JD Vance jokes about killing civilians as Kimmel gets yanked off air

JD Vance Jokes About Killing Civilians as Kimmel Gets Yanked Off Air In a shocking display of insensitive humor, Vice President JD Vance made light of the possibility of killing civilians during a rally in Michigan on Wednesday. The remarks came just hours after late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel was abruptly cut off the air for making similar comments about the US military's actions. According to eyewitnesses, Vance appeared to joke about the US potentially targeting civilians while discussing the recent military strikes on boats in international waters. "I was talking to Secretary Hegseth, and you know what he said? He said, you know what, Mr. Vice President? We don't see any of these drug boats coming into our country," Vance said. "They've completely stopped." He then added, "And I said, I know why. I would stop, too. Hell, I wouldn't go fishing right now in that area." The comments sparked outrage among critics, who accused Vance of making light of the possibility of civilian casualties. "This is a disturbing display of insensitivity and a lack of respect for human life," said Sarah Jones, a spokesperson for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). "The Vice President's remarks are not only unacceptable but also reflect a broader culture of disregard for human rights within the Trump administration." Vance's comments were made in response to recent military strikes on boats in international waters. The US has claimed that the passengers were members of Tren de Aragua and were carrying large quantities of cocaine and fentanyl. However, critics have questioned the accuracy of these claims and raised concerns about the potential for civilian casualties. The incident comes just days after Jimmy Kimmel was cut off the air during his late-night talk show for making similar comments about the US military's actions. "I think we should be careful not to get too caught up in the politics of it all," Kimmel said before being abruptly cut off by his producers. The controversy surrounding Vance's remarks has sparked a heated debate about the role of humor in politics and the limits of free speech. "While humor can be a powerful tool for commentary, it is not an excuse to make light of serious issues like human rights abuses," said Dr. Emily Chen, a professor of communications at Harvard University. As the controversy continues to unfold, the White House has remained silent on the matter, fueling speculation about the administration's stance on free speech and human rights. Background: The US military has been conducting operations in international waters as part of its efforts to combat drug trafficking. However, critics have raised concerns about the potential for civilian casualties and the lack of transparency surrounding these operations. Additional Perspectives: "This is a classic example of the Trump administration's disregard for human rights and the rule of law," said Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). "We need to hold our leaders accountable for their actions and ensure that they are upholding the highest standards of integrity and compassion." "I understand that humor can be a powerful tool, but it is not an excuse to make light of serious issues like human rights abuses," said Dr. Chen. "We need to have a more nuanced conversation about the role of humor in politics and the limits of free speech." Current Status: The controversy surrounding Vance's remarks continues to unfold, with many calling for greater transparency and accountability from the Trump administration. As the debate rages on, one thing is clear: the line between humor and insensitivity has been blurred, leaving many to wonder what the future holds for free speech in politics. Next Developments: The White House is expected to issue a statement on the matter soon, but it remains unclear whether Vance will face any consequences for his remarks. In the meantime, critics are calling for greater transparency and accountability from the administration, while others are urging caution and nuance in the debate about free speech and humor in politics. *Reporting by Motherjones.*