Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about the young woman who was stabbed on the train? Is that also sad? What about that murderer? Is he trans too?

Well the unqualified NC judge that released the criminal for the 15th time will be fired.

And the druggie 15x released criminal will be back in the dole in prison for life

The European woman pocket-knifed to death on the NC subway bled out and died.

The five witnesses to the attack, sitting 0-2 rows from it, ignored the thug and the dying victim. Some even moved to a farther seat after they let him waltz off the subway at the next stop.

Is he still at large?

So that’s a wrap. America 2025.

You forgot about the Republican district attorney that this all happened under.

He hasn't been a DA during all the 15 years this criminal was repeatedly released to harm others, and NC magistrates can make decisions that allow such criminals to be free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The next time the left wants to pretend that they are so morally virtuous and superior to the rest society, we should remind people how they celebrated a man’s assassination. Celebrating a person’s death is abhorrent (unless it’s someone like Osama bin Laden, who murdered people.)

Did you forget how the right including Trump reacted to the attack on Pelosi's husband, or didn't care? It was acceptable because he did not die so a cracked skull was funny?

Pelosi quack killer- another example, this time a Canadian, with a history of drug abuse, mental illness, delusions plus chronic social media user.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You think this, because you think Charlie Kirk was good and sane. So it is all about perspective.

[Anonymous]

It's disgusting how all of these people professing to be so angered and distraught over the shooting of Charlie Kirk have

JACK SHIT

to say about any of the other violent, ideologically motivated shootings going on, like the one in Colorado.

https://coloradosun.com/2025/09/12/evergreen-high-school-shooting-suspect-social-media/

You people are dishonest, disingenuous and full of crap.

[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.

Charlie Kirk didn’t think highly of empathy.

Well Charlie would still be alive today playing with his babies if we focused more on the above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:best explanation of the shooter (on tiktok, I know) but...

https://www.tiktok.com/@aidanetcetera/video/7549640789652032790?_r=1&_t=ZT-8zhpr2DUTxP

Can’t access tt

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The next time the left wants to pretend that they are so morally virtuous and superior to the rest society, we should remind people how they celebrated a man’s assassination. Celebrating a person’s death is abhorrent (unless it’s someone like Osama bin Laden, who murdered people.)

Did you forget how the right including Trump reacted to the attack on Pelosi's husband, or didn't care? It was acceptable because he did not die so a cracked skull was funny?

Pelosi quack killer- another example, this time a Canadian, with a history of drug abuse, mental illness, delusions plus chronic social media user.

The attack almost killed Paul Pelosi and left him in the hospital for some time.

The right wing mocked it and came up with all kinds of false and horrible jokes and conspiracy theories.

Maybe the left should do the same, come up with nonstop cruel jokes about Charlie Kirk and you're going to just have to accept it, because that's what you do to everyone else.

Either that or fix your broken selves and do better.

[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.

Charlie Kirk didn’t think highly of empathy.

Well Charlie would still be alive today playing with his babies if we focused more on the above.

Empathetic observation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not sure what your point is? He wouldn’t have changed his stance on the second amendment over this. He wasn’t afraid to die. Have you watched any of his videos?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A Virginia anesthesiologist was fired after making "highly inappropriate comments supporting violence" against Charlie Kirk following his assassination, according to Riverside Walter Reed Hospital. The employee's contract was terminated by North American Partners in Anesthesia.

Hmmm another one of these articles that doesn’t actually include the post in question.

The employer in that article didn’t release the anesthesiologist’s name.

But here’s a different anesthesiologist who said she is glad Charlie Kirk got himself shot. She is not a bot.

When Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, some conservatives openly celebrated her passing. A right-wing commentator called her a “mass murdering hag” who had “ruined more lives than Hitler, Mao & Stalin combined.” Another conservative pastor framed her death as “celestially ordained” and proclaimed, “This belongs to God.” Gordon Klingenschmitt, an evangelical activist and former Republican lawmaker, said he mourned only that she “apparently did not know Christ,” making clear he saw her death as spiritually justified. Even within Republican circles, Trump aides were quoted privately saying her death was “super” in terms of political impact, treating her passing less as a tragedy and more as an opportunity.

Unclear if the above examples are public figures with large followers base, a show, income from it, etc. Or just a little jerk from podunk online.

As you know, with the internet, everyone and anyone can post whatever. And opinions are like a-holes, everyone’s got one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:best explanation of the shooter (on tiktok, I know) but...

https://www.tiktok.com/@aidanetcetera/video/7549640789652032790?_r=1&_t=ZT-8zhpr2DUTxP

Can’t access tt

I can't either... but to think some rando on tiktok has the inside scoop and has it all figured out is of course complete nonsense.

[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.

Charlie Kirk didn’t think highly of empathy.

Well Charlie would still be alive today playing with his babies if we focused more on the above.

+1
You reap what you sow. And the "reaping" isn't always accompanied by good people or a socially palatable method. Reaping doesn't mean deserving, it means natural, unsurprising consequence, note the distinction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On another note, Turning Point USA reports that they have had 18,000 requests for new chapters in the 24 hours since Erika spoke last night. Currently, there are 9,000 college chapters and 1100 high school chapters.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Charlie Kirk didn’t think highly of empathy.

Well Charlie would still be alive today playing with his babies if we focused more on the above.

Empathetic observation

I wish someone would take the lead and dismantle this gun culture. The right are their own worst enemies. We need to protect everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Charlie Kirk didn’t think highly of empathy.

Well Charlie would still be alive today playing with his babies if we focused more on the above.

+1
You reap what you sow. And the "reaping" isn't always accompanied by good people or a socially palatable method. Reaping doesn't mean deserving, it means natural, unsurprising consequence, note the distinction.

Accomplished by not accompanied by, that was a typo