Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Most of my social media is just silent about it more than anything


Same. There's not much to say. It's sad.


On blue sky a lot of people posting about how sad it is, worrying about how the GOP is already talking so openly about “retribution”…

On Twitter, lots of libs talking about how terrible it is, newsy stuff and posts promoted by the algorithm saying really scary stuff about the need to hurt liberals.

So yeah there is some messed up stuff being said online, but I haven’t seen any celebrating.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:MSNBC has APOLOGIZED for “inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable” comments made on air after Charlie Kirk was shot.

Statement from MSNBC president Rebecca Kutler:

“During our breaking news coverage of the shooting of Charlie Kirk, Matthew Dowd made comments that were inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable. We apologize for his statements, as has he. There is no place for violence in America, political or otherwise.”


Good. You’d never hear this from Fox.


Fox didn’t disparage him. MSNBC did.


How is quoting Kirk disparaging him?


When news of the shooting first came out, the guy on MSNBC suggested that maybe it was a supporter of Kirk’s shooting a gun in celebration.

It was a stupid thing to say in the first place, and was even more offensive when the dust settled and the facts of what had happened emerged.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:My teens are very upset, although I had never heard of him before today. I’m in Arlington.


He is very popular with teenage boys, I would go as far to say that is his main demographic.


My younger teen (14) son hadn't heard of Kirk before today. I'm curious if you ask a teen boy, what about Kirk appealed to them. I'm asking genuinely, I would really like to understand.


He didn’t hate teen boys for their identities. That’s it. I don’t even think a lot of his fans necessarily agreed with his politics. They were just so desperate for some political/media figure that didn’t hate them for who they are.


Oh no. Teen boys absolutely agree with his politics. Mine and their friends are prime examples


Some, yes. But he had a lot of teen boy fans that didn’t agree with his politics but just liked him, because he was civil and also didn’t hate teen boys for being teen boys.


He was a lot of things but that’s not how most people would describe him. Gleefully provocative - a kind of happy warrior… that’s what teen boys like - he looked like had so much fun trolling and teasing his opponents…
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:My teens are very upset, although I had never heard of him before today. I’m in Arlington.


He is very popular with teenage boys, I would go as far to say that is his main demographic.


My younger teen (14) son hadn't heard of Kirk before today. I'm curious if you ask a teen boy, what about Kirk appealed to them. I'm asking genuinely, I would really like to understand.


He didn’t hate teen boys for their identities. That’s it. I don’t even think a lot of his fans necessarily agreed with his politics. They were just so desperate for some political/media figure that didn’t hate them for who they are.


Oh no. Teen boys absolutely agree with his politics. Mine and their friends are prime examples


Some, yes. But he had a lot of teen boy fans that didn’t agree with his politics but just liked him, because he was civil and also didn’t hate teen boys for being teen boys.


He was respectful in conversations with people who disagreed with him. I don’t think teen boys see that happening all that often.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:MSNBC has APOLOGIZED for “inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable” comments made on air after Charlie Kirk was shot.

Statement from MSNBC president Rebecca Kutler:

“During our breaking news coverage of the shooting of Charlie Kirk, Matthew Dowd made comments that were inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable. We apologize for his statements, as has he. There is no place for violence in America, political or otherwise.”


Good. You’d never hear this from Fox.


Fox didn’t disparage him. MSNBC did.


How is quoting Kirk disparaging him?


When news of the shooting first came out, the guy on MSNBC suggested that maybe it was a supporter of Kirk’s shooting a gun in celebration.

It was a stupid thing to say in the first place, and was even more offensive when the dust settled and the facts of what had happened emerged.


It’s an example of uniformed blather and time filling but it’s not offensive or a serious thought.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:The shooter appears to be quite the skilled marksman. Military traIning?

You’d be surprised. My aunt is a realtor who got into guns because of the dangers of doing open houses solo and she is now NRA’s highest level of marksmanship. A lot of random people out here with a lot of guns.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:"I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights" - Charlie Kirk, 2023


The quote was in response to having an armed citizenry and liberty.

I hope they find the thug who shot him and lock him up for the rest of his life.

Prayers for Charlie Kirk.


The collateral damage of having an armed citizenry and liberty is violence like this. And the violence that resulted in the school shooting in Colorado today.

If he had been talking about lawful citizens who use guns legally, there wouldn’t be any unfortunate gun deaths, right? He meant that some unjustified gun deaths are acceptable because freedom to own guns is more important. It’s a rational argument. It’s the same reason why we allow 16 year olds to drive and do not have breathalyzer devices on all cars. Some traffic fatalities are acceptable because freedom to drive/drink and drive is more important. Some smoking deaths are acceptable because freedom to choose to smoke is more important.

Don’t pretend that he meant anything else.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Most of my social media is just silent about it more than anything


Same. There's not much to say. It's sad.


On blue sky a lot of people posting about how sad it is, worrying about how the GOP is already talking so openly about “retribution”…

On Twitter, lots of libs talking about how terrible it is, newsy stuff and posts promoted by the algorithm saying really scary stuff about the need to hurt liberals.

So yeah there is some messed up stuff being said online, but I haven’t seen any celebrating.


Politicians are going to have to openly denounce the edge lords online. A small amount of people are destroying it for a lot of other people.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Far left politicians such as Barack Obama, Gavin Newsome, and JB Pritzker are rightly condemning this and calling it despicable and sickening, without any hesitation or qualification, and certainly without the sarcasm and giggles that the pathetic sicko's on DCUM are expressing.


I’m sorry, did you just call those three centrists far left?

I’m glad that they condemned it, but please. Get real.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Most of my social media is just silent about it more than anything


Same. There's not much to say. It's sad.


On blue sky a lot of people posting about how sad it is, worrying about how the GOP is already talking so openly about “retribution”…

On Twitter, lots of libs talking about how terrible it is, newsy stuff and posts promoted by the algorithm saying really scary stuff about the need to hurt liberals.

So yeah there is some messed up stuff being said online, but I haven’t seen any celebrating.


Politicians are going to have to openly denounce the edge lords online. A small amount of people are destroying it for a lot of other people.


I’m proud to say the Dems have been doing this all afternoon. Our party may not be in power but we have an opportunity to lead.
Anonymous
Another interesting thing - the fbi just rereleased the suspect they had. Back to square one. Why isn’t anyone claiming this? If it was political, we’d be hearing buzz from one side or the other like we did immediately in Minnesota.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:"I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights" - Charlie Kirk, 2023


The quote was in response to having an armed citizenry and liberty.

I hope they find the thug who shot him and lock him up for the rest of his life.

Prayers for Charlie Kirk.


The collateral damage of having an armed citizenry and liberty is violence like this. And the violence that resulted in the school shooting in Colorado today.

If he had been talking about lawful citizens who use guns legally, there wouldn’t be any unfortunate gun deaths, right? He meant that some unjustified gun deaths are acceptable because freedom to own guns is more important. It’s a rational argument. It’s the same reason why we allow 16 year olds to drive and do not have breathalyzer devices on all cars. Some traffic fatalities are acceptable because freedom to drive/drink and drive is more important. Some smoking deaths are acceptable because freedom to choose to smoke is more important.

Don’t pretend that he meant anything else.

The difference is that cars are made for transportation. Guns are made for one purpose: to kill.
Anonymous
Inside job. The next election is for a Trump, not Kirk.


“ Mr. Piskadlo said that the setup of the amphitheater struck him as unsafe before the event. Despite a heavy security presence, he noticed “there were a lot of ledges, points where this could happen,” he said. “This seemed really preventable. I’m kind of angry at the organizers.”

-NYT
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Another interesting thing - the fbi just rereleased the suspect they had. Back to square one. Why isn’t anyone claiming this? If it was political, we’d be hearing buzz from one side or the other like we did immediately in Minnesota.


They probably can’t figure out who it is. It took what like four days to find Mangione?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:MSNBC has APOLOGIZED for “inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable” comments made on air after Charlie Kirk was shot.

Statement from MSNBC president Rebecca Kutler:

“During our breaking news coverage of the shooting of Charlie Kirk, Matthew Dowd made comments that were inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable. We apologize for his statements, as has he. There is no place for violence in America, political or otherwise.”


Good. You’d never hear this from Fox.


Fox didn’t disparage him. MSNBC did.


New poster here. Knock off the fake outrage. Matthew Dowd is a political analyst. He's not a reporter. He messed up. The network apologized. He apologized. I guess you've never expressed any strong opinions yourself, eh?
Forum Index » Political Discussion
Go to: