Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so weird but also so predictable that I. Two pages, DCUM goes from “there is no shred of evidence he was trans” to “who cares?”

The FBI has confirmed the partner of the killer is a male to female and they lived together romantically. The partner is cooperating with the FBI and has confirmed this herself.

It certainly explains motive and settles the “actually he was a far right Nazi” question. Can we move on now and accept he was radicalized to the left?

Not touching the furry thing other than that it explains the engravings somewhat. Beyond that, I don’t think it is relevant.

Having a transgender partner doesn’t explain motive. All it establishes is a personal detail about the killer’s life, not why the attack happened. A motive requires evidence that the act was driven by a specific belief system, grievance, or goal. Saying “he dated a trans woman, therefore he was radicalized to the left” is a logical leap — it’s like saying someone who dates a Christian must be motivated by Christianity. Until there’s actual proof, like writings, statements, or affiliations tying the violence to left-wing ideology, the partner’s gender identity doesn’t settle anything about motive.

Missing the forest for the trees…we need gun control, mental health resources, empathy.

Most murderers are not mentally ill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charlie Kirk was a devout Christian, a family man, and never committed a criminal act in his life. No wonder the left is celebrating his death - he represents everything they despise.

Can you post a video of the left celebrating?

The right is just eating the right, sad, fix yourselves.

Besides garbage you like keep posting, everyone is grieving and having peaceful vigils. All over the country and the world.

No arson.
No looting.
No attacks.
No vandalism.
No shooting.

Peaceful vigils all around.

[Anonymous]

I'm not seeing anything on any reputable major news outlets that the perpetrator had a roommate who is transgender.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charlie should not be mourned. He was terribly racist against black people. No politician who represents Americans should even acknowledge him or speak his name.

Charlie Kirk has repeatedly made racist remarks targeting Black people and Black communities. He said of Michelle Obama, Joy Reid, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, “You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to be taken somewhat seriously.” He declared, “If I see a Black pilot, I’m gonna be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified,’” and, “If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action.” He sneered, “If you’re a WNBA, pot-smoking, Black lesbian, do you get treated better than a United States marine?” He ranted that “prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact, it’s happening more and more.” He has dismissed Martin Luther King Jr. as “awful” and “not a good person,” claiming King is only admired because he “said one thing he didn’t actually believe,” and he described the “myth” around MLK as having “grown totally out of control.” He called the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “a huge mistake” and said it was used as an “anti-white weapon.” He has repeatedly blamed Black communities for social problems, describing Chicago gun violence as “a lack of father problem in the Black community” and attributing it to a “broken culture problem.”

None of us are mourning him. He was a terrible human being but did not deserve to be killed for his screwed up beliefs.

In this country we are allowed to believe what we want even if we are wrong.

What a lot of people seem to have issue with is that this was a political assassination that otherwise good and sane people are celebrating.

How did we get here?

Who said they are no longer good and sane?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charlie Kirk was a devout Christian, a family man, and never committed a criminal act in his life. No wonder the left is celebrating his death - he represents everything they despise.

Again, where are you seeing "the left" "celebrating" his death? I don't think you get it. what you are seeing on social media is fake bots and posts that are there to make you angry, and it is working. You don't see actual people doing this crap and the ones that are, if they are there in their own name, are random people, not, you know, elected leaders or known individuals.

the post a few pages back showed a string of social media posts that were literally all bots. no one actually posting in their own name with a real image as an avatar. Use your head and stop falling for the social media BS. It is KILLING our country.

You sound like a bot. That’s for sure.

Sorry, not a bot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not seeing anything on any reputable major news outlets that the perpetrator had a roommate who is transgender.

It’s on Fox News and New York Post.

If you mean the liberal news outlets, of course not. Those news outlets have an agenda. That story doesn’t fit their agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so weird but also so predictable that I. Two pages, DCUM goes from “there is no shred of evidence he was trans” to “who cares?”

The FBI has confirmed the partner of the killer is a male to female and they lived together romantically. The partner is cooperating with the FBI and has confirmed this herself.

It certainly explains motive and settles the “actually he was a far right Nazi” question. Can we move on now and accept he was radicalized to the left?

Not touching the furry thing other than that it explains the engravings somewhat. Beyond that, I don’t think it is relevant.

Having a transgender partner doesn’t explain motive. All it establishes is a personal detail about the killer’s life, not why the attack happened. A motive requires evidence that the act was driven by a specific belief system, grievance, or goal. Saying “he dated a trans woman, therefore he was radicalized to the left” is a logical leap — it’s like saying someone who dates a Christian must be motivated by Christianity. Until there’s actual proof, like writings, statements, or affiliations tying the violence to left-wing ideology, the partner’s gender identity doesn’t settle anything about motive.

Missing the forest for the trees…we need gun control, mental health resources, empathy.

+ 1 million

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so weird but also so predictable that I. Two pages, DCUM goes from “there is no shred of evidence he was trans” to “who cares?”

The FBI has confirmed the partner of the killer is a male to female and they lived together romantically. The partner is cooperating with the FBI and has confirmed this herself.

It certainly explains motive and settles the “actually he was a far right Nazi” question. Can we move on now and accept he was radicalized to the left?

Not touching the furry thing other than that it explains the engravings somewhat. Beyond that, I don’t think it is relevant.

Having a transgender partner doesn’t explain motive. All it establishes is a personal detail about the killer’s life, not why the attack happened. A motive requires evidence that the act was driven by a specific belief system, grievance, or goal. Saying “he dated a trans woman, therefore he was radicalized to the left” is a logical leap — it’s like saying someone who dates a Christian must be motivated by Christianity. Until there’s actual proof, like writings, statements, or affiliations tying the violence to left-wing ideology, the partner’s gender identity doesn’t settle anything about motive.

Missing the forest for the trees…we need gun control, mental health resources, empathy.

Most murderers are not mentally ill

Many are. Many can mask mental illness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charlie should not be mourned. He was terribly racist against black people. No politician who represents Americans should even acknowledge him or speak his name.

Charlie Kirk has repeatedly made racist remarks targeting Black people and Black communities. He said of Michelle Obama, Joy Reid, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, “You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to be taken somewhat seriously.” He declared, “If I see a Black pilot, I’m gonna be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified,’” and, “If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action.” He sneered, “If you’re a WNBA, pot-smoking, Black lesbian, do you get treated better than a United States marine?” He ranted that “prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact, it’s happening more and more.” He has dismissed Martin Luther King Jr. as “awful” and “not a good person,” claiming King is only admired because he “said one thing he didn’t actually believe,” and he described the “myth” around MLK as having “grown totally out of control.” He called the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “a huge mistake” and said it was used as an “anti-white weapon.” He has repeatedly blamed Black communities for social problems, describing Chicago gun violence as “a lack of father problem in the Black community” and attributing it to a “broken culture problem.”

None of us are mourning him. He was a terrible human being but did not deserve to be killed for his screwed up beliefs.

In this country we are allowed to believe what we want even if we are wrong.

What a lot of people seem to have issue with is that this was a political assassination that otherwise good and sane people are celebrating.

How did we get here?

People celebrating are neither good nor sane. BTFU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok so assuming the roommate was trans and he was in a relationship with this person what are the implications of that?

It could be the motive. Shooter had a trans gf and went off the deep end bc he didn’t like what Charlie had to say about affirming gender.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not seeing anything on any reputable major news outlets that the perpetrator had a roommate who is transgender.

It’s on Fox News and New York Post.

If you mean the liberal news outlets, of course not. Those news outlets have an agenda. That story doesn’t fit their agenda.

Both owned by Rupert Murdoch who paid over 3/4 of a billion dollars for lying about the 2020 election. Find reputable outlets who didn't pay for lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so weird but also so predictable that I. Two pages, DCUM goes from “there is no shred of evidence he was trans” to “who cares?”

The FBI has confirmed the partner of the killer is a male to female and they lived together romantically. The partner is cooperating with the FBI and has confirmed this herself.

It certainly explains motive and settles the “actually he was a far right Nazi” question. Can we move on now and accept he was radicalized to the left?

Not touching the furry thing other than that it explains the engravings somewhat. Beyond that, I don’t think it is relevant.

Having a transgender partner doesn’t explain motive. All it establishes is a personal detail about the killer’s life, not why the attack happened. A motive requires evidence that the act was driven by a specific belief system, grievance, or goal. Saying “he dated a trans woman, therefore he was radicalized to the left” is a logical leap — it’s like saying someone who dates a Christian must be motivated by Christianity. Until there’s actual proof, like writings, statements, or affiliations tying the violence to left-wing ideology, the partner’s gender identity doesn’t settle anything about motive.

Missing the forest for the trees…we need gun control, mental health resources, empathy.

Charlie Kirk didn’t think highly of empathy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not seeing anything on any reputable major news outlets that the perpetrator had a roommate who is transgender.

It’s on Fox News and New York Post.

If you mean the liberal news outlets, of course not. Those news outlets have an agenda. That story doesn’t fit their agenda.

Could be a little more complicated than just “trans”. Maybe it’s a little bit of “all of the above”. The story will come out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so assuming the roommate was trans and he was in a relationship with this person what are the implications of that?

It could be the motive. Shooter had a trans gf and went off the deep end bc he didn’t like what Charlie had to say about affirming gender.

Well Charlie knew that risk and accepted it. He said gun deaths were acceptable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so weird but also so predictable that I. Two pages, DCUM goes from “there is no shred of evidence he was trans” to “who cares?”

The FBI has confirmed the partner of the killer is a male to female and they lived together romantically. The partner is cooperating with the FBI and has confirmed this herself.

It certainly explains motive and settles the “actually he was a far right Nazi” question. Can we move on now and accept he was radicalized to the left?

Not touching the furry thing other than that it explains the engravings somewhat. Beyond that, I don’t think it is relevant.

Having a transgender partner doesn’t explain motive. All it establishes is a personal detail about the killer’s life, not why the attack happened. A motive requires evidence that the act was driven by a specific belief system, grievance, or goal. Saying “he dated a trans woman, therefore he was radicalized to the left” is a logical leap — it’s like saying someone who dates a Christian must be motivated by Christianity. Until there’s actual proof, like writings, statements, or affiliations tying the violence to left-wing ideology, the partner’s gender identity doesn’t settle anything about motive.

Missing the forest for the trees…we need gun control, mental health resources, empathy.

Most murderers are not mentally ill

Many are. Many can mask mental illness.

In the United States, most people who commit murder are not considered mentally ill, either by the courts or by psychological research. The legal system generally presumes defendants are sane and responsible for their actions unless there is strong evidence to the contrary. The insanity defense is raised in less than one percent of felony cases and succeeds in an even smaller fraction, which shows that murderers are rarely judged legally insane. Psychological studies also find that while some offenders may have mental health issues such as depression, personality disorders, or substance abuse problems, only a minority of homicides are committed by people with severe mental illnesses like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. The majority of murders are linked to factors such as anger, revenge, domestic disputes, gang conflict, or other situational and social pressures. In short, while mental illness can play a role in some cases, it is inaccurate to suggest that most murderers in the U.S. are mentally ill.