Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

“I'm a lifelong Democrat and I have spent hours out of my life the past few days watching Charlie Kirk debates”

She’s having an awakening after seeing that all the clips the media used to villainize Charlie Kirk were ALL LIES, they were all clipped and out of context

“The example I want to use is that clip that was everywhere that went viral, everybody was quoting it where Charlie said, I don't like the word empathy. We've probably all seen the short and the long version at this point where he goes on to clarify that he prefers the word sympathy.

Agree with them or disagree with them, doesn't matter to me. The point is the real conversation never happened because the clip was cut in half. Why? To reinforce the idea that the right is full of these monsters who reject human feelings.

That that wasn't an accident. That omission was deliberate and strategic”

She talks about how her own Party has become a “mob mentality”

“It's not about Charlie Kirk. It's about us taking the time to reflect. Are we living up to our own standards and our own ideals? Are we leading with Integrity? Are we just falling into a different version of the same trap? Because from my viewpoint, I don't know, it feels like we're becoming a lot like the things we claim to stand against”

It's not the media. I've seen clips of his too where MAGA says "See he's debating a gay man, he doesn't hate gay people." BUT, what he essentially told this young gay conservative is that "You don't have to always define yourself by your sexuality," and on...ergo "don't ask, don't tell." Charlie also said, "But I don't agree with your lifestyle."

I don't consider that "friendly to gays." To tell a young man that he needs to hide his relationships, yet Kirk was all about promoting his relationship with his wife. Also, he thinks being gay is a choice.

Was his statement akin to it's okay for some people to die of gun deaths so we can have the 2nd Amendment taken out of context?

Good grief. Telling someone they don’t have to define themselves by their sexuality is perfectly appropriate and actually good advice. But I wouldn’t expect someone from the party that embraces identity politics to understand that.

So you never hold hands in public with your spouse? If so, you are defining your sexuality.

Your thinking is so damned shallow. Holding hands is a sign of affection and doesn’t define you as a person. You are clearly unable to grasp the depth of Kirk’s comments. Hopefully the young man to whom he was speaking was able to think a bit deeper than you.

So tell us what you think he meant by this...

[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:The shooter had his own thoughts on Kirk and was impulsive. He will regret this for the rest of his life and ruined the lives of all Kirk’s family and friends and his own family and friends. I equate this to suicide attempts— most are impulsive. He may have planned to kill Kirk, but he was acting on an anger impulse. He most likely affiliated very liberal on certain things like transgender issues since he had a transgender partner.

I doubt that anyone is going to legitimately be convinced that he was some left wing shooter, but the defense is likely going to talk a lot about how his extremist right wing upbringing damaged his psyche.

I’m convinced everyone thinks he is except people staunchly left (because they feel it reflects poorly on their party). But it doesn’t. He was left for sure- but way out there. It doesn’t take complex analysis to put together a kid that is gay, has a trans partner, has split with parents’ political feelings (which are conservative/right), feels compelled to murder a prominent conservative figure bc he finds him “hateful” isn’t maga/right

Holy fu86 balls you are stupid and narrow minded. You can be a white nationalist, racist, xenophobe, alt-right 2nd Amendment nut who loves fascism and STILL BE GAY/TRANS/FURRY aka anything not heterosexual. I want to shake you people. Being gay does not equal Democrat/progressive. I am almost 40 and have two brothers 5 years younger and 13 years younger. The amount of acceptance for the spectrum of sexuality and the influence of internet culture completely erased all normal lines of sexual/gender/identity between the first and the second brother and their peers. Its even more accepted and understood for kids younger than my youngest brother (aged 25).
Theres a whole piece on gay Republicans in the current administration. Their sexuality does not matter when they are assisting with the dismantling of Democracy. They care more for power, or proximity to it, compared to any qualms about anti-LGBTQ because the truth is they can still be gay and hateful. Allowing white nationalism and xenophobia to grow only increases their power as white men. As white men in a fascist society where people of color and women are beneath them they will still be able to do whatever the fu65 they want because being white = right and male =control/power. Sexuality wont play a role AT ALL.

And having maga parents and know how to shoot a gun does not make him maga. I’ve seen zero evidence he is maga. Liberals can own and shoot guns too. There is nothing to indicate he was alt right. I’m sure there are plenty of people in the gay/furry community who do not identify as alt right. That is not evidence of his political leaning

Wow the point just went over your head. He is alt alt right, more right than Charlie Kirk ( sadly thats an option apparently). Its a sub culture of MAGA, MAGA is more mainstream than what this kid believed and followed. He followed Nick Fuentes and others. Do you see any evidence that he listened to or had an affiliation with any liberal pundit or political figure? THE ANSWER IS NO BUT YOU WILL STILL SAY ...BUT HE COULD BE. MAGA is what allowed these, even more alt-right, groups to fester because MAGA NORMALIZED regressive policies on science and healthcare, anti-immigration and populism/nationalism/separatism.

There is nothing evidence he is alt right or alt alt right.

Just like there's no evidence he's a liberal. His friends said he's apolitical. That's the evidence we have. He's a white man with a gun.

His family clearly said he had moved left. Not sure which of his friends said he was apolitical.

They probably did say it and probably believe it, but what does moving to the left politically mean to them? Are they talking about his political positions on a broad variety of topics or just one issue in particular: how the LGBTQ+ community is viewed by Christian Nationalists like Charlie Kirk? Something deeply affected this previously apolitical individual who grew up steeped in MAGA and radicalized him against what Charlie Kirk stood for in his mind. Was it his partner? The gaming community? The perception that he and his partner were being dehumanized, even perhaps vilified by the religious Right? We don’t have answers to complicated questions like these.

Robinson could be all in on MAGA except for LGBTQ+ issues or he could favor legal abortion on demand, more relaxed enforcement of our borders, complete separation of Church and State, pulling our funding from Israel, a far more robust effort to fight climate change, laws that expand rather than restrict voting rights, etc.

We don’t know yet.

Robinson didn't move to any "left" that mainstream Democrats recognize or identify with. They all condemned the shooting. And they also have little to do with many of the memes and things that Robinson appeard to be following.

Again EVERY prominent Democrat condemned the shooting. This is in stark contrast to Republicans like Trump, Mike Lee, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene and others making sick jokes and taking a mocking tone over the brutal beating of Paul Pelosi, the shooting of Melissa Hortman, the Whitmer kidnapping attempt, the violent attack on the US Capitol on J6, blaming liberals for the shooting at Timberview HS in TX, Trump disrespect of McCain when he died, mocking Parkland survivors, spreading sick Sandy Hook conspiracy theories and so on. The right wing's behavior has been atrocious, even from their leaders, and now they are trying to falsely project it onto Democrats.

Frankly, this “condemnation” that you speak of by the Democrats is difficult to discern. Especially after the vote today and some of the comments that have been made by House democrats.

If you're finding it "difficult to discern" you're either underinformed or have been misled.

Democrats supported and sponsored a bill condemning ALL political violence: H.Res 746. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/746/text?s=1&r=1 and which pushed for action and accountability.

Republicans instead pushed for a resolution that ONLY condemns the attack on Charlie Kirk and which strips out anything else that could have been meaningful. Let's compare the Republican bill 719 to the Democrat bill 746

Primary Focus
H.Res.719 Honors Charlie Kirk and condemns his assassination
H.Res.746 Condemns all forms of political violence and dehumanizing rhetoric

Scope of Condemnation
H.Res.719 Specific to one incident involving a conservative figure
H.Res.746 Broad and inclusive, covering violence across the political spectrum

Language
H.Res.719 Memorial-style, focused on Kirk’s legacy
H.Res.746 Institutional and civic, focused on democratic norms and safety

Sponsors
H.Res.719 Republican-led
H.Res.746 Democrat-led (Rep. Marc Veasey and 100+ cosponsors)

Mention of Other Incidents
H.Res.719 None
H.Res.746 Includes attacks on figures from both parties (e.g., Charlie Kirk, Melissa Hortman, Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi, Brett Kavanaugh, Gretchen Whitmer)

Call to Action
H.Res.719 Symbolic tribute
H.Res.746 Urges law enforcement accountability, civil discourse, and bipartisan rejection of violent rhetoric

Tone
H.Res.719 Solemn and commemorative
H.Res.746 Systemic and preventative

So if you think or want to claim that Democrats are weak on this or didn't want to condemn the shooting of Charlie Kirk you are dead wrong. If anything it's the Republicans showing weakness in what they passed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

“I'm a lifelong Democrat and I have spent hours out of my life the past few days watching Charlie Kirk debates”

She’s having an awakening after seeing that all the clips the media used to villainize Charlie Kirk were ALL LIES, they were all clipped and out of context

“The example I want to use is that clip that was everywhere that went viral, everybody was quoting it where Charlie said, I don't like the word empathy. We've probably all seen the short and the long version at this point where he goes on to clarify that he prefers the word sympathy.

Agree with them or disagree with them, doesn't matter to me. The point is the real conversation never happened because the clip was cut in half. Why? To reinforce the idea that the right is full of these monsters who reject human feelings.

That that wasn't an accident. That omission was deliberate and strategic”

She talks about how her own Party has become a “mob mentality”

“It's not about Charlie Kirk. It's about us taking the time to reflect. Are we living up to our own standards and our own ideals? Are we leading with Integrity? Are we just falling into a different version of the same trap? Because from my viewpoint, I don't know, it feels like we're becoming a lot like the things we claim to stand against”

It's not the media. I've seen clips of his too where MAGA says "See he's debating a gay man, he doesn't hate gay people." BUT, what he essentially told this young gay conservative is that "You don't have to always define yourself by your sexuality," and on...ergo "don't ask, don't tell." Charlie also said, "But I don't agree with your lifestyle."

I don't consider that "friendly to gays." To tell a young man that he needs to hide his relationships, yet Kirk was all about promoting his relationship with his wife. Also, he thinks being gay is a choice.

Was his statement akin to it's okay for some people to die of gun deaths so we can have the 2nd Amendment taken out of context?

Good grief. Telling someone they don’t have to define themselves by their sexuality is perfectly appropriate and actually good advice. But I wouldn’t expect someone from the party that embraces identity politics to understand that.

So you never hold hands in public with your spouse? If so, you are defining your sexuality.

Your thinking is so damned shallow. Holding hands is a sign of affection and doesn’t define you as a person. You are clearly unable to grasp the depth of Kirk’s comments. Hopefully the young man to whom he was speaking was able to think a bit deeper than you.

The depth of Kirk's comments? He had all the depth of a parking lot puddle.

[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:The shooter had his own thoughts on Kirk and was impulsive. He will regret this for the rest of his life and ruined the lives of all Kirk’s family and friends and his own family and friends. I equate this to suicide attempts— most are impulsive. He may have planned to kill Kirk, but he was acting on an anger impulse. He most likely affiliated very liberal on certain things like transgender issues since he had a transgender partner.

I doubt that anyone is going to legitimately be convinced that he was some left wing shooter, but the defense is likely going to talk a lot about how his extremist right wing upbringing damaged his psyche.

I’m convinced everyone thinks he is except people staunchly left (because they feel it reflects poorly on their party). But it doesn’t. He was left for sure- but way out there. It doesn’t take complex analysis to put together a kid that is gay, has a trans partner, has split with parents’ political feelings (which are conservative/right), feels compelled to murder a prominent conservative figure bc he finds him “hateful” isn’t maga/right

Holy fu86 balls you are stupid and narrow minded. You can be a white nationalist, racist, xenophobe, alt-right 2nd Amendment nut who loves fascism and STILL BE GAY/TRANS/FURRY aka anything not heterosexual. I want to shake you people. Being gay does not equal Democrat/progressive. I am almost 40 and have two brothers 5 years younger and 13 years younger. The amount of acceptance for the spectrum of sexuality and the influence of internet culture completely erased all normal lines of sexual/gender/identity between the first and the second brother and their peers. Its even more accepted and understood for kids younger than my youngest brother (aged 25).
Theres a whole piece on gay Republicans in the current administration. Their sexuality does not matter when they are assisting with the dismantling of Democracy. They care more for power, or proximity to it, compared to any qualms about anti-LGBTQ because the truth is they can still be gay and hateful. Allowing white nationalism and xenophobia to grow only increases their power as white men. As white men in a fascist society where people of color and women are beneath them they will still be able to do whatever the fu65 they want because being white = right and male =control/power. Sexuality wont play a role AT ALL.

And having maga parents and know how to shoot a gun does not make him maga. I’ve seen zero evidence he is maga. Liberals can own and shoot guns too. There is nothing to indicate he was alt right. I’m sure there are plenty of people in the gay/furry community who do not identify as alt right. That is not evidence of his political leaning

Wow the point just went over your head. He is alt alt right, more right than Charlie Kirk ( sadly thats an option apparently). Its a sub culture of MAGA, MAGA is more mainstream than what this kid believed and followed. He followed Nick Fuentes and others. Do you see any evidence that he listened to or had an affiliation with any liberal pundit or political figure? THE ANSWER IS NO BUT YOU WILL STILL SAY ...BUT HE COULD BE. MAGA is what allowed these, even more alt-right, groups to fester because MAGA NORMALIZED regressive policies on science and healthcare, anti-immigration and populism/nationalism/separatism.

There is nothing evidence he is alt right or alt alt right.

Just like there's no evidence he's a liberal. His friends said he's apolitical. That's the evidence we have. He's a white man with a gun.

His family clearly said he had moved left. Not sure which of his friends said he was apolitical.

They probably did say it and probably believe it, but what does moving to the left politically mean to them? Are they talking about his political positions on a broad variety of topics or just one issue in particular: how the LGBTQ+ community is viewed by Christian Nationalists like Charlie Kirk? Something deeply affected this previously apolitical individual who grew up steeped in MAGA and radicalized him against what Charlie Kirk stood for in his mind. Was it his partner? The gaming community? The perception that he and his partner were being dehumanized, even perhaps vilified by the religious Right? We don’t have answers to complicated questions like these.

Robinson could be all in on MAGA except for LGBTQ+ issues or he could favor legal abortion on demand, more relaxed enforcement of our borders, complete separation of Church and State, pulling our funding from Israel, a far more robust effort to fight climate change, laws that expand rather than restrict voting rights, etc.

We don’t know yet.

Robinson didn't move to any "left" that mainstream Democrats recognize or identify with. They all condemned the shooting. And they also have little to do with many of the memes and things that Robinson appeard to be following.

Again EVERY prominent Democrat condemned the shooting. This is in stark contrast to Republicans like Trump, Mike Lee, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene and others making sick jokes and taking a mocking tone over the brutal beating of Paul Pelosi, the shooting of Melissa Hortman, the Whitmer kidnapping attempt, the violent attack on the US Capitol on J6, blaming liberals for the shooting at Timberview HS in TX, Trump disrespect of McCain when he died, mocking Parkland survivors, spreading sick Sandy Hook conspiracy theories and so on. The right wing's behavior has been atrocious, even from their leaders, and now they are trying to falsely project it onto Democrats.

Frankly, this “condemnation” that you speak of by the Democrats is difficult to discern. Especially after the vote today and some of the comments that have been made by House democrats.

If you're finding it "difficult to discern" you're either underinformed or have been misled.

Democrats supported and sponsored a bill condemning ALL political violence: H.Res 746. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/746/text?s=1&r=1 and which pushed for action and accountability.

Republicans instead pushed for a resolution that ONLY condemns the attack on Charlie Kirk and which strips out anything else that could have been meaningful. Let's compare the Republican bill 719 to the Democrat bill 746

Primary Focus
H.Res.719 Honors Charlie Kirk and condemns his assassination
H.Res.746 Condemns all forms of political violence and dehumanizing rhetoric

Scope of Condemnation
H.Res.719 Specific to one incident involving a conservative figure
H.Res.746 Broad and inclusive, covering violence across the political spectrum

Language
H.Res.719 Memorial-style, focused on Kirk’s legacy
H.Res.746 Institutional and civic, focused on democratic norms and safety

Sponsors
H.Res.719 Republican-led
H.Res.746 Democrat-led (Rep. Marc Veasey and 100+ cosponsors)

Mention of Other Incidents
H.Res.719 None
H.Res.746 Includes attacks on figures from both parties (e.g., Charlie Kirk, Melissa Hortman, Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi, Brett Kavanaugh, Gretchen Whitmer)

Call to Action
H.Res.719 Symbolic tribute
H.Res.746 Urges law enforcement accountability, civil discourse, and bipartisan rejection of violent rhetoric

Tone
H.Res.719 Solemn and commemorative
H.Res.746 Systemic and preventative

So if you think or want to claim that Democrats are weak on this or didn't want to condemn the shooting of Charlie Kirk you are dead wrong. If anything it's the Republicans showing weakness in what they passed.

It's also that Republicans are profoundly incurious, don't seek out information, and live in an alternate reality bubble. Even when Democrats do exactly what Republicans claim to want them to do, it's still not enough, Democrats are still wrong, etc, etc, etc.

[Anonymous]

It is past time for the deification of Charlie Kirk to come to an end. He is dead but life continues for the rest of us.

[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:The shooter had his own thoughts on Kirk and was impulsive. He will regret this for the rest of his life and ruined the lives of all Kirk’s family and friends and his own family and friends. I equate this to suicide attempts— most are impulsive. He may have planned to kill Kirk, but he was acting on an anger impulse. He most likely affiliated very liberal on certain things like transgender issues since he had a transgender partner.

I doubt that anyone is going to legitimately be convinced that he was some left wing shooter, but the defense is likely going to talk a lot about how his extremist right wing upbringing damaged his psyche.

I’m convinced everyone thinks he is except people staunchly left (because they feel it reflects poorly on their party). But it doesn’t. He was left for sure- but way out there. It doesn’t take complex analysis to put together a kid that is gay, has a trans partner, has split with parents’ political feelings (which are conservative/right), feels compelled to murder a prominent conservative figure bc he finds him “hateful” isn’t maga/right

Holy fu86 balls you are stupid and narrow minded. You can be a white nationalist, racist, xenophobe, alt-right 2nd Amendment nut who loves fascism and STILL BE GAY/TRANS/FURRY aka anything not heterosexual. I want to shake you people. Being gay does not equal Democrat/progressive. I am almost 40 and have two brothers 5 years younger and 13 years younger. The amount of acceptance for the spectrum of sexuality and the influence of internet culture completely erased all normal lines of sexual/gender/identity between the first and the second brother and their peers. Its even more accepted and understood for kids younger than my youngest brother (aged 25).
Theres a whole piece on gay Republicans in the current administration. Their sexuality does not matter when they are assisting with the dismantling of Democracy. They care more for power, or proximity to it, compared to any qualms about anti-LGBTQ because the truth is they can still be gay and hateful. Allowing white nationalism and xenophobia to grow only increases their power as white men. As white men in a fascist society where people of color and women are beneath them they will still be able to do whatever the fu65 they want because being white = right and male =control/power. Sexuality wont play a role AT ALL.

And having maga parents and know how to shoot a gun does not make him maga. I’ve seen zero evidence he is maga. Liberals can own and shoot guns too. There is nothing to indicate he was alt right. I’m sure there are plenty of people in the gay/furry community who do not identify as alt right. That is not evidence of his political leaning

Wow the point just went over your head. He is alt alt right, more right than Charlie Kirk ( sadly thats an option apparently). Its a sub culture of MAGA, MAGA is more mainstream than what this kid believed and followed. He followed Nick Fuentes and others. Do you see any evidence that he listened to or had an affiliation with any liberal pundit or political figure? THE ANSWER IS NO BUT YOU WILL STILL SAY ...BUT HE COULD BE. MAGA is what allowed these, even more alt-right, groups to fester because MAGA NORMALIZED regressive policies on science and healthcare, anti-immigration and populism/nationalism/separatism.

There is nothing evidence he is alt right or alt alt right.

Just like there's no evidence he's a liberal. His friends said he's apolitical. That's the evidence we have. He's a white man with a gun.

His family clearly said he had moved left. Not sure which of his friends said he was apolitical.

They probably did say it and probably believe it, but what does moving to the left politically mean to them? Are they talking about his political positions on a broad variety of topics or just one issue in particular: how the LGBTQ+ community is viewed by Christian Nationalists like Charlie Kirk? Something deeply affected this previously apolitical individual who grew up steeped in MAGA and radicalized him against what Charlie Kirk stood for in his mind. Was it his partner? The gaming community? The perception that he and his partner were being dehumanized, even perhaps vilified by the religious Right? We don’t have answers to complicated questions like these.

Robinson could be all in on MAGA except for LGBTQ+ issues or he could favor legal abortion on demand, more relaxed enforcement of our borders, complete separation of Church and State, pulling our funding from Israel, a far more robust effort to fight climate change, laws that expand rather than restrict voting rights, etc.

We don’t know yet.

Robinson didn't move to any "left" that mainstream Democrats recognize or identify with. They all condemned the shooting. And they also have little to do with many of the memes and things that Robinson appeard to be following.

Again EVERY prominent Democrat condemned the shooting. This is in stark contrast to Republicans like Trump, Mike Lee, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene and others making sick jokes and taking a mocking tone over the brutal beating of Paul Pelosi, the shooting of Melissa Hortman, the Whitmer kidnapping attempt, the violent attack on the US Capitol on J6, blaming liberals for the shooting at Timberview HS in TX, Trump disrespect of McCain when he died, mocking Parkland survivors, spreading sick Sandy Hook conspiracy theories and so on. The right wing's behavior has been atrocious, even from their leaders, and now they are trying to falsely project it onto Democrats.

Frankly, this “condemnation” that you speak of by the Democrats is difficult to discern. Especially after the vote today and some of the comments that have been made by House democrats.

If you're finding it "difficult to discern" you're either underinformed or have been misled.

Democrats supported and sponsored a bill condemning ALL political violence: H.Res 746. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/746/text?s=1&r=1 and which pushed for action and accountability.

Republicans instead pushed for a resolution that ONLY condemns the attack on Charlie Kirk and which strips out anything else that could have been meaningful. Let's compare the Republican bill 719 to the Democrat bill 746

Primary Focus
H.Res.719 Honors Charlie Kirk and condemns his assassination
H.Res.746 Condemns all forms of political violence and dehumanizing rhetoric

Scope of Condemnation
H.Res.719 Specific to one incident involving a conservative figure
H.Res.746 Broad and inclusive, covering violence across the political spectrum

Language
H.Res.719 Memorial-style, focused on Kirk’s legacy
H.Res.746 Institutional and civic, focused on democratic norms and safety

Sponsors
H.Res.719 Republican-led
H.Res.746 Democrat-led (Rep. Marc Veasey and 100+ cosponsors)

Mention of Other Incidents
H.Res.719 None
H.Res.746 Includes attacks on figures from both parties (e.g., Charlie Kirk, Melissa Hortman, Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi, Brett Kavanaugh, Gretchen Whitmer)

Call to Action
H.Res.719 Symbolic tribute
H.Res.746 Urges law enforcement accountability, civil discourse, and bipartisan rejection of violent rhetoric

Tone
H.Res.719 Solemn and commemorative
H.Res.746 Systemic and preventative

So if you think or want to claim that Democrats are weak on this or didn't want to condemn the shooting of Charlie Kirk you are dead wrong. If anything it's the Republicans showing weakness in what they passed.

It is important to point out that in June ALL Republicans voted for a resolution condemning the attack on the Minnesota lawmakers.

Just saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is past time for the deification of Charlie Kirk to come to an end. He is dead but life continues for the rest of us.

Nope.
Not your call.

[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:The shooter had his own thoughts on Kirk and was impulsive. He will regret this for the rest of his life and ruined the lives of all Kirk’s family and friends and his own family and friends. I equate this to suicide attempts— most are impulsive. He may have planned to kill Kirk, but he was acting on an anger impulse. He most likely affiliated very liberal on certain things like transgender issues since he had a transgender partner.

I doubt that anyone is going to legitimately be convinced that he was some left wing shooter, but the defense is likely going to talk a lot about how his extremist right wing upbringing damaged his psyche.

I’m convinced everyone thinks he is except people staunchly left (because they feel it reflects poorly on their party). But it doesn’t. He was left for sure- but way out there. It doesn’t take complex analysis to put together a kid that is gay, has a trans partner, has split with parents’ political feelings (which are conservative/right), feels compelled to murder a prominent conservative figure bc he finds him “hateful” isn’t maga/right

Holy fu86 balls you are stupid and narrow minded. You can be a white nationalist, racist, xenophobe, alt-right 2nd Amendment nut who loves fascism and STILL BE GAY/TRANS/FURRY aka anything not heterosexual. I want to shake you people. Being gay does not equal Democrat/progressive. I am almost 40 and have two brothers 5 years younger and 13 years younger. The amount of acceptance for the spectrum of sexuality and the influence of internet culture completely erased all normal lines of sexual/gender/identity between the first and the second brother and their peers. Its even more accepted and understood for kids younger than my youngest brother (aged 25).
Theres a whole piece on gay Republicans in the current administration. Their sexuality does not matter when they are assisting with the dismantling of Democracy. They care more for power, or proximity to it, compared to any qualms about anti-LGBTQ because the truth is they can still be gay and hateful. Allowing white nationalism and xenophobia to grow only increases their power as white men. As white men in a fascist society where people of color and women are beneath them they will still be able to do whatever the fu65 they want because being white = right and male =control/power. Sexuality wont play a role AT ALL.

And having maga parents and know how to shoot a gun does not make him maga. I’ve seen zero evidence he is maga. Liberals can own and shoot guns too. There is nothing to indicate he was alt right. I’m sure there are plenty of people in the gay/furry community who do not identify as alt right. That is not evidence of his political leaning

Wow the point just went over your head. He is alt alt right, more right than Charlie Kirk ( sadly thats an option apparently). Its a sub culture of MAGA, MAGA is more mainstream than what this kid believed and followed. He followed Nick Fuentes and others. Do you see any evidence that he listened to or had an affiliation with any liberal pundit or political figure? THE ANSWER IS NO BUT YOU WILL STILL SAY ...BUT HE COULD BE. MAGA is what allowed these, even more alt-right, groups to fester because MAGA NORMALIZED regressive policies on science and healthcare, anti-immigration and populism/nationalism/separatism.

There is nothing evidence he is alt right or alt alt right.

Just like there's no evidence he's a liberal. His friends said he's apolitical. That's the evidence we have. He's a white man with a gun.

His family clearly said he had moved left. Not sure which of his friends said he was apolitical.

They probably did say it and probably believe it, but what does moving to the left politically mean to them? Are they talking about his political positions on a broad variety of topics or just one issue in particular: how the LGBTQ+ community is viewed by Christian Nationalists like Charlie Kirk? Something deeply affected this previously apolitical individual who grew up steeped in MAGA and radicalized him against what Charlie Kirk stood for in his mind. Was it his partner? The gaming community? The perception that he and his partner were being dehumanized, even perhaps vilified by the religious Right? We don’t have answers to complicated questions like these.

Robinson could be all in on MAGA except for LGBTQ+ issues or he could favor legal abortion on demand, more relaxed enforcement of our borders, complete separation of Church and State, pulling our funding from Israel, a far more robust effort to fight climate change, laws that expand rather than restrict voting rights, etc.

We don’t know yet.

Robinson didn't move to any "left" that mainstream Democrats recognize or identify with. They all condemned the shooting. And they also have little to do with many of the memes and things that Robinson appeard to be following.

Again EVERY prominent Democrat condemned the shooting. This is in stark contrast to Republicans like Trump, Mike Lee, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene and others making sick jokes and taking a mocking tone over the brutal beating of Paul Pelosi, the shooting of Melissa Hortman, the Whitmer kidnapping attempt, the violent attack on the US Capitol on J6, blaming liberals for the shooting at Timberview HS in TX, Trump disrespect of McCain when he died, mocking Parkland survivors, spreading sick Sandy Hook conspiracy theories and so on. The right wing's behavior has been atrocious, even from their leaders, and now they are trying to falsely project it onto Democrats.

Frankly, this “condemnation” that you speak of by the Democrats is difficult to discern. Especially after the vote today and some of the comments that have been made by House democrats.

If you're finding it "difficult to discern" you're either underinformed or have been misled.

Democrats supported and sponsored a bill condemning ALL political violence: H.Res 746. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/746/text?s=1&r=1 and which pushed for action and accountability.

Republicans instead pushed for a resolution that ONLY condemns the attack on Charlie Kirk and which strips out anything else that could have been meaningful. Let's compare the Republican bill 719 to the Democrat bill 746

Primary Focus
H.Res.719 Honors Charlie Kirk and condemns his assassination
H.Res.746 Condemns all forms of political violence and dehumanizing rhetoric

Scope of Condemnation
H.Res.719 Specific to one incident involving a conservative figure
H.Res.746 Broad and inclusive, covering violence across the political spectrum

Language
H.Res.719 Memorial-style, focused on Kirk’s legacy
H.Res.746 Institutional and civic, focused on democratic norms and safety

Sponsors
H.Res.719 Republican-led
H.Res.746 Democrat-led (Rep. Marc Veasey and 100+ cosponsors)

Mention of Other Incidents
H.Res.719 None
H.Res.746 Includes attacks on figures from both parties (e.g., Charlie Kirk, Melissa Hortman, Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi, Brett Kavanaugh, Gretchen Whitmer)

Call to Action
H.Res.719 Symbolic tribute
H.Res.746 Urges law enforcement accountability, civil discourse, and bipartisan rejection of violent rhetoric

Tone
H.Res.719 Solemn and commemorative
H.Res.746 Systemic and preventative

So if you think or want to claim that Democrats are weak on this or didn't want to condemn the shooting of Charlie Kirk you are dead wrong. If anything it's the Republicans showing weakness in what they passed.

The Democrats' bill contained a stronger condemnation of political violence than the Republicans bill did. Republicans do not get to go around saying Democrats aren't condemning political violence, are somehow wishy washy or not condemning it strongly enough. That's just a straight-up lie. I think the PP who said "it's difficult to discern" actually owes an apology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

“I'm a lifelong Democrat and I have spent hours out of my life the past few days watching Charlie Kirk debates”

She’s having an awakening after seeing that all the clips the media used to villainize Charlie Kirk were ALL LIES, they were all clipped and out of context

“The example I want to use is that clip that was everywhere that went viral, everybody was quoting it where Charlie said, I don't like the word empathy. We've probably all seen the short and the long version at this point where he goes on to clarify that he prefers the word sympathy.

Agree with them or disagree with them, doesn't matter to me. The point is the real conversation never happened because the clip was cut in half. Why? To reinforce the idea that the right is full of these monsters who reject human feelings.

That that wasn't an accident. That omission was deliberate and strategic”

She talks about how her own Party has become a “mob mentality”

“It's not about Charlie Kirk. It's about us taking the time to reflect. Are we living up to our own standards and our own ideals? Are we leading with Integrity? Are we just falling into a different version of the same trap? Because from my viewpoint, I don't know, it feels like we're becoming a lot like the things we claim to stand against”

It's not the media. I've seen clips of his too where MAGA says "See he's debating a gay man, he doesn't hate gay people." BUT, what he essentially told this young gay conservative is that "You don't have to always define yourself by your sexuality," and on...ergo "don't ask, don't tell." Charlie also said, "But I don't agree with your lifestyle."

I don't consider that "friendly to gays." To tell a young man that he needs to hide his relationships, yet Kirk was all about promoting his relationship with his wife. Also, he thinks being gay is a choice.

Was his statement akin to it's okay for some people to die of gun deaths so we can have the 2nd Amendment taken out of context?

Good grief. Telling someone they don’t have to define themselves by their sexuality is perfectly appropriate and actually good advice. But I wouldn’t expect someone from the party that embraces identity politics to understand that.

So you never hold hands in public with your spouse? If so, you are defining your sexuality.

Your thinking is so damned shallow. Holding hands is a sign of affection and doesn’t define you as a person. You are clearly unable to grasp the depth of Kirk’s comments. Hopefully the young man to whom he was speaking was able to think a bit deeper than you.

So tell us what you think he meant by this...

I don’t have to surmise. Kirk actually told him…..


'I don't think you should introduce yourself just based on your sexual attraction because that's not who you are,' the father-of-two responded.

Chris nodded in agreement, placing a hand on his chest as he replied sympathetically: 'I like to be thought of as a person.'

'You are a complete human being, and I'm sure you treat people well, and you're studying something,' Kirk continued.

'I just think that we have gone a long way in the negative direction in this country where we act as if the most important part of your identity is what you do in the bedroom,' Kirk said.

[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][quote=Anonymous]The shooter had his own thoughts on Kirk and was impulsive. He will regret this for the rest of his life and ruined the lives of all Kirk’s family and friends and his own family and friends. I equate this to suicide attempts— most are impulsive. He may have planned to kill Kirk, but he was acting on an anger impulse. He most likely affiliated very liberal on certain things like transgender issues since he had a transgender partner.[/quote]

I doubt that anyone is going to legitimately be convinced that he was some left wing shooter, but the defense is likely going to talk a lot about how his extremist right wing upbringing damaged his psyche.[/quote]

I’m convinced everyone thinks he is except people staunchly left (because they feel it reflects poorly on their party). But it doesn’t. He was left for sure- but way out there. It doesn’t take complex analysis to put together a kid that is gay, has a trans partner, has split with parents’ political feelings (which are conservative/right), feels compelled to murder a prominent conservative figure bc he finds him “hateful” isn’t maga/right [/quote]

Holy fu86 balls you are stupid and narrow minded. You can be a white nationalist, racist, xenophobe, alt-right 2nd Amendment nut who loves fascism and STILL BE GAY/TRANS/FURRY aka anything not heterosexual. I want to shake you people. Being gay does not equal Democrat/progressive. I am almost 40 and have two brothers 5 years younger and 13 years younger. The amount of acceptance for the spectrum of sexuality and the influence of internet culture completely erased all normal lines of sexual/gender/identity between the first and the second brother and their peers. Its even more accepted and understood for kids younger than my youngest brother (aged 25).
Theres a whole piece on gay Republicans in the current administration. Their sexuality does not matter when they are assisting with the dismantling of Democracy. They care more for power, or proximity to it, compared to any qualms about anti-LGBTQ because the truth is they can still be gay and hateful. Allowing white nationalism and xenophobia to grow only increases their power as white men. As white men in a fascist society where people of color and women are beneath them they will still be able to do whatever the fu65 they want because being white = right and male =control/power. Sexuality wont play a role AT ALL.
[/quote]

And having maga parents and know how to shoot a gun does not make him maga. I’ve seen zero evidence he is maga. Liberals can own and shoot guns too. There is nothing to indicate he was alt right. I’m sure there are plenty of people in the gay/furry community who do not identify as alt right. That is not evidence of his political leaning [/quote]

Wow the point just went over your head. He is alt alt right, more right than Charlie Kirk ( sadly thats an option apparently). Its a sub culture of MAGA, MAGA is more mainstream than what this kid believed and followed. He followed Nick Fuentes and others. Do you see any evidence that he listened to or had an affiliation with any liberal pundit or political figure? THE ANSWER IS NO BUT YOU WILL STILL SAY ...BUT HE COULD BE. MAGA is what allowed these, even more alt-right, groups to fester because MAGA NORMALIZED regressive policies on science and healthcare, anti-immigration and populism/nationalism/separatism. [/quote]

There is nothing evidence he is alt right or alt alt right. [/quote]

Just like there's no evidence he's a liberal. His friends said he's apolitical. That's the evidence we have. He's a white man with a gun. [/quote]


His family clearly said he had moved left. Not sure which of his friends said he was apolitical. [/quote]
They probably did say it and probably believe it, but what does moving to the left politically mean to them? Are they talking about his political positions on a broad variety of topics or just one issue in particular: how the LGBTQ+ community is viewed by Christian Nationalists like Charlie Kirk? Something deeply affected this previously apolitical individual who grew up steeped in MAGA and radicalized him against what Charlie Kirk stood for in his mind. Was it his partner? The gaming community? The perception that he and his partner were being dehumanized, even perhaps vilified by the religious Right? We don’t have answers to complicated questions like these.

Robinson could be all in on MAGA except for LGBTQ+ issues or he could favor legal abortion on demand, more relaxed enforcement of our borders, complete separation of Church and State, pulling our funding from Israel, a far more robust effort to fight climate change, laws that expand rather than restrict voting rights, etc.

We don’t know yet.[/quote]

Robinson didn't move to any "left" that mainstream Democrats recognize or identify with. They all condemned the shooting. And they also have little to do with many of the memes and things that Robinson appeard to be following.

Again EVERY prominent Democrat condemned the shooting. This is in stark contrast to Republicans like Trump, Mike Lee, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene and others making sick jokes and taking a mocking tone over the brutal beating of Paul Pelosi, the shooting of Melissa Hortman, the Whitmer kidnapping attempt, the violent attack on the US Capitol on J6, blaming liberals for the shooting at Timberview HS in TX, Trump disrespect of McCain when he died, mocking Parkland survivors, spreading sick Sandy Hook conspiracy theories and so on. The right wing's behavior has been atrocious, even from their leaders, and now they are trying to falsely project it onto Democrats. [/quote]


Frankly, this “condemnation” that you speak of by the Democrats is difficult to discern. Especially after the vote today and some of the comments that have been made by House democrats. [/quote]

If you're finding it "difficult to discern" you're either underinformed or have been misled.

Democrats supported and sponsored a bill condemning ALL political violence: H.Res 746. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/746/text?s=1&r=1 and which pushed for action and accountability.

Republicans instead pushed for a resolution that ONLY condemns the attack on Charlie Kirk and which strips out anything else that could have been meaningful. Let's compare the Republican bill 719 to the Democrat bill 746

Primary Focus
H.Res.719 Honors Charlie Kirk and condemns his assassination
H.Res.746 Condemns all forms of political violence and dehumanizing rhetoric

Scope of Condemnation
H.Res.719 Specific to one incident involving a conservative figure
H.Res.746 Broad and inclusive, covering violence across the political spectrum

Language
H.Res.719 Memorial-style, focused on Kirk’s legacy
H.Res.746 Institutional and civic, focused on democratic norms and safety

Sponsors
H.Res.719 Republican-led
H.Res.746 Democrat-led (Rep. Marc Veasey and 100+ cosponsors)

Mention of Other Incidents
H.Res.719 None
H.Res.746 Includes attacks on figures from both parties (e.g., Charlie Kirk, Melissa Hortman, Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi, Brett Kavanaugh, Gretchen Whitmer)

Call to Action
H.Res.719 Symbolic tribute
H.Res.746 Urges law enforcement accountability, civil discourse, and bipartisan rejection of violent rhetoric

Tone
H.Res.719 Solemn and commemorative
H.Res.746 Systemic and preventative

So if you think or want to claim that Democrats are weak on this or didn't want to condemn the shooting of Charlie Kirk you are dead wrong. If anything it's the Republicans showing weakness in what they passed.[/quote]

The Democrats' bill contained a stronger condemnation of political violence than the Republicans bill did. Republicans do not get to go around saying Democrats aren't condemning political violence, are somehow wishy washy or not condemning it strongly enough. That's just a straight-up lie. I think the PP who said "it's difficult to discern" actually owes an apology.[/quote]

Good grief. It is hard to believe that nearly half of the democrats could not bring themselves to vote for a resolution condemning the killing of Charlie Kirk. Amazing.

[Anonymous]

I see that DT was so sad on the loss of his friend that he canceled his trip abroad. What a brave warrior he is going ahead to stay in a palace and watch soldiers march while people wait on him hand and foot. Such a brave man!!!!! I'm going to wave my MAGA flag allll weekend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

“I'm a lifelong Democrat and I have spent hours out of my life the past few days watching Charlie Kirk debates”

She’s having an awakening after seeing that all the clips the media used to villainize Charlie Kirk were ALL LIES, they were all clipped and out of context

“The example I want to use is that clip that was everywhere that went viral, everybody was quoting it where Charlie said, I don't like the word empathy. We've probably all seen the short and the long version at this point where he goes on to clarify that he prefers the word sympathy.

Agree with them or disagree with them, doesn't matter to me. The point is the real conversation never happened because the clip was cut in half. Why? To reinforce the idea that the right is full of these monsters who reject human feelings.

That that wasn't an accident. That omission was deliberate and strategic”

She talks about how her own Party has become a “mob mentality”

“It's not about Charlie Kirk. It's about us taking the time to reflect. Are we living up to our own standards and our own ideals? Are we leading with Integrity? Are we just falling into a different version of the same trap? Because from my viewpoint, I don't know, it feels like we're becoming a lot like the things we claim to stand against”

It's not the media. I've seen clips of his too where MAGA says "See he's debating a gay man, he doesn't hate gay people." BUT, what he essentially told this young gay conservative is that "You don't have to always define yourself by your sexuality," and on...ergo "don't ask, don't tell." Charlie also said, "But I don't agree with your lifestyle."

I don't consider that "friendly to gays." To tell a young man that he needs to hide his relationships, yet Kirk was all about promoting his relationship with his wife. Also, he thinks being gay is a choice.

Was his statement akin to it's okay for some people to die of gun deaths so we can have the 2nd Amendment taken out of context?

Good grief. Telling someone they don’t have to define themselves by their sexuality is perfectly appropriate and actually good advice. But I wouldn’t expect someone from the party that embraces identity politics to understand that.

So you never hold hands in public with your spouse? If so, you are defining your sexuality.

Your thinking is so damned shallow. Holding hands is a sign of affection and doesn’t define you as a person. You are clearly unable to grasp the depth of Kirk’s comments. Hopefully the young man to whom he was speaking was able to think a bit deeper than you.

So tell us what you think he meant by this...

I don’t have to surmise. Kirk actually told him…..


'I don't think you should introduce yourself just based on your sexual attraction because that's not who you are,' the father-of-two responded.

Chris nodded in agreement, placing a hand on his chest as he replied sympathetically: 'I like to be thought of as a person.'

'You are a complete human being, and I'm sure you treat people well, and you're studying something,' Kirk continued.

'I just think that we have gone a long way in the negative direction in this country where we act as if the most important part of your identity is what you do in the bedroom,' Kirk said.

Sounds like Charlie Kirk should've taken his own advice!!

https://ifstudies.org/blog/get-married-charlie-kirks-most-important-advice-to-young-men-and-women

"Having children is more important than having a good career"

Apparently what some people do in the bedroom is really really important, but what other people do in the bedroom is shameful and shouldn't be how they choose to identify. Just more poorly-reasoned drivel from an intellectual lightweight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

“I'm a lifelong Democrat and I have spent hours out of my life the past few days watching Charlie Kirk debates”

She’s having an awakening after seeing that all the clips the media used to villainize Charlie Kirk were ALL LIES, they were all clipped and out of context

“The example I want to use is that clip that was everywhere that went viral, everybody was quoting it where Charlie said, I don't like the word empathy. We've probably all seen the short and the long version at this point where he goes on to clarify that he prefers the word sympathy.

Agree with them or disagree with them, doesn't matter to me. The point is the real conversation never happened because the clip was cut in half. Why? To reinforce the idea that the right is full of these monsters who reject human feelings.

That that wasn't an accident. That omission was deliberate and strategic”

She talks about how her own Party has become a “mob mentality”

“It's not about Charlie Kirk. It's about us taking the time to reflect. Are we living up to our own standards and our own ideals? Are we leading with Integrity? Are we just falling into a different version of the same trap? Because from my viewpoint, I don't know, it feels like we're becoming a lot like the things we claim to stand against”

It's not the media. I've seen clips of his too where MAGA says "See he's debating a gay man, he doesn't hate gay people." BUT, what he essentially told this young gay conservative is that "You don't have to always define yourself by your sexuality," and on...ergo "don't ask, don't tell." Charlie also said, "But I don't agree with your lifestyle."

I don't consider that "friendly to gays." To tell a young man that he needs to hide his relationships, yet Kirk was all about promoting his relationship with his wife. Also, he thinks being gay is a choice.

Was his statement akin to it's okay for some people to die of gun deaths so we can have the 2nd Amendment taken out of context?

Good grief. Telling someone they don’t have to define themselves by their sexuality is perfectly appropriate and actually good advice. But I wouldn’t expect someone from the party that embraces identity politics to understand that.

So you never hold hands in public with your spouse? If so, you are defining your sexuality.

Your thinking is so damned shallow. Holding hands is a sign of affection and doesn’t define you as a person. You are clearly unable to grasp the depth of Kirk’s comments. Hopefully the young man to whom he was speaking was able to think a bit deeper than you.

So tell us what you think he meant by this...

I don’t have to surmise. Kirk actually told him…..


'I don't think you should introduce yourself just based on your sexual attraction because that's not who you are,' the father-of-two responded.

Chris nodded in agreement, placing a hand on his chest as he replied sympathetically: 'I like to be thought of as a person.'

'You are a complete human being, and I'm sure you treat people well, and you're studying something,' Kirk continued.

'I just think that we have gone a long way in the negative direction in this country where we act as if the most important part of your identity is what you do in the bedroom,' Kirk said.

So, clearly "don't ask, don't tell." You forgot the part where he said he didn't condone the student's "lifestyle." It's fine for Charlie to be straight. He wants people to marry and procreate. He wants this man to procreate or be silent, while furthering the conservative cause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

“I'm a lifelong Democrat and I have spent hours out of my life the past few days watching Charlie Kirk debates”

She’s having an awakening after seeing that all the clips the media used to villainize Charlie Kirk were ALL LIES, they were all clipped and out of context

“The example I want to use is that clip that was everywhere that went viral, everybody was quoting it where Charlie said, I don't like the word empathy. We've probably all seen the short and the long version at this point where he goes on to clarify that he prefers the word sympathy.

Agree with them or disagree with them, doesn't matter to me. The point is the real conversation never happened because the clip was cut in half. Why? To reinforce the idea that the right is full of these monsters who reject human feelings.

That that wasn't an accident. That omission was deliberate and strategic”

She talks about how her own Party has become a “mob mentality”

“It's not about Charlie Kirk. It's about us taking the time to reflect. Are we living up to our own standards and our own ideals? Are we leading with Integrity? Are we just falling into a different version of the same trap? Because from my viewpoint, I don't know, it feels like we're becoming a lot like the things we claim to stand against”

It's not the media. I've seen clips of his too where MAGA says "See he's debating a gay man, he doesn't hate gay people." BUT, what he essentially told this young gay conservative is that "You don't have to always define yourself by your sexuality," and on...ergo "don't ask, don't tell." Charlie also said, "But I don't agree with your lifestyle."

I don't consider that "friendly to gays." To tell a young man that he needs to hide his relationships, yet Kirk was all about promoting his relationship with his wife. Also, he thinks being gay is a choice.

Was his statement akin to it's okay for some people to die of gun deaths so we can have the 2nd Amendment taken out of context?

Good grief. Telling someone they don’t have to define themselves by their sexuality is perfectly appropriate and actually good advice. But I wouldn’t expect someone from the party that embraces identity politics to understand that.

So you never hold hands in public with your spouse? If so, you are defining your sexuality.

Your thinking is so damned shallow. Holding hands is a sign of affection and doesn’t define you as a person. You are clearly unable to grasp the depth of Kirk’s comments. Hopefully the young man to whom he was speaking was able to think a bit deeper than you.

So tell us what you think he meant by this...

I don’t have to surmise. Kirk actually told him…..


'I don't think you should introduce yourself just based on your sexual attraction because that's not who you are,' the father-of-two responded.

Chris nodded in agreement, placing a hand on his chest as he replied sympathetically: 'I like to be thought of as a person.'

'You are a complete human being, and I'm sure you treat people well, and you're studying something,' Kirk continued.

'I just think that we have gone a long way in the negative direction in this country where we act as if the most important part of your identity is what you do in the bedroom,' Kirk said.

Sounds like Charlie Kirk should've taken his own advice!!

https://ifstudies.org/blog/get-married-charlie-kirks-most-important-advice-to-young-men-and-women

"Having children is more important than having a good career"

Apparently what some people do in the bedroom is really really important, but what other people do in the bedroom is shameful and shouldn't be how they choose to identify. Just more poorly-reasoned drivel from an intellectual lightweight.

Yup, I'm pp who posted right after you. He told women on campus they should focus on getting a husband there. Clearly fine for them to define themselves sexually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

“I'm a lifelong Democrat and I have spent hours out of my life the past few days watching Charlie Kirk debates”

She’s having an awakening after seeing that all the clips the media used to villainize Charlie Kirk were ALL LIES, they were all clipped and out of context

“The example I want to use is that clip that was everywhere that went viral, everybody was quoting it where Charlie said, I don't like the word empathy. We've probably all seen the short and the long version at this point where he goes on to clarify that he prefers the word sympathy.

Agree with them or disagree with them, doesn't matter to me. The point is the real conversation never happened because the clip was cut in half. Why? To reinforce the idea that the right is full of these monsters who reject human feelings.

That that wasn't an accident. That omission was deliberate and strategic”

She talks about how her own Party has become a “mob mentality”

“It's not about Charlie Kirk. It's about us taking the time to reflect. Are we living up to our own standards and our own ideals? Are we leading with Integrity? Are we just falling into a different version of the same trap? Because from my viewpoint, I don't know, it feels like we're becoming a lot like the things we claim to stand against”

It's not the media. I've seen clips of his too where MAGA says "See he's debating a gay man, he doesn't hate gay people." BUT, what he essentially told this young gay conservative is that "You don't have to always define yourself by your sexuality," and on...ergo "don't ask, don't tell." Charlie also said, "But I don't agree with your lifestyle."

I don't consider that "friendly to gays." To tell a young man that he needs to hide his relationships, yet Kirk was all about promoting his relationship with his wife. Also, he thinks being gay is a choice.

Was his statement akin to it's okay for some people to die of gun deaths so we can have the 2nd Amendment taken out of context?

Good grief. Telling someone they don’t have to define themselves by their sexuality is perfectly appropriate and actually good advice. But I wouldn’t expect someone from the party that embraces identity politics to understand that.

So you never hold hands in public with your spouse? If so, you are defining your sexuality.

Your thinking is so damned shallow. Holding hands is a sign of affection and doesn’t define you as a person. You are clearly unable to grasp the depth of Kirk’s comments. Hopefully the young man to whom he was speaking was able to think a bit deeper than you.

So tell us what you think he meant by this...

I don’t have to surmise. Kirk actually told him…..


'I don't think you should introduce yourself just based on your sexual attraction because that's not who you are,' the father-of-two responded.

Chris nodded in agreement, placing a hand on his chest as he replied sympathetically: 'I like to be thought of as a person.'

'You are a complete human being, and I'm sure you treat people well, and you're studying something,' Kirk continued.

'I just think that we have gone a long way in the negative direction in this country where we act as if the most important part of your identity is what you do in the bedroom,' Kirk said.

So, clearly "don't ask, don't tell." You forgot the part where he said he didn't condone the student's "lifestyle." It's fine for Charlie to be straight. He wants people to marry and procreate. He wants this man to procreate or be silent, while furthering the conservative cause.

I have to point out the obvious here. It takes a male and a female to procreate. And if humans cease to procreate, our species becomes extinct. That’s science.