Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University

[Anonymous]

People missing an important point about folks getting fired for whatever they said about Charlie Kirk: Americans are being conditioned to be snitches on their fellow citizens who don’t toe a party line on what is “allowed” to be expressed. And employers are going along. It’s the new secret police

Maga anti American way idiots

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People missing an important point about folks getting fired for whatever they said about Charlie Kirk: Americans are being conditioned to be snitches on their fellow citizens who don’t toe a party line on what is “allowed” to be expressed. And employers are going along. It’s the new secret police

Maga anti American way idiots

Where are people learning to do this? No one can have opposing views any more?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not sure what country or time period you live in but in NO ONE’s law book, govt, or faith is it “natural and unsurprising” to unilaterally decide shoot someone down for what they have said in public forums. Or private ones.

That’s anarchy, lawlessness, chaos, not to mention unethical, illegal and immoral in most religions and societies.

— Note the distinction of your illogic and falsities. And zero understanding of due process.

You are missing the point. I was not saying violence is legal, moral, or justified. I was saying it can be a predictable consequence. “Reaping what you sow” in that context means unsurprising outcome, not rightful punishment. Condemning the act as illegal or immoral is valid, but it does not address the claim of inevitability.

Nope. Shooting down a politician or activist is not a “predictable consequence” nor “unsurprising outcome” nor “inevitability” of them being a vocal politician or activist.

Get professional help Pp.

In a country where uncivilized politicians enact wil wild West style gun laws, shooting down a politician is a predictable consequence , indeed. Facts don't care about your fragile and hypocritical feelings .

Speaking of facts, what you cited - shooting down a politician - is indeed extremely rare in America and most countries.

Plus Charlie Kirk was quite civilized when he spoke. That was his model- or else it wouldn’t work, watch the shows.

Thanks for playing, better luck next time!

Better luck to who? Your funny looking neo Nazi is in the box not me .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not sure what country or time period you live in but in NO ONE’s law book, govt, or faith is it “natural and unsurprising” to unilaterally decide shoot someone down for what they have said in public forums. Or private ones.

That’s anarchy, lawlessness, chaos, not to mention unethical, illegal and immoral in most religions and societies.

— Note the distinction of your illogic and falsities. And zero understanding of due process.

You are missing the point. I was not saying violence is legal, moral, or justified. I was saying it can be a predictable consequence. “Reaping what you sow” in that context means unsurprising outcome, not rightful punishment. Condemning the act as illegal or immoral is valid, but it does not address the claim of inevitability.

Nope. Shooting down a politician or activist is not a “predictable consequence” nor “unsurprising outcome” nor “inevitability” of them being a vocal politician or activist.

Get professional help Pp.

You are still mixing ideas. Predictable does not mean justified, inevitable, or deserved. It means that when someone repeatedly uses hateful or offensive rhetoric, it increases the chance that unstable or malicious people may lash out. That is an observation about likelihood, not a defense of the act. Calling something unsurprising is not the same as saying it is right, legal, or moral.

Golly with wrong perceptions and lame deflections like that, what do you tell domestic abusers when they lash out?

That comparison doesn’t work. Talking about the predictability of backlash to hateful or offensive speech is not the same thing as excusing or condoning abuse. Saying an outcome can be unsurprising is a descriptive point, not a moral defense. You keep shifting toward justification, when the point being made is about likelihood. Predictable does not mean acceptable.

It’s not predictable to shoot a politician because of what they said.

That’s very rare.

It’s also not acceptable to shoot a politician.

Do you find it acceptable?

You can read my post over again to get all the answers you need.

#NonResponse

Question to you remains outstanding:
Do you find it acceptable to shoot a politician whom you don’t like?

No one has to answer your questions to feel confident in their own credibility. Answer your own questions, they are no one else's concern.

There you have it folks. Refuses to answer simple Y/N questions.

Prefers hypocritically citing credibility, whilst simultaneously discrediting themselves.

Question to PP remains outstanding:
Do you find it acceptable to shoot a politician whom you don’t like?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody really believe this trans romance is true? What are the chances?

Also even if this were the situation, what would be the killer’s motivation?

Wild, you type out your response, look at the words you’re writing and ask yourself - does this really sound plausible?

And what does it matter anyway? Why do I need to care if killer, his roomate, his dog, etc, is trans? Why do I need to care about motive at all? Why are we expected to wait with baited breath for a sign of motive?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

BREAKING: 6 sources confirm to Axios that Tyler Robinson's roommate is transgender and they all believe that the two were in a "romantic relationship"

Investigators believe that this could be the "key to establishing motive" in the case

Officials confirmed earlier that the alleged Charlie Kirk assassin was "deeply indoctrinated with leftist ideology"

This may or may not be true. If true, what is there to be done except for put killer in jail, and implement stricter gun control? Nothing else.

I'm leaning towards not true. The suspect has a transgender roommate that he was allegedly in a romantic relationship with and we are just now hearing about it? Yeah, I don't think so.

And who are we hearing about it from? "Six sources close to the investigation" - oh you mean the FBI under the control of the President who started blaming "the left" like three seconds after Kirk was shot.

I call BS.

Interview with neighbor who said they held hands and kissed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not sure what country or time period you live in but in NO ONE’s law book, govt, or faith is it “natural and unsurprising” to unilaterally decide shoot someone down for what they have said in public forums. Or private ones.

That’s anarchy, lawlessness, chaos, not to mention unethical, illegal and immoral in most religions and societies.

— Note the distinction of your illogic and falsities. And zero understanding of due process.

You are missing the point. I was not saying violence is legal, moral, or justified. I was saying it can be a predictable consequence. “Reaping what you sow” in that context means unsurprising outcome, not rightful punishment. Condemning the act as illegal or immoral is valid, but it does not address the claim of inevitability.

Nope. Shooting down a politician or activist is not a “predictable consequence” nor “unsurprising outcome” nor “inevitability” of them being a vocal politician or activist.

Get professional help Pp.

You are still mixing ideas. Predictable does not mean justified, inevitable, or deserved. It means that when someone repeatedly uses hateful or offensive rhetoric, it increases the chance that unstable or malicious people may lash out. That is an observation about likelihood, not a defense of the act. Calling something unsurprising is not the same as saying it is right, legal, or moral.

Golly with wrong perceptions and lame deflections like that, what do you tell domestic abusers when they lash out?

That comparison doesn’t work. Talking about the predictability of backlash to hateful or offensive speech is not the same thing as excusing or condoning abuse. Saying an outcome can be unsurprising is a descriptive point, not a moral defense. You keep shifting toward justification, when the point being made is about likelihood. Predictable does not mean acceptable.

It’s not predictable to shoot a politician because of what they said.

That’s very rare.

It’s also not acceptable to shoot a politician.

Do you find it acceptable?

You can read my post over again to get all the answers you need.

#NonResponse

Question to you remains outstanding:
Do you find it acceptable to shoot a politician whom you don’t like?

No one has to answer your questions to feel confident in their own credibility. Answer your own questions, they are no one else's concern.

There you have it folks. Refuses to answer simple Y/N questions.

Prefers hypocritically citing credibility, whilst simultaneously discrediting themselves.

Question to PP remains outstanding:
Do you find it acceptable to shoot a politician whom you don’t like?

No one has to answer your questions. Not answering your questions does not impact credibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So what's your point, not following.

Your claim: a pastor somewhere said this, some commentator said that.

Other person: unclear if your commentators are big names or podunk people. Everyone has an opinion, whose do you follow?

And RBG she lived an awesome life so lots to celebrate.
Unf Obama didn’t replace her in a timely manner….

I am still lost because why does if they are big names or not matter, I still don't get the point.

Lol. You don’t have a point now nor when you quote a bunch of randos.

You were the one claiming random people and notable people were celebrating C.K.'s death. Random people and notable people celebrated R.B.G. death. So that is why I am confused by your follow up to mine 100%. Why does it matter that they are random (and they are not actually, but again, accordingly to you originally, it doesn't matter). If people can celebrate one, why not the other?

Ruth bader Ginsburg wasn’t shot to death at work. She was in her mid 80s and got ill. Wtf

Both Charlie and ruth had many accomplishments to celebrate. But one was 31 with young kids and shot to death on stage, and the other was old with great grandchildren and refused to retire.

So you're saying that Trump will fit into RBG's fact pattern and celebrations should be handled accordingly (i.e., ignored)?

Anyone who is upset about people celebrating Charlie Kirk’s death had better hold onto their MAGA hats when Trump passes (hopefully of natural causes with no foul play involved) because there will be widespread celebration. People already post on social media about the day when “it” happens. I’m actually concerned that even if he dies peacefully in his sleep at 90+, there will be people who will insist he was killed by radical leftists or the deep state.

But the right is prepping now to censor us from celebrating that when it happens. This stuff they are doing with C.K. is a test run.

Yes! Yes! That must be it. Lots of time and attention on this. And money. Tell us more! More!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So what's your point, not following.

Your claim: a pastor somewhere said this, some commentator said that.

Other person: unclear if your commentators are big names or podunk people. Everyone has an opinion, whose do you follow?

And RBG she lived an awesome life so lots to celebrate.
Unf Obama didn’t replace her in a timely manner….

I am still lost because why does if they are big names or not matter, I still don't get the point.

Lol. You don’t have a point now nor when you quote a bunch of randos.

You were the one claiming random people and notable people were celebrating C.K.'s death. Random people and notable people celebrated R.B.G. death. So that is why I am confused by your follow up to mine 100%. Why does it matter that they are random (and they are not actually, but again, accordingly to you originally, it doesn't matter). If people can celebrate one, why not the other?

Ruth bader Ginsburg wasn’t shot to death at work. She was in her mid 80s and got ill. Wtf

Both Charlie and ruth had many accomplishments to celebrate. But one was 31 with young kids and shot to death on stage, and the other was old with great grandchildren and refused to retire.

So you're saying that Trump will fit into RBG's fact pattern and celebrations should be handled accordingly (i.e., ignored)?

Anyone who is upset about people celebrating Charlie Kirk’s death had better hold onto their MAGA hats when Trump passes (hopefully of natural causes with no foul play involved) because there will be widespread celebration. People already post on social media about the day when “it” happens. I’m actually concerned that even if he dies peacefully in his sleep at 90+, there will be people who will insist he was killed by radical leftists or the deep state.

But the right is prepping now to censor us from celebrating that when it happens. This stuff they are doing with C.K. is a test run.

Yes! Yes! That must be it. Lots of time and attention on this. And money. Tell us more! More!

I have nothing more to say about the topic. You are free to explore it more on your own if you are interested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody really believe this trans romance is true? What are the chances?

Also even if this were the situation, what would be the killer’s motivation?

Wild, you type out your response, look at the words you’re writing and ask yourself - does this really sound plausible?

And what does it matter anyway? Why do I need to care if killer, his roomate, his dog, etc, is trans? Why do I need to care about motive at all? Why are we expected to wait with baited breath for a sign of motive?

Because people are salivating, waiting for a juicy story and then they can claim that this murder was somehow worse than other murders because a trans person was involved. It’s immature nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Americans need serious medication / treatment for the severe mental illness. The level of hate and vileness is unreal. God needs to do more than bless America. He needs to comeback asap and take us all out. This is crazy.

Whatever . You can't cope getting a taste of your medicine ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody really believe this trans romance is true? What are the chances?

Also even if this were the situation, what would be the killer’s motivation?

Wild, you type out your response, look at the words you’re writing and ask yourself - does this really sound plausible?

And what does it matter anyway? Why do I need to care if killer, his roomate, his dog, etc, is trans? Why do I need to care about motive at all? Why are we expected to wait with baited breath for a sign of motive?

Because people are salivating, waiting for a juicy story and then they can claim that this murder was somehow worse than other murders because a trans person was involved. It’s immature nonsense.

I would argue it is more than immaturity, it is a political strategy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not sure what country or time period you live in but in NO ONE’s law book, govt, or faith is it “natural and unsurprising” to unilaterally decide shoot someone down for what they have said in public forums. Or private ones.

That’s anarchy, lawlessness, chaos, not to mention unethical, illegal and immoral in most religions and societies.

— Note the distinction of your illogic and falsities. And zero understanding of due process.

You are missing the point. I was not saying violence is legal, moral, or justified. I was saying it can be a predictable consequence. “Reaping what you sow” in that context means unsurprising outcome, not rightful punishment. Condemning the act as illegal or immoral is valid, but it does not address the claim of inevitability.

Nope. Shooting down a politician or activist is not a “predictable consequence” nor “unsurprising outcome” nor “inevitability” of them being a vocal politician or activist.

Get professional help Pp.

You are still mixing ideas. Predictable does not mean justified, inevitable, or deserved. It means that when someone repeatedly uses hateful or offensive rhetoric, it increases the chance that unstable or malicious people may lash out. That is an observation about likelihood, not a defense of the act. Calling something unsurprising is not the same as saying it is right, legal, or moral.

Golly with wrong perceptions and lame deflections like that, what do you tell domestic abusers when they lash out?

That comparison doesn’t work. Talking about the predictability of backlash to hateful or offensive speech is not the same thing as excusing or condoning abuse. Saying an outcome can be unsurprising is a descriptive point, not a moral defense. You keep shifting toward justification, when the point being made is about likelihood. Predictable does not mean acceptable.

It’s not predictable to shoot a politician because of what they said.

That’s very rare.

It’s also not acceptable to shoot a politician.

Do you find it acceptable?

You can read my post over again to get all the answers you need.

#NonResponse

Question to you remains outstanding:
Do you find it acceptable to shoot a politician whom you don’t like?

No one has to answer your questions to feel confident in their own credibility. Answer your own questions, they are no one else's concern.

There you have it folks. Refuses to answer simple Y/N questions.

Prefers hypocritically citing credibility, whilst simultaneously discrediting themselves.

Question to PP remains outstanding:
Do you find it acceptable to shoot a politician whom you don’t like?

No one has to answer your questions. Not answering your questions does not impact credibility.

Lol. Where’d you learn that misinformed garbage?

Your silence signals agreement.

Your refusal to answer signals agreement.

Your constant petty non responses represents immaturity and stupidity. And poor comms.

Good luck & Good day!

Question to PP remains outstanding:
Do you find it acceptable to shoot a politician whom you don’t like?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody really believe this trans romance is true? What are the chances?

Also even if this were the situation, what would be the killer’s motivation?

Wild, you type out your response, look at the words you’re writing and ask yourself - does this really sound plausible?

And what does it matter anyway? Why do I need to care if killer, his roomate, his dog, etc, is trans? Why do I need to care about motive at all? Why are we expected to wait with baited breath for a sign of motive?

Because people are salivating, waiting for a juicy story and then they can claim that this murder was somehow worse than other murders because a trans person was involved. It’s immature nonsense.

I would argue it is more than immaturity, it is a political strategy.

Agree and a very juvenile one. It’s like saying the shooter had big boobs or something ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not sure what country or time period you live in but in NO ONE’s law book, govt, or faith is it “natural and unsurprising” to unilaterally decide shoot someone down for what they have said in public forums. Or private ones.

That’s anarchy, lawlessness, chaos, not to mention unethical, illegal and immoral in most religions and societies.

— Note the distinction of your illogic and falsities. And zero understanding of due process.

You are missing the point. I was not saying violence is legal, moral, or justified. I was saying it can be a predictable consequence. “Reaping what you sow” in that context means unsurprising outcome, not rightful punishment. Condemning the act as illegal or immoral is valid, but it does not address the claim of inevitability.

Nope. Shooting down a politician or activist is not a “predictable consequence” nor “unsurprising outcome” nor “inevitability” of them being a vocal politician or activist.

Get professional help Pp.

You are still mixing ideas. Predictable does not mean justified, inevitable, or deserved. It means that when someone repeatedly uses hateful or offensive rhetoric, it increases the chance that unstable or malicious people may lash out. That is an observation about likelihood, not a defense of the act. Calling something unsurprising is not the same as saying it is right, legal, or moral.

Golly with wrong perceptions and lame deflections like that, what do you tell domestic abusers when they lash out?

That comparison doesn’t work. Talking about the predictability of backlash to hateful or offensive speech is not the same thing as excusing or condoning abuse. Saying an outcome can be unsurprising is a descriptive point, not a moral defense. You keep shifting toward justification, when the point being made is about likelihood. Predictable does not mean acceptable.

It’s not predictable to shoot a politician because of what they said.

That’s very rare.

It’s also not acceptable to shoot a politician.

Do you find it acceptable?

You can read my post over again to get all the answers you need.

#NonResponse

Question to you remains outstanding:
Do you find it acceptable to shoot a politician whom you don’t like?

No one has to answer your questions to feel confident in their own credibility. Answer your own questions, they are no one else's concern.

There you have it folks. Refuses to answer simple Y/N questions.

Prefers hypocritically citing credibility, whilst simultaneously discrediting themselves.

Question to PP remains outstanding:
Do you find it acceptable to shoot a politician whom you don’t like?

No one has to answer your questions. Not answering your questions does not impact credibility.

Lol. Where’d you learn that misinformed garbage?

Your silence signals agreement.

Your refusal to answer signals agreement.

Your constant petty non responses represents immaturity and stupidity. And poor comms.

Good luck & Good day!

Question to PP remains outstanding:
Do you find it acceptable to shoot a politician whom you don’t like?

What is everyone eating for breakfast tomorrow?