Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University

[Anonymous]

I will feel a sadness for his kids that he and his supporters wouldn't have felt for mine, because I'm a better man than he was.
But I owe him and his ilk no more than the basic humanity I demand from myself.
And neither do you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is Charlie Kirk's body being flown on Air Force II with a Vice Presidential escort? That's taxpayer money. The more over the top this becomes the more I think Trump had him eliminated. It's a distraction from the Epstein files and I think Kirk called for the release of the files.

Your tin foil hat has restricted blood flow to your brain.

NP do you think it's right or normal that a private citizen is being flown around on a government plane?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are the chances the shooter gets away?

Low. Someone will id him. Unless he has a compound in Idaho ready they will find him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Charlie wasn’t a public official.

Charlie wasn’t a candidate for public office.

Charlie wasn’t a corporate executive, supposedly personally “responsible” for any negative effects of corporate policies.

Charlie wasn’t a foreign diplomat or staff to whom blame for that foreign nation’s policies could be ascribed.

No, Charlie was an advocate for his faith and his political beliefs, as well as for open and cordial debate about both. This was a political assassination at its most basic core - not because someone was angry about a policy that Charlie had enacted, or that he was currently facilitating, or that he might in the future implement - but rather for no other reason than the public expression of his ideas. He was shot because of his discussions about his beliefs and for no other reason; and that should be a wake up call for all of us, right and left.

This will not end well.

X1,000

[Anonymous]

Genuine question: Anyone kind of ready to move on from Charlie Kirk? I am, and I'm a bit surprised by how I feel.

I was shocked by it yesterday, but I'm already sort of losing interest in it (even though I realize the irony of still posting about it).

I've gotten pretty desensitized to violence, thanks to the country's lack of gun control laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charlie wasn’t a public official.

Charlie wasn’t a candidate for public office.

Charlie wasn’t a corporate executive, supposedly personally “responsible” for any negative effects of corporate policies.

Charlie wasn’t a foreign diplomat or staff to whom blame for that foreign nation’s policies could be ascribed.

No, Charlie was an advocate for his faith and his political beliefs, as well as for open and cordial debate about both. This was a political assassination at its most basic core - not because someone was angry about a policy that Charlie had enacted, or that he was currently facilitating, or that he might in the future implement - but rather for no other reason than the public expression of his ideas. He was shot because of his discussions about his beliefs and for no other reason; and that should be a wake up call for all of us, right and left.

This will not end well.

Come on now, there was nothing cordial about the way he “debated.” He argued in bad faith, always.

That doesn’t mean he deserved to be killed — quite the opposite. But let’s not pretend like he was a kind, gentle soul.

So untrue. He was always kind and respectful to those he debated. Quieted the crowd to let them speak. He was a kind man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charlie wasn’t a public official.

Charlie wasn’t a candidate for public office.

Charlie wasn’t a corporate executive, supposedly personally “responsible” for any negative effects of corporate policies.

Charlie wasn’t a foreign diplomat or staff to whom blame for that foreign nation’s policies could be ascribed.

No, Charlie was an advocate for his faith and his political beliefs, as well as for open and cordial debate about both. This was a political assassination at its most basic core - not because someone was angry about a policy that Charlie had enacted, or that he was currently facilitating, or that he might in the future implement - but rather for no other reason than the public expression of his ideas. He was shot because of his discussions about his beliefs and for no other reason; and that should be a wake up call for all of us, right and left.

This will not end well.

Come on now, there was nothing cordial about the way he “debated.” He argued in bad faith, always.

That doesn’t mean he deserved to be killed — quite the opposite. But let’s not pretend like he was a kind, gentle soul.

So untrue. He was always kind and respectful to those he debated. Quieted the crowd to let them speak. He was a kind man.

We can debate this tomorrow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Genuine question: Anyone kind of ready to move on from Charlie Kirk? I am, and I'm a bit surprised by how I feel.

I was shocked by it yesterday, but I'm already sort of losing interest in it (even though I realize the irony of still posting about it).

Yes, ready to move on, especially now that the pics of Trump's drooping mouth at the 9/11 ceremony this morning are circulating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Genuine question: Anyone kind of ready to move on from Charlie Kirk? I am, and I'm a bit surprised by how I feel.

I was shocked by it yesterday, but I'm already sort of losing interest in it (even though I realize the irony of still posting about it).

I've gotten pretty desensitized to violence, thanks to the country's lack of gun control laws.

No way. Not until the 48 hour grace period passes and people don't have to nice about him anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, it’s true. Right wingers are responsible for the vast majority of political violence. Must be something in their white male Christian brains that makes them so prone to violence.

Crusades in the DNA

Hmm. I'm a direct descendant of a Crusader and I don't go around killing people.

according to my brother, so am I.

And you don't go around shooting people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Genuine question: Anyone kind of ready to move on from Charlie Kirk? I am, and I'm a bit surprised by how I feel.

I was shocked by it yesterday, but I'm already sort of losing interest in it (even though I realize the irony of still posting about it).

I've gotten pretty desensitized to violence, thanks to the country's lack of gun control laws.

So you want to move on from his murder before law enforcement catches his killer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Genuine question: Anyone kind of ready to move on from Charlie Kirk? I am, and I'm a bit surprised by how I feel.

I was shocked by it yesterday, but I'm already sort of losing interest in it (even though I realize the irony of still posting about it).

I've gotten pretty desensitized to violence, thanks to the country's lack of gun control laws.

Trump is planning a state funeral according to the WSJ. As long as this is going Trump does nitrogen have to talk about Epstein, Israel attacking 5 countries in one day and Russia sending drones in to Poland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charlie wasn’t a public official.

Charlie wasn’t a candidate for public office.

Charlie wasn’t a corporate executive, supposedly personally “responsible” for any negative effects of corporate policies.

Charlie wasn’t a foreign diplomat or staff to whom blame for that foreign nation’s policies could be ascribed.

No, Charlie was an advocate for his faith and his political beliefs, as well as for open and cordial debate about both. This was a political assassination at its most basic core - not because someone was angry about a policy that Charlie had enacted, or that he was currently facilitating, or that he might in the future implement - but rather for no other reason than the public expression of his ideas. He was shot because of his discussions about his beliefs and for no other reason; and that should be a wake up call for all of us, right and left.

This will not end well.

He had a large influence on a lot of people, and was said to give advice to Trump. Anyone with that kind of influence can be a target.

+1.

Charlie Kirk founded Turning Point USA. Trump, along with many other conservative politicians and commentators, had credited him for securing the young vote in 2024. He was very influential in that space. His company was 100 million dollar a year. This was a targeted attack on free speech and him being a conservative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genuine question: Anyone kind of ready to move on from Charlie Kirk? I am, and I'm a bit surprised by how I feel.

I was shocked by it yesterday, but I'm already sort of losing interest in it (even though I realize the irony of still posting about it).

I've gotten pretty desensitized to violence, thanks to the country's lack of gun control laws.

So you want to move on from his murder before law enforcement catches his killer?

DP yes. When those democrats were attack in Minnesota there was no coverage and no FBI help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is Charlie Kirk's body being flown on Air Force II with a Vice Presidential escort? That's taxpayer money. The more over the top this becomes the more I think Trump had him eliminated. It's a distraction from the Epstein files and I think Kirk called for the release of the files.

I’m afraid they’re going to put him in the Capitol rotunda at this point.