Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University

[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.

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!

I don’t think the following quote counts as civilized.

CHARLIE KIRK (HOST): I know what you're thinking, we've got to get Joe Biden out of the way so we can run against Kammy. Oh my goodness, is she beatable. It's like Black Hillary on steroids. Is she Black? I guess she says she's Caribbean or whatever. ...

She would be a lot easier to beat than Joe Biden. Joe Biden is a bumbling dementia filled Alzheimer's corrupt tyrant who should honestly be put in prison and/or given the death penalty for his crimes against America.

Honest and accurate.

That’s what I’d call that.

But she was no black Hillary. Hillary was well-qualified, and I hated to see her in that neutered Dept of State role Obama put her in. But she was corrupt.

Neutered? How is Secretary of State a neutered role? Not only did Hillary get that but Obama cleared the field out intentionally for Hillary’s “pathway to the nomination”. That is why the party is still ruined to this day. Except Bernie, no Democrat challenged Hillary in 2016. She wanted a coronation

Omg, every FSO officers knows all she did was fly around for a couple years doing meet & greets while Putin took over Crimea, Iran developed nukes, and No Korea buddies up with Russia.

This is well documented. She accomplished nothing when she should have been let loose to do foreign policy.

Obama gets a F in foreign policy as a president, and every think tank in town agrees.

He also gets an F for backing Hillary and all her baggage. Not so sure he did really back here and I was living in Philly at the time, a big swing state.

So you say.

Well what do you say about Hillary’s State Dept accomplishments and Obama’s foreign policy track record?

He did last minute race into Libya via executive order to help the EU keep some oil flowing. But Arab Spring failed too, as we all know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is in no way juvenile, it is crafty and very well organized and strategic and coordinated.

[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.

Honestly? It just makes me feel sorry for you and how miserable you must be.

I think they’re running out of material to post here so trying out some lame troll jokes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is in no way juvenile, it is crafty and very well organized and strategic and coordinated.

I disagree, it’s very predictable and obvious what they are doing.

[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.

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!

I don’t think the following quote counts as civilized.

CHARLIE KIRK (HOST): I know what you're thinking, we've got to get Joe Biden out of the way so we can run against Kammy. Oh my goodness, is she beatable. It's like Black Hillary on steroids. Is she Black? I guess she says she's Caribbean or whatever. ...

She would be a lot easier to beat than Joe Biden. Joe Biden is a bumbling dementia filled Alzheimer's corrupt tyrant who should honestly be put in prison and/or given the death penalty for his crimes against America.

Honest and accurate.

That’s what I’d call that.

But she was no black Hillary. Hillary was well-qualified, and I hated to see her in that neutered Dept of State role Obama put her in. But she was corrupt.

Neutered? How is Secretary of State a neutered role? Not only did Hillary get that but Obama cleared the field out intentionally for Hillary’s “pathway to the nomination”. That is why the party is still ruined to this day. Except Bernie, no Democrat challenged Hillary in 2016. She wanted a coronation

Omg, every FSO officers knows all she did was fly around for a couple years doing meet & greets while Putin took over Crimea, Iran developed nukes, and No Korea buddies up with Russia.

This is well documented. She accomplished nothing when she should have been let loose to do foreign policy.

Obama gets a F in foreign policy as a president, and every think tank in town agrees.

He also gets an F for backing Hillary and all her baggage. Not so sure he did really back here and I was living in Philly at the time, a big swing state.

So you say.

Well what do you say about Hillary’s State Dept accomplishments and Obama’s foreign policy track record?

He did last minute race into Libya via executive order to help the EU keep some oil flowing. But Arab Spring failed too, as we all know.

I don't have anything to say these are your questions and pretexts that concern you not mine, I never said they did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is in no way juvenile, it is crafty and very well organized and strategic and coordinated.

I disagree, it’s very predictable and obvious what they are doing.

That doesn't contradict

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So what if it’s true. 99% of mass shooters are nontrans, straight men. Why are we even entertaining this?

No one is. Some trolls here.

The ministry church shooter was the first one.

[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?

The shooter was raised by militia parents, enmeshed in right wing internet culture, lived on the computer, reallzed he was gay, and then lashed out against the influencers he used to believe in but now hates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The race to claim pieces of Kirk's mantle and TPUSA's revenue stream is on and it's as gory as you might imagine.

Con men are fighting Ben Shapiro looking for his new scam

Maga cult of stupids

Must be, no doubt, thx for the “information”.

[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:

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.

Honestly? It just makes me feel sorry for you and how miserable you must be.

I think they’re running out of material to post here so trying out some lame troll jokes.

Nope the post in question is true and sincere. But can't control how you feel about it.

[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 bated breath for a sign of motive?

PP. you are correct, motive doesn’t matter. But I hope the trans story isn’t true because a lot of innocent people will be hurt. Trump and MAGA are itching to make the trans ppl scape goats. With the economy tanking, the Epstein files and more wars, Trump desperately needs a distraction.

[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?

The shooter was raised by militia parents, enmeshed in right wing internet culture, lived on the computer, reallzed he was gay, and then lashed out against the influencers he used to believe in but now hates.

Possible, as any other theory, the types of motives and potential actions of a human are limitless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is in no way juvenile, it is crafty and very well organized and strategic and coordinated.

I disagree, it’s very predictable and obvious what they are doing.

That doesn't contradict

So focusing on the trans angle isn’t juvenile? If nothing else it’s totally irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

In a normal America, we can all agree that a major threat to our national security is the radicalization of young men and conspiracies that drive them to violence.

But that would mean acknowledging the threats and also talking about right-wing extremism, which is the #1 domestic terror threat.
Also the number one child molestation group number one group who sexually assaults children. But you see MAGA duesbt care about children they only care about their fake gid Trump
The con man

[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?

The shooter was raised by militia parents, enmeshed in right wing internet culture, lived on the computer, reallzed he was gay, and then lashed out against the influencers he used to believe in but now hates.

Being in a trans relationship wouldn’t make the shooter gay.