Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is going to happen to the right wing narrative that this is the "radical left's" fault if the shooter turns out to be another white right wing gun nut?

It won’t be. I am 100% certain of that.

What about the certainty over the two "trump assassination attempts" which were not leftists? Let's temper things down, please.

[Anonymous]

Question for those who say Charlie Lirk was a great person, nothing but respectful, only trying to do good in the world…

Do you think it’s a good thing that his organization (Turning Point USA) maintained a “Professor Watch List”? That list has led to people getting death threats and needing security to do their jobs. Would you want to be on such a list? Would that make you feel safe? Do you think putting people on a public list that results in them being targeted by unstable
individuals is a Christian thing to do?

I am really trying to understand how people can sort of paper over documented harmful actions like this. And I don’t wish to hear a whataboutism type argument about something a liberal did because that’s not the question at hand. It just seems to me that people are cherry picking certain actions and words to only paint CK in a good light simply because CK was on “their team”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is going to happen to the right wing narrative that this is the "radical left's" fault if the shooter turns out to be another white right wing gun nut?

It won’t be. I am 100% certain of that.

What about the certainty over the two "trump assassination attempts" which were not leftists? Let's temper things down, please.

You honestly believe Trump supporters are behind shooting Trump?

I mean, use some critical thinking skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wall Street Journal confirms a leaked document from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) reveals that the weapon found near the site of Charlie Kirk’s assassination was equipped with cartridges engraved with symbols and phrases tied to transgender and Antifa ideology.

So, basically another white male shooter. Color me surprised. I’m also amused that the far right only recognizes transgender folks when tied to mass shootings. Swimming? Oh, he’s a guy! Shooting? Transgender for sure.

Mmmkay.

Still a guy. That’s the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wall Street Journal confirms a leaked document from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) reveals that the weapon found near the site of Charlie Kirk’s assassination was equipped with cartridges engraved with symbols and phrases tied to transgender and Antifa ideology.

If true, who's to say this isn't a false flag?

You’re totally right because the trans community doesn’t have any recent history of violence and shooting people……

Now compare how many white CIS men have been shooters to all the trans people.

IF there’s trans-antifa writing a on the shells, Im certain this was a set up. This is our Reichstag Fire.

Cointelpro 2025.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wall Street Journal confirms a leaked document from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) reveals that the weapon found near the site of Charlie Kirk’s assassination was equipped with cartridges engraved with symbols and phrases tied to transgender and Antifa ideology.

Nothing from this administration is believable. And...what is to say it wasn't a right winger who aggregated those materials for the very purpose of fomenting division and strife?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kirk stepped out of line and said the Epstein files should be released. That could have upset some very powerful people.

I think that this is very related.

FFS.

You idiot.

I think it is just as plausible that someone who feels betrayed by Charlie Kirk (Loomer fanatic, anyone?) or who feels he isn't loyal enough to Trump would kill him as much as it s plausible it is someone from the left. After all, the right is well known for retributive violence.

The right is a lot less doctrinaire than the left. Your idea doesn't seem likely at all.

The right is so doctrinaire that they’re firing every competent person in the government for nonsense reasons, including the head of the FBI in Utah. And you didn’t see that Loomer basically cast Kirk out of the tent weeks ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question for those who say Charlie Lirk was a great person, nothing but respectful, only trying to do good in the world…

Do you think it’s a good thing that his organization (Turning Point USA) maintained a “Professor Watch List”? That list has led to people getting death threats and needing security to do their jobs. Would you want to be on such a list? Would that make you feel safe? Do you think putting people on a public list that results in them being targeted by unstable
individuals is a Christian thing to do?

I am really trying to understand how people can sort of paper over documented harmful actions like this. And I don’t wish to hear a whataboutism type argument about something a liberal did because that’s not the question at hand. It just seems to me that people are cherry picking certain actions and words to only paint CK in a good light simply because CK was on “their team”.

Please show us a police report describing these death threats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wall Street Journal confirms a leaked document from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) reveals that the weapon found near the site of Charlie Kirk’s assassination was equipped with cartridges engraved with symbols and phrases tied to transgender and Antifa ideology.

If true, who's to say this isn't a false flag?

You’re totally right because the trans community doesn’t have any recent history of violence and shooting people……

Now compare how many white CIS men have been shooters to all the trans people.

IF there’s trans-antifa writing a on the shells, Im certain this was a set up. This is our Reichstag Fire.

Doesn't make sense. If and when the shooter is caught, left wing media will be the first to put their gender identity front and center. Remember the catholic school shooter? Liberal media were tripping over themselves to clarify their pronouns constantly as if that were the most important angle to the story. Conservatives aren't making a fuss over trans in a vacuum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People might not get how big Charlie Kirk really was before his death. He had almost 23 million followers across TikTok, Instagram, Twitter/X, and YouTube, which is about 6 to 7 percent of the U.S. population right now. That is the kind of reach you only see with the biggest voices of a generation. For comparison, MLK had around 10 million active supporters through churches and marches back in 1968, about 5 percent of the population then.

Kirk knew how to use the tools of his time the same way MLK did. King worked through TV and newspapers, Kirk worked through TikTok, podcasts, and social media. Both relied on words, not violence. King pushed peaceful protest, Kirk pushed debate and activism. Up until his death today, Kirk was the face of conservative youth in America, shaping the conversation for millions. You may not know his impact, but it is strong, and many are already equating him to MLK for the conservative movement because of the reach, the speeches, and the nonviolent approach.

Charlie Kirk can only be compared to MLK by people who do not understand, or intentionally elide, the moral content of MLK’s teachings.

“God created us all equal and everyone deserves a seat at the table in America” and “Some people are racially or genetically inferior and do not deserve the same rights as others” are not commensurate positions.

All political assassinations are terrible—they open up the prospect of more violence, which will disproportionately harm people who are most at risk of harm already—but this comparison is absolute nonsense.

This. Charlie Kirk said MLK was “an awful person”. Their viewpoints were completely different.

For the comparison to work, there have to be more than surface similarities. Hitler was also someone who was popular and influential and knew how to work the media.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is going to happen to the right wing narrative that this is the "radical left's" fault if the shooter turns out to be another white right wing gun nut?

It won’t be. I am 100% certain of that.

What about the certainty over the two "trump assassination attempts" which were not leftists? Let's temper things down, please.

You honestly believe Trump supporters are behind shooting Trump?

I mean, use some critical thinking skills.

People who read history and understand human behavior know it’s entirely conceivable that Trump planned that for attention and to help win the election. He would not be the first to do such a thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question for those who say Charlie Lirk was a great person, nothing but respectful, only trying to do good in the world…

Do you think it’s a good thing that his organization (Turning Point USA) maintained a “Professor Watch List”? That list has led to people getting death threats and needing security to do their jobs. Would you want to be on such a list? Would that make you feel safe? Do you think putting people on a public list that results in them being targeted by unstable
individuals is a Christian thing to do?

I am really trying to understand how people can sort of paper over documented harmful actions like this. And I don’t wish to hear a whataboutism type argument about something a liberal did because that’s not the question at hand. It just seems to me that people are cherry picking certain actions and words to only paint CK in a good light simply because CK was on “their team”.

Oh and to be clear I am in no way trying to suggest that CK deserved what happened. There is no justification for murder. I am specifically trying to understand the current effort to paint an image that is not the full picture of what CK did and stood for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wall Street Journal confirms a leaked document from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) reveals that the weapon found near the site of Charlie Kirk’s assassination was equipped with cartridges engraved with symbols and phrases tied to transgender and Antifa ideology.

Nothing from this administration is believable. And...what is to say it wasn't a right winger who aggregated those materials for the very purpose of fomenting division and strife?

Almost like we should wait before jumping to conclusions.

Imagine that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kirk stepped out of line and said the Epstein files should be released. That could have upset some very powerful people.

I think that this is very related.

FFS.

You idiot.

I think it is just as plausible that someone who feels betrayed by Charlie Kirk (Loomer fanatic, anyone?) or who feels he isn't loyal enough to Trump would kill him as much as it s plausible it is someone from the left. After all, the right is well known for retributive violence.

Good lord. We have no idea. Speculating is idiotic and worse than useless—it’s damaging.

The Heritage Foundation released the following words from the organization's president, Kevin Roberts, about the death of Charlie Kirk: “His martyrdom must be a turning point for our country.”

Yes, he said "martyrdom." Remember, we don't even know who killed the man or why.

So, yes, such rhetoric is damaging. Are you outraged at both the PP and the Heritage Foundation?

The killing of the Minnesota politicians didn't warrant a turning point for our country? It's ok for Democrat politicians to be killed, it's only when a right wing pundit gets killed that we need a turning point?

Was this Heritage Foundation clown just trying to incorporate “turning point” into his statement because it was about Charlie Kirk?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for those who say Charlie Lirk was a great person, nothing but respectful, only trying to do good in the world…

Do you think it’s a good thing that his organization (Turning Point USA) maintained a “Professor Watch List”? That list has led to people getting death threats and needing security to do their jobs. Would you want to be on such a list? Would that make you feel safe? Do you think putting people on a public list that results in them being targeted by unstable
individuals is a Christian thing to do?

I am really trying to understand how people can sort of paper over documented harmful actions like this. And I don’t wish to hear a whataboutism type argument about something a liberal did because that’s not the question at hand. It just seems to me that people are cherry picking certain actions and words to only paint CK in a good light simply because CK was on “their team”.

Oh and to be clear I am in no way trying to suggest that CK deserved what happened. There is no justification for murder. I am specifically trying to understand the current effort to paint an image that is not the full picture of what CK did and stood for.

When people die, humans have a custom of saying nice things about them rather than listing their shortcomings.