Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

“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".

Here in Washington DC. It’s so leftist here the school panelist introduced her as a hetero cisgender 10 years ago to which my European husband said WTF, looked it up, laughed out loud, and walked out.

Oh wow. One random incident pulled from 10 years ago. 👏👏👏👏

[Anonymous]

This is what everyone is calling “civil discourse” and the “exchange of ideas.” My heart just breaks for this kid. How was he not enraged? He just took it, while waiting to ask his question. He didn’t tell Charlie that he didn’t go to the police because they would have acted the same way as Charlie. Heartbreaking. I wish I could give this kid a hug.

https://www.threads.com/@charlesmblow/post/DOyrzuMjBb3?xmt=AQF0VsyKaHeKAq3WWY01W1eUFO31POP8ugwjiqo8iJ-ghA&slof=1

[Anonymous]

Andrew Kolvet

@AndrewKolvet
·
4h


Tucker and I addressed what happened with the SD cards after the assassination. The individual who grabbed them is a longtime staffer, a loyal man, and a dear friend. He made the right call. I'm still stunned he had the presence of mind to ensure no one stole them.

[Anonymous]

The turnout for the service in Phoenix has been revised up to 100,000.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Andrew Kolvet

@AndrewKolvet
·
4h


Tucker and I addressed what happened with the SD cards after the assassination. The individual who grabbed them is a longtime staffer, a loyal man, and a dear friend. He made the right call. I'm still stunned he had the presence of mind to ensure no one stole them.

But he didn’t have the presence of mind to follow common knowledge protocol after any accident or murder and wait for EMS. Make sure to protect the SD cards.

[Anonymous]

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

This kid is going to walk.

What? Where did he admit this?

I’m the poster who theorized this morning that it was a stylized creation by police based on the boyfriend’s memory because the original messages were encrypted and probably erased.

Nailed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More coincidences.

They're also taking down videos of Charlie Kirk saying that a stand down order was probably given on October 7th.

Also getting harder to find the video of him saying that Israel is going to ethnically cleanse 2.5 million people in Gaza.

[Anonymous]

You gotta be careful with who you surround yourself with, Charlie was deceived. He was an obvious target.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More coincidences.

Israelis for security? Interesting. Reminds me of The security guard giving the sniper a signal seconds before Charlie was shot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

This kid is going to walk.

What? Where did he admit this?

I’m the poster who theorized this morning that it was a stylized creation by police based on the boyfriend’s memory because the original messages were encrypted and probably erased.

Nailed it.

No freaking way. They put out a fabricated confession!

[Anonymous]

"When Charlie was carried to the car and placed into the back, there was no blood anywhere. When they were carrying him there should have been a trail of blood, blood on their clothes, etc. this stood out to me."

Once the heart stops, bleeding stops. His body may have leaked some blood, but he died very soon after the shot. Is there still no explanation why he didn't have an ambulance at the speech? Too cheap?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is what everyone is calling “civil discourse” and the “exchange of ideas.” My heart just breaks for this kid. How was he not enraged? He just took it, while waiting to ask his question. He didn’t tell Charlie that he didn’t go to the police because they would have acted the same way as Charlie. Heartbreaking. I wish I could give this kid a hug.

https://www.threads.com/@charlesmblow/post/DOyrzuMjBb3?xmt=AQF0VsyKaHeKAq3WWY01W1eUFO31POP8ugwjiqo8iJ-ghA&slof=1

The more I see of the way Charlie Kirk conducted himself in this world, the gladder I am that he’s in the arms of our Lord Jesus Christ being forgiven for his many ugly sins.

[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.

Religion is a HUGE social label.

Lol

The billions of Muslims thank you for thinking that.

The millions of Jews don’t advertise that unless they are under physical attack

[Anonymous]

Kirk always looked like he was about to explode. Coke rage or hate rage.

[Anonymous]

I had never even heard of this person prior to the tragic news of 9/10.

I became curious about who he was and what he was about after seeing and hearing about all the tributes that were in place honoring him, etc.

So I went online to see what type of person he was.
I assumed that he had to be pretty incredible since so many people were talking about him.

Honestly his videos shocked me.
He was only 31, yet his views reminded me of views that certainly my ancestors shared.

While I am personally offended at his views on almost everything - - plus I do not like his debate style either - - I think it was awful what happened to him and he (nor anyone else!) could do anything to even deserve the brutality that he suffered.

What particularly offended me is when he was debating students at Cambridge ➕ he used the offensive term “Floydamania “ when referring to the killing & aftermath of George Floyd.
I thought that term was highly insensitive at best.
And Charlie stated that Floyd died due to a drug OD only > he stated that even his autopsy confirmed it which is not the truth.

There is actually video coverage of a police officer restraining poor George Floyd thus suffocating him so I don’t understand how Kirk could have stated his opinion as fact…