Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University

[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.

+1000
Yes, so crafty and strategic. Almost like everyone is a paid actor for the greater cause.

The cop dad, the college maga dropout, the heavy gamer, the gun hobby, the male lover transitioning to a female, the social media convos.

What an intentional and deliberate political strategy in action indeed.

Yes.

lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:🚨 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.

Investigations...probes..done by law enforcement.

Well this is a monumental step in events!!!

[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:

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.

You sure do a good job of disregarding posts PP, kudos! And you keep posting nothings at the same time, so hilarious!

[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.

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.

So they said just trust me bro

[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:

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.

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.

You sure do a good job of disregarding posts PP, kudos! And you keep posting nothings at the same time, so hilarious!

It is so clear that you are not interested in the topic, but just want to pester and bully. Show your initial request for sources was insincere, as I had said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

His digital profile and messages may show radicalization over the last 3-4 years.

Mentally deranged is not a legal term nor legal strategy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

So they said just trust me bro

Oh my, and here I thought investigators were all law & order and video taped their in person interviews with everyone day 1 onward plus took in the computers, phones and searched the home.

[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?

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?

I’m thinkin I simply don’t care.

Weird, I thought you posted something about how being in a trans relationship wouldn’t make the shooter gay.

[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: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?

His digital profile and messages may show radicalization over the last 3-4 years.

Mentally deranged is not a legal term nor legal strategy.

I’m not a lawyer so I don’t speak legalese or whatever, but my point is that we provide guns to anyone, children can handle guns in the US and we’re focusing on everything except this.

[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?

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?

I’m thinkin I simply don’t care.

Weird, I thought you posted something about how being in a trans relationship wouldn’t make the shooter gay.

No i didn’t post that.

[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:

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!

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.

How do you know? That sounds basic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:🚨 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.

NSA hackers must have been all over that.

[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:

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!

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.

How do you know? That sounds basic.

Stay confused as to what I know, don't care

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

So they said just trust me bro

Oh my, and here I thought investigators were all law & order and video taped their in person interviews with everyone day 1 onward plus took in the computers, phones and searched the home.

So you learned something new today, good.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Erika Kirk is creepy. Watch a few videos of her. There is one in which she and Charlie confer about how she is "far more conservative than he is" and she proudly proclaims to be "very far right." She was also 5-6 years older than he was which is really atypical for their culture. [/quote]

It’s so weird the alt-right and these super religious people have this weird look in their eyes.

You can tell when somebody is just pretending from moneybecause they don’t have crazy eyes[/quote]

yep. she comes across very harsh.
There is nothing soft, Jesus-like, submissive wife about her which is weird because that is her message but her persona says she'd cut a bi$%tch in about 5 seconds flat.
I went down a whole Erika Kirk video rabbit trail the other night.
[/quote]

It’ll be interesting to see if she can continue TP. She certainly sounds as divisive as he was.

Erika Kirk vowed in a speech today to continue her husband’s movement and said that “the cries of this widow will echo around the world like a battle cry,” USA Today reports.

Said Kirk: “If you thought that my husband’s mission was powerful before, you have no idea. You have no idea what you’ve just unleashed across this entire country, and this world. You have no idea the fire you’ve ignited within this wife.”

[/quote]

Hmm. Sorry, gravy train will stop:
1.Her husband had some warmth and charisma, she doesn't.
2. Also, the conservative ecosystem wants its males to lead large movements. Women influencers in the conservative sphere, of which there are many, have to fight for a much smaller slice of the pie and usually their followers are other conservative women.

This family is done for now. Maybe in the fullness of time she can marry another male influencer and carry him to success. This appears to be her talent: pushing a husband to lead. I respect that. It's no small feat.

[/quote]

Yes. She's the JD Vance of the pairing. No charisma, no warmth, no likability. Charlie had charisma in spades and just the right amount of good looks that appealed to both men and women, young people and their middle aged mothers. [/quote]

Are you...blind? Charlie Kirk was hideous, almost deformed. [/quote]

+1 His wife is beautiful, he wasn’t. His head and face were weird.[/quote]

So, we are at the place in the discussion where you are criticizing the appearance of someone brutally murdered and the "charisma" of his widow.
DCUM never fails to disappoint in the shallowness of discussion. [b]You people could have learned something from Charlie Kirk. [/b]
[/quote]

We did. Empathy is dangerous.

[twitter]https://x.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1580241307515383808[/twitter][/quote]

Amazing that people who say this also claim to be devout Christians[/quote]

Can you paste the whole transcript, I’d like to know the whole context and how and why that response came up.

Conflating empathy for a killer for justice?
Making excuses for someone’s bad decision?

I can be empathetic to the drugged up criminal who knifed that girl to death in then subway, AND still want him imprisoned for life. But I won’t let him go free a 15th time because I’m “empathetic.” Don’t conflate empathy with naïveté. [/quote]

Charlie Kirk's position on empathy:

- Empathy, while often seen as a virtue, can be a tool used to manipulate emotions and push ideological agendas, particularly by the left.

- Empathy has been "hijacked" to promote policies like open borders or leniency toward crime, which he believed undermine societal order and harm society as a whole.

- Empathy should not override reason, justice, or truth, and that conservatives should prioritize principles like family, faith, and national sovereignty over emotional appeals.

- He did not entirely dismiss empathy, acknowledging it as a natural human response but urging it be tempered with discernment.


[/quote]

Thank you