have managed to crawl into some niche that allows the entertainment arm of the capitalist system to memorize the masses.