Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

“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.

Agree

Leading with some social Identity Label is really something. In your face. Trying to be shock & awe but is lame and insecure. Like you want special accommodations.

Where do you live? I live in a pretty "leftist" community and nobody I know has ever "introduced themself based on their sexual attraction". They might introduce me to their spouse who is the same gender but it's weird to interpret that interaction as them telling me "what they do in the bedroom".

You clearly don’t have kids here. Check out the new age pronoun worksheets coming home and which SJW activist shop is on the copyright at the bottom. Lucrative biz.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree

Leading with some social Identity Label is really something. In your face. Trying to be shock & awe but is lame and insecure. Like you want special accommodations.

Agree. People need to stop identifying as Christians. So lame and insecure and clearly asking for special treatment.

A) people don’t lead with their religion unless it’s the topic

B) that’s not a social identity label, that’s a religion, creed or faith one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree

Leading with some social Identity Label is really something. In your face. Trying to be shock & awe but is lame and insecure. Like you want special accommodations.

Agree. People need to stop identifying as Christians. So lame and insecure and clearly asking for special treatment.

A) people don’t lead with their religion unless it’s the topic

B) that’s not a social identity label, that’s a religion, creed or faith one.

MAGA Christians lead with their religion on every single social media profile, comment and statement they make. It is a social identity label, sorry it's not convenient to your uber lame argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree

Leading with some social Identity Label is really something. In your face. Trying to be shock & awe but is lame and insecure. Like you want special accommodations.

Agree. People need to stop identifying as Christians. So lame and insecure and clearly asking for special treatment.

A) people don’t lead with their religion unless it’s the topic

B) that’s not a social identity label, that’s a religion, creed or faith one.

Religion is a HUGE social label.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree

Leading with some social Identity Label is really something. In your face. Trying to be shock & awe but is lame and insecure. Like you want special accommodations.

Where do you live? I live in a pretty "leftist" community and nobody I know has ever "introduced themself based on their sexual attraction". They might introduce me to their spouse who is the same gender but it's weird to interpret that interaction as them telling me "what they do in the bedroom".

You clearly don’t have kids here. Check out the new age pronoun worksheets coming home and which SJW activist shop is on the copyright at the bottom. Lucrative biz.

I live in NOVA and have a teen and know lots of kids in NOVA schools. This is complete and utter Bull$h1t. Leading with social identity is just not a thing. You know it. I know it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree

Leading with some social Identity Label is really something. In your face. Trying to be shock & awe but is lame and insecure. Like you want special accommodations.

Where do you live? I live in a pretty "leftist" community and nobody I know has ever "introduced themself based on their sexual attraction". They might introduce me to their spouse who is the same gender but it's weird to interpret that interaction as them telling me "what they do in the bedroom".

You clearly don’t have kids here. Check out the new age pronoun worksheets coming home and which SJW activist shop is on the copyright at the bottom. Lucrative biz.

I live in NOVA and have a teen and know lots of kids in NOVA schools. This is complete and utter Bull$h1t. Leading with social identity is just not a thing. You know it. I know it.

+1

[Anonymous]

Distract, distract, distract. Try harder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the odds that Charlie Kirk’s memorial service this Sunday will devolve into a grievance-filled, vitriolic Trump rally? I say about 100%.

I guarantee you it will be touching, emotional, and will be a wonderful celebration of a life taken far too early.

What odds would you give for the president sticking to a script that is all about Charlie, without attacking anyone or airing his own complaints?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the odds that Charlie Kirk’s memorial service this Sunday will devolve into a grievance-filled, vitriolic Trump rally? I say about 100%.

I guarantee you it will be touching, emotional, and will be a wonderful celebration of a life taken far too early.

What odds would you give for the president sticking to a script that is all about Charlie, without attacking anyone or airing his own complaints?

I'd say 0. Obviously. He might detour into talking about his ballroom, the trillions we're taking in, or how sick our country was a year ago. Sort of like the way he walks now.

[Anonymous]

Patel admitted the text chain released earlier was fabricated since the original was lost.

This kid is going to walk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Patel admitted the text chain released earlier was fabricated since the original was lost.

This kid is going to walk.

I suspect he will die before going to trial. Right don’t want him to talk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree

Leading with some social Identity Label is really something. In your face. Trying to be shock & awe but is lame and insecure. Like you want special accommodations.

Agree. People need to stop identifying as Christians. So lame and insecure and clearly asking for special treatment.

A) people don’t lead with their religion unless it’s the topic

B) that’s not a social identity label, that’s a religion, creed or faith one.

MAGA Christians lead with their religion on every single social media profile, comment and statement they make. It is a social identity label, sorry it's not convenient to your uber lame argument.

Even some non- MAGA Christians do. That PP is full of crap!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the odds that Charlie Kirk’s memorial service this Sunday will devolve into a grievance-filled, vitriolic Trump rally? I say about 100%.

I guarantee you it will be touching, emotional, and will be a wonderful celebration of a life taken far too early.

What odds would you give for the president sticking to a script that is all about Charlie, without attacking anyone or airing his own complaints?

I'd say 0. Obviously. He might detour into talking about his ballroom, the trillions we're taking in, or how sick our country was a year ago. Sort of like the way he walks now.

I might make up bingo cards.

-Most successful administration ever
-Landslide election victory
-Vicious leftists
-Only US president to be hosted by British royal family twice
-Religious references someone else obviously had to write for him/pandering to evangelicals
-Comments about Erika Kirk’s looks
-Slurred speech
-Mispronounced words
-Getting someone’s name wrong
-Big tough guys with tears in their eyes
-Some version of “like has never been seen before”
-People are saying

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree

Leading with some social Identity Label is really something. In your face. Trying to be shock & awe but is lame and insecure. Like you want special accommodations.

Context matters, you muppets.

With the format he had, it would be EXPECTED that a challenger would lead with some issue at odds with Kirk's positions. Most LBGTQ people I know don't lead with their identity/preference, some present in a way that suggests they are gay/trans/whatever--and sometimes people I've thought probably were, weren't at all--and others don't present in such a manner at all. Some may make a point of getting it out there because they feel more comfortable to have it said and get it over with instead of wondering what other people are thinking.

BTW she was wrong--he said he preferred "compassion" to empathy. There is a slight difference--one has latin roots, the other has greek roots, the first one implies sharing someone's feelings ("with") which they other means stepping into their shoes ("em" places them inside the other person, like stepping into their shoes). There's an argument that compassion leads to action, but I think most people wouldn't think one way or the other, the words would pretty much mean the same. I do think "compassion" is a word more likely used by Christians (I'm thinking of traditional Christians, I manage to not spend a lot of time around the evangelicals) and for them carries more of a connection with their religion, as opposed to being a personal feeling towards others.

As for Kirk, he used people as props. Period. That is not debate. He apparently also acquired his MAGA notions only after he drew the attention of the MAGAs. (He was always an evangelical Christian, but certainly not a Christian nationalist.) He did not seem to be really educated about things like the constitution and the varying opinions of the men who wrote it. In fact, he did not seem to be very educated at all (not going to college is no excuse, if you want to have a national political platform; all you have to do is pick up some books and start reading).

In some cases yes, context does--but only slightly--modify his statements, but his core principles remain the same.

[Anonymous]

More coincidences.