Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University

[Anonymous]

Based on common logic, it makes no sense that Kirk or Trump would be well received by these people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is video of these guys actually picking Charlie up, soaked in blood. That part seems to be conspicuously missing. When they rush up to try to ‘save his life’ presumably stepping in pools of Charlie’s and then lifting an over 6ft 210+lbs dead weight man soaked in blood.

Exactly why are you perseverating on this? Why is it so important to you to see his body, or others, soaked in blood? What are you trying to prove? Or, are you just someone who loves to see the suffering of others?

Aren’t you mad at the FBI for screwing this up? If you want justice for Charlie, how can you not see the problems in this pic, the screwups, the texts as major red flags? It’s wild to me.

I see nothing wrong with the investigation. They have an incredible amount of unimpeachable evidence. Forensic evidence. DNA evidence. Digital evidence. And, they also have the testimony of the killer's lover. They have done a damned good job. I hope they don't accept a plea deal from Robinson. He needs to go to trial and be convicted. And, he will be. The evidence is overwhelming.

What a silly person you are if you don't realize that entering a guilty plea means getting convicted. Do you think that Bryan Kohberger wasn't convicted? Dropping the DP and sending this kid away for LWOP saves the citizens of Utah millions of dollars, ensures a result that addresses the crime sufficiently, and saves the victim's family from the emotional distress of a trial and appeals. Only people bent on vengeance with blood lust in them would demand a trial and continued pursuit of the DP.

Utah has already said they want to kill Tyler and he hasn't even had a trial yet. The death penalty is complete vengeance and blood lust.

[Anonymous]

So the people claiming that a foreign nation did this, this is all a grift. This murder was simply grifters fighting amongst themselves? Grifters clawing for the top spot and hiding the Epstein files. This had nothing to do with anything or anyone else, it’s not left vs right, gun control, gay/trans. It’s individuals fighting for control and desperately trying to control the narrative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is video of these guys actually picking Charlie up, soaked in blood. That part seems to be conspicuously missing. When they rush up to try to ‘save his life’ presumably stepping in pools of Charlie’s and then lifting an over 6ft 210+lbs dead weight man soaked in blood.

Exactly why are you perseverating on this? Why is it so important to you to see his body, or others, soaked in blood? What are you trying to prove? Or, are you just someone who loves to see the suffering of others?

Aren’t you mad at the FBI for screwing this up? If you want justice for Charlie, how can you not see the problems in this pic, the screwups, the texts as major red flags? It’s wild to me.

I see nothing wrong with the investigation. They have an incredible amount of unimpeachable evidence. Forensic evidence. DNA evidence. Digital evidence. And, they also have the testimony of the killer's lover. They have done a damned good job. I hope they don't accept a plea deal from Robinson. He needs to go to trial and be convicted. And, he will be. The evidence is overwhelming.

What a silly person you are if you don't realize that entering a guilty plea means getting convicted. Do you think that Bryan Kohberger wasn't convicted? Dropping the DP and sending this kid away for LWOP saves the citizens of Utah millions of dollars, ensures a result that addresses the crime sufficiently, and saves the victim's family from the emotional distress of a trial and appeals. Only people bent on vengeance with blood lust in them would demand a trial and continued pursuit of the DP.

Utah has already said they want to kill Tyler and he hasn't even had a trial yet. The death penalty is complete vengeance and blood lust.

Yes, I recognize that and it why among many other excellent pragmatic and moral reasons I oppose the death penalty and refused to ever pursue it when I was a prosecutor in a death penalty state.

You may or may not have seen the discussion about this issue recently in the Kohberger case; one of the families were very angry that the prosecutors accepted guilty pleas on condition that the DP come off the table, but the rest were glad to have it done, a certain result with no appeals, the perp goes away and nobody ever has to see the gruesome autopsy photos of the kids he carved up and hear the awful details exhaustively in a court of law.

I can’t believe that the Utah County Attorney won’t be open to a plea of guilty on an LWOP agreement in this case. While the Mormon church stands neutral on the issue of the DP, many Latter Day Saints oppose it as a violation of Christian principles. This messed up kid is only 22 years old so one can certainly argue he’s far less culpable than Kohberger given that fact. Brains aren’t fully cooked at 22.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why so much fuss over such an inconsequential person who will be forgotten in six months?

This is why you folks keep losing.

They just don't get it do they?

I think the previous poster means Tyler Robinson. It's pretty clear that Charlie Kirk is not inconsequential nor will he be forgotten in six months.

I think you are wrong. I think the pp was indeed talking about Charlie Kirk and has no earthly idea just how consequential his life was. He will not be forgotten in 6 months, or 6 years or 20 years. And, this terrifies them.

Do you know who George Lincoln Rockwell was, poster?

Bumping this; curious to know if anybody here remembers George Lincoln Rockwell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is video of these guys actually picking Charlie up, soaked in blood. That part seems to be conspicuously missing. When they rush up to try to ‘save his life’ presumably stepping in pools of Charlie’s and then lifting an over 6ft 210+lbs dead weight man soaked in blood.

Exactly why are you perseverating on this? Why is it so important to you to see his body, or others, soaked in blood? What are you trying to prove? Or, are you just someone who loves to see the suffering of others?

Aren’t you mad at the FBI for screwing this up? If you want justice for Charlie, how can you not see the problems in this pic, the screwups, the texts as major red flags? It’s wild to me.

I see nothing wrong with the investigation. They have an incredible amount of unimpeachable evidence. Forensic evidence. DNA evidence. Digital evidence. And, they also have the testimony of the killer's lover. They have done a damned good job. I hope they don't accept a plea deal from Robinson. He needs to go to trial and be convicted. And, he will be. The evidence is overwhelming.

What a silly person you are if you don't realize that entering a guilty plea means getting convicted. Do you think that Bryan Kohberger wasn't convicted? Dropping the DP and sending this kid away for LWOP saves the citizens of Utah millions of dollars, ensures a result that addresses the crime sufficiently, and saves the victim's family from the emotional distress of a trial and appeals. Only people bent on vengeance with blood lust in them would demand a trial and continued pursuit of the DP.

Nah, I want to find out the truth and I want all of the dirt sifted through. I think that there are many parties with valuable information that the public will find interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is video of these guys actually picking Charlie up, soaked in blood. That part seems to be conspicuously missing. When they rush up to try to ‘save his life’ presumably stepping in pools of Charlie’s and then lifting an over 6ft 210+lbs dead weight man soaked in blood.

Exactly why are you perseverating on this? Why is it so important to you to see his body, or others, soaked in blood? What are you trying to prove? Or, are you just someone who loves to see the suffering of others?

Aren’t you mad at the FBI for screwing this up? If you want justice for Charlie, how can you not see the problems in this pic, the screwups, the texts as major red flags? It’s wild to me.

I see nothing wrong with the investigation. They have an incredible amount of unimpeachable evidence. Forensic evidence. DNA evidence. Digital evidence. And, they also have the testimony of the killer's lover. They have done a damned good job. I hope they don't accept a plea deal from Robinson. He needs to go to trial and be convicted. And, he will be. The evidence is overwhelming.

What a silly person you are if you don't realize that entering a guilty plea means getting convicted. Do you think that Bryan Kohberger wasn't convicted? Dropping the DP and sending this kid away for LWOP saves the citizens of Utah millions of dollars, ensures a result that addresses the crime sufficiently, and saves the victim's family from the emotional distress of a trial and appeals. Only people bent on vengeance with blood lust in them would demand a trial and continued pursuit of the DP.

Nah, I want to find out the truth and I want all of the dirt sifted through. I think that there are many parties with valuable information that the public will find interesting.

This is not what happens in a criminal trial, poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why so much fuss over such an inconsequential person who will be forgotten in six months?

This is why you folks keep losing.

They just don't get it do they?

I think the previous poster means Tyler Robinson. It's pretty clear that Charlie Kirk is not inconsequential nor will he be forgotten in six months.

I think you are wrong. I think the pp was indeed talking about Charlie Kirk and has no earthly idea just how consequential his life was. He will not be forgotten in 6 months, or 6 years or 20 years. And, this terrifies them.

Do you know who George Lincoln Rockwell was, poster?

Bumping this; curious to know if anybody here remembers George Lincoln Rockwell.

No

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why so much fuss over such an inconsequential person who will be forgotten in six months?

This is why you folks keep losing.

They just don't get it do they?

I think the previous poster means Tyler Robinson. It's pretty clear that Charlie Kirk is not inconsequential nor will he be forgotten in six months.

I think you are wrong. I think the pp was indeed talking about Charlie Kirk and has no earthly idea just how consequential his life was. He will not be forgotten in 6 months, or 6 years or 20 years. And, this terrifies them.

Do you know who George Lincoln Rockwell was, poster?

Bumping this; curious to know if anybody here remembers George Lincoln Rockwell.

No

Well then, I wonder if anybody will really remember Charlie Kirk in 20 years.

Maybe because of the internet, but on the other hand, new content is always being made and it pushes the old content out of the spotlight.

TPUSA board has named Erika Kirk as her husband's successor, and she says she plans to visit college campuses and continue his debate shtick. From what I've seen of her, I doubt very much she'll be any good at it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why so much fuss over such an inconsequential person who will be forgotten in six months?

This is why you folks keep losing.

They just don't get it do they?

I think the previous poster means Tyler Robinson. It's pretty clear that Charlie Kirk is not inconsequential nor will he be forgotten in six months.

I think you are wrong. I think the pp was indeed talking about Charlie Kirk and has no earthly idea just how consequential his life was. He will not be forgotten in 6 months, or 6 years or 20 years. And, this terrifies them.

Do you know who George Lincoln Rockwell was, poster?

Bumping this; curious to know if anybody here remembers George Lincoln Rockwell.

No

Well then, I wonder if anybody will really remember Charlie Kirk in 20 years.

Maybe because of the internet, but on the other hand, new content is always being made and it pushes the old content out of the spotlight.

TPUSA board has named Erika Kirk as her husband's successor, and she says she plans to visit college campuses and continue his debate shtick. From what I've seen of her, I doubt very much she'll be any good at it.

Many people had no idea who Charlie and Erika Kirk were to begin with. Will I remember him in 20 years, maybe. Probably not though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the people claiming that a foreign nation did this, this is all a grift. This murder was simply grifters fighting amongst themselves? Grifters clawing for the top spot and hiding the Epstein files. This had nothing to do with anything or anyone else, it’s not left vs right, gun control, gay/trans. It’s individuals fighting for control and desperately trying to control the narrative.

I have no idea what your point is but you sound like you’re promoting a conspiracy theory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why so much fuss over such an inconsequential person who will be forgotten in six months?

This is why you folks keep losing.

They just don't get it do they?

I think the previous poster means Tyler Robinson. It's pretty clear that Charlie Kirk is not inconsequential nor will he be forgotten in six months.

I think you are wrong. I think the pp was indeed talking about Charlie Kirk and has no earthly idea just how consequential his life was. He will not be forgotten in 6 months, or 6 years or 20 years. And, this terrifies them.

Do you know who George Lincoln Rockwell was, poster?

Bumping this; curious to know if anybody here remembers George Lincoln Rockwell.

I had to look him up - he was assassinated before I was born so I don't remember him. Of course I wasn't alive for the assassinations of Kennedy or MLK either, but I have certainly talked to people who do remember those. I've never had a conversation with anybody about George Lincoln Rockwell.

One reason why his murder was less noteworthy was that he was killed by a member of his own party. He also wasn't friends with the president at the time. Trump's reaction to Charlie Kirk's death means it's not going away for a long time. I think a better parallel would be George Floyd - it's been 5 years and people have not forgotten about him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why so much fuss over such an inconsequential person who will be forgotten in six months?

This is why you folks keep losing.

They just don't get it do they?

I think the previous poster means Tyler Robinson. It's pretty clear that Charlie Kirk is not inconsequential nor will he be forgotten in six months.

I think you are wrong. I think the pp was indeed talking about Charlie Kirk and has no earthly idea just how consequential his life was. He will not be forgotten in 6 months, or 6 years or 20 years. And, this terrifies them.

Do you know who George Lincoln Rockwell was, poster?

Bumping this; curious to know if anybody here remembers George Lincoln Rockwell.

No

Well then, I wonder if anybody will really remember Charlie Kirk in 20 years.

Maybe because of the internet, but on the other hand, new content is always being made and it pushes the old content out of the spotlight.

TPUSA board has named Erika Kirk as her husband's successor, and she says she plans to visit college campuses and continue his debate shtick. From what I've seen of her, I doubt very much she'll be any good at it.

Many people had no idea who Charlie and Erika Kirk were to begin with. Will I remember him in 20 years, maybe. Probably not though.

Most older folks didn't know Charlie, unless they are very close political news followers like myself - and I only knew about him enough to know that I didn't want to know more, same as I feel about Ben Shapiro.

But if you're following the news at all, you might have seen that his reach to the youth of America and other countries was very expansive - like, most corporations would only wish to have the percentage name recognition of Charlie Kirk among high school and college age youth. Your kids if they're old enough have probably seen Kirk's content at one point or another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why so much fuss over such an inconsequential person who will be forgotten in six months?

This is why you folks keep losing.

They just don't get it do they?

I think the previous poster means Tyler Robinson. It's pretty clear that Charlie Kirk is not inconsequential nor will he be forgotten in six months.

I think you are wrong. I think the pp was indeed talking about Charlie Kirk and has no earthly idea just how consequential his life was. He will not be forgotten in 6 months, or 6 years or 20 years. And, this terrifies them.

Do you know who George Lincoln Rockwell was, poster?

Bumping this; curious to know if anybody here remembers George Lincoln Rockwell.

I had to look him up - he was assassinated before I was born so I don't remember him. Of course I wasn't alive for the assassinations of Kennedy or MLK either, but I have certainly talked to people who do remember those. I've never had a conversation with anybody about George Lincoln Rockwell.

One reason why his murder was less noteworthy was that he was killed by a member of his own party. He also wasn't friends with the president at the time. Trump's reaction to Charlie Kirk's death means it's not going away for a long time. I think a better parallel would be George Floyd - it's been 5 years and people have not forgotten about him.[/quote

It's clear that there are rifts in the MAGA movement - Trump says we need to move on from the Epstein files, whereas Kirk said the files need to be released. Trump says Israel isn't doing anything wrong in Gaza yet Kirk said he thought it might indeed be genocide. The divisiveness and wedges that the right wing has driven into American society are now starting to affect their own side.

[Anonymous]

^ responding to the George Lincoln Rockwell post -

It's clear that there are rifts in the MAGA movement - Trump says we need to move on from the Epstein files, whereas Kirk said the files need to be released. Trump says Israel isn't doing anything wrong in Gaza yet Kirk said he thought it might indeed be genocide. The divisiveness and wedges that the right wing has driven into American society are now starting to affect their own side.