Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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…

I watched all 9+ minutes of the George Floyd video. I'm guessing you did too. But Charlie Kirk's target audience was people who did not watch that video.

[Anonymous]

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

This kid is going to walk.

We need a citation for this claim.

[Anonymous]

Also^^^ I am from a police family and the tactics he use, the warning from other police … we (with a trained eye) could see the cold hearted murder.

Others just don’t see the violations in protocol that cops know lead to death.

Also they always need a boogeyman.

[Anonymous]

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

Not at all.
Quite the opposite.
There is a reason people refer to him as a “happy warrior.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Not at all.
Quite the opposite.
There is a reason people refer to him as a “happy warrior.”

Well he knows he's in front of the camera. Behind closed doors though...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Not at all.
Quite the opposite.
There is a reason people refer to him as a “happy warrior.”

Well he knows he's in front of the camera. Behind closed doors though...

How the hell would you know anything about Charlie Kirk “behind closed doors?” You wouldn’t. You just need to come here and shit post.

[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".

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. 👏👏👏👏

Right? If that’s all you can come up with…

Also, I don’t understand the point in mentioning that he’s European. Does he suffer the Dutch autism and can’t be in public with regular people? He’s probably going to be deported anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Of course. They’re a clown act. Days ago, I said it was obviously fake and Patel’s stupidity and arrogance was going to get this kid off the hook.

Government is serious work for serious people. These jokers are all cosplay and grift.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Not at all.
Quite the opposite.
There is a reason people refer to him as a “happy warrior.”

Well he knows he's in front of the camera. Behind closed doors though...

How the hell would you know anything about Charlie Kirk “behind closed doors?” You wouldn’t. You just need to come here and shit post.

We know that he hated those not like him and had to bottle it up since the cameras were watching. It's hard to keep a lid on that much pent up anger. Serenity now, serenity now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Not at all.
Quite the opposite.
There is a reason people refer to him as a “happy warrior.”

Well he knows he's in front of the camera. Behind closed doors though...

How the hell would you know anything about Charlie Kirk “behind closed doors?” You wouldn’t. You just need to come here and shit post.

We know that he hated those not like him and had to bottle it up since the cameras were watching. It's hard to keep a lid on that much pent up anger. Serenity now, serenity now.

In other words you know squat since everything you said is false.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Of course. They’re a clown act. Days ago, I said it was obviously fake and Patel’s stupidity and arrogance was going to get this kid off the hook.

Government is serious work for serious people. These jokers are all cosplay and grift.

PP has provided no citation for her claim. Until she does, I don’t believe her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


"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?

No ambulance falls on his Israeli security guards, who were likely billing him millions of USD a year. Really makes ya wonder.

[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.

We need a citation for this claim.

No, you don't because ut wouldn't change your opinion anyway. You fools are immune to facts, and people should stop wasting time on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Not at all.
Quite the opposite.
There is a reason people refer to him as a “happy warrior.”

I guess you can be a happy misogynist and racist, to say one of the most qualified and experienced SCOTUS nominees of the last 50 years "lacked the brainpower" and was an "affirmative action hire" who "took a slot from a white man" just because she's a black woman.

[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.

+1 PP has never lived in the south and it shows.