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.
NP. Good then stop responding to things you clearly know nothing about. You look ridiculous. Not clear why you’re even on this board, you have nothing to say.
Don't need to do what you say so disregarding this post. Your insults don't mean anything.
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 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.
NP. Good then stop responding to things you clearly know nothing about. You look ridiculous. Not clear why you’re even on this board, you have nothing to say.
Don't need to do what you say so disregarding this post. Your insults don't mean anything.
Oh, and your sneaky pretext of "know nothing about" is not true.
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 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.
Oh yeah? What do you think Tyler’s sexual orientation was with Lance? Are you thinkin’ bi?
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.
Radicalization to commit murder is clear.
Is it clear? How? Also we’re giving guns to mentally deranged people, is it shocking when they decide to use them?
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.
Oh yeah? What do you think Tyler’s sexual orientation was with Lance? Are you thinkin’ bi?
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!
In one episode of his podcast, Kirk suggested that children should be forced to watch Trump’s political opponents beheaded live on television. With sponsorship by Coca-Cola.
That doesn’t sound very civilized.
Context and link?
Look it up yourself. If you don't find the poster credible in context that is your problem.
Dude, who would? You just wrote 25-30 words.
How dumb do you think people are?
Information has been provided. Up to you what you do with it.
Correct, after multiple posters called out your petty nonresponses, you finally posted a transcript link.
We’ll watch it full in due course and revert back with our thoughts.
No, the request for sources is a petty rhetorical technique to dismiss the poster. And no, you are not going to watch the video because that was never the point.
What you might do is find an excuse to dismiss it outright, to further dismiss the credibility of the poster.
Excuse me? Who wouldn’t want to look at the source material and think for themselves on the matter?
Why would anyone just read a stranger’s opinion tweet and run with it?
Plus half of the country is illiterate.
Funny how nobody’s commented on what CK said, in his own words, on the transcript. They’re just attacking the messenger.
Didn’t they say they’d read it over and revert back? Maybe they have a life or are having sex in a Saturday night. Unlike us.
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.
It doesn't matter what you or I might think. It only matters what he would have thought.
Nothing matters. Only what you can prove in the court of law. Even videos don’t prove anything. They could be AI. Plus with a hat on or mask or hoodie. Could be anybody.
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!
In one episode of his podcast, Kirk suggested that children should be forced to watch Trump’s political opponents beheaded live on television. With sponsorship by Coca-Cola.
That doesn’t sound very civilized.
Context and link?
Look it up yourself. If you don't find the poster credible in context that is your problem.
Dude, who would? You just wrote 25-30 words.
How dumb do you think people are?
Information has been provided. Up to you what you do with it.
Correct, after multiple posters called out your petty nonresponses, you finally posted a transcript link.
We’ll watch it full in due course and revert back with our thoughts.
No, the request for sources is a petty rhetorical technique to dismiss the poster. And no, you are not going to watch the video because that was never the point.
What you might do is find an excuse to dismiss it outright, to further dismiss the credibility of the poster.
Excuse me? Who wouldn’t want to look at the source material and think for themselves on the matter?
Why would anyone just read a stranger’s opinion tweet and run with it?
Plus half of the country is illiterate.
Funny how nobody’s commented on what CK said, in his own words, on the transcript. They’re just attacking the messenger.
Didn’t they say they’d read it over and revert back? Maybe they have a life or are having sex in a Saturday night. Unlike us.
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!
In one episode of his podcast, Kirk suggested that children should be forced to watch Trump’s political opponents beheaded live on television. With sponsorship by Coca-Cola.
That doesn’t sound very civilized.
Context and link?
Look it up yourself. If you don't find the poster credible in context that is your problem.
Dude, who would? You just wrote 25-30 words.
How dumb do you think people are?
Information has been provided. Up to you what you do with it.
Correct, after multiple posters called out your petty nonresponses, you finally posted a transcript link.
We’ll watch it full in due course and revert back with our thoughts.
No, the request for sources is a petty rhetorical technique to dismiss the poster. And no, you are not going to watch the video because that was never the point.
What you might do is find an excuse to dismiss it outright, to further dismiss the credibility of the poster.
Excuse me? Who wouldn’t want to look at the source material and think for themselves on the matter?
Why would anyone just read a stranger’s opinion tweet and run with it?
Plus half of the country is illiterate.
Funny how nobody’s commented on what CK said, in his own words, on the transcript. They’re just attacking the messenger.
Didn’t they say they’d read it over and revert back? Maybe they have a life or are having sex in a Saturday night. Unlike us.
They are not going to read it. The ask for "sources" is not sincere.
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.
Does there have to be a motive?
Motive doesn’t matter for the charges.
Every murder technically has a motive.
pretty soon all the matters will be what his lawyer allows him to say.
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?
It’s a general failure to launch/ drop out/ social media radicalization story.
Everything will be covered in discovery, but like the looigi case it doesn’t matter for the charges.
Murder is murder.
And murder of a public figures they simple don’t like and have never met, will get the DP or LWOP.
🚨 BREAKING: The FBI and state agencies have launched investigations into multiple LEFTIST groups in Utah for possible advanced knowledge of the Charlie Kirk assassination, per Axios
They’re also probing whether or not these groups provided material support after the kiIIing
At least one group deactivated their social media pages soon after the shot was taken.
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.
Exactly. If only Charlie Kirk got Q&A on big boobs and not discussions on religion or Israel or lgbtqia2+ or gun control it would all make some sense.
None of it makes sense, it will never make sense. The fact that they want us to believe that because the shooter may have been trans or affiliated with a trans person has anything at all to do with the murder of CK and gun violence is obscene.
Pretty sure they already tied that part together for everyone at the Friday press conference, confirming on broadcast television that they confirmed from multiple sources that Tyler was liberal and anti-Trump & Co.
They did not get into why he was anti Trump or anti republican or anti MAGA or anti whatever.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}