The Charlie Kirk Thread

Well, Robinson got the chaos he wanted because the right are too deplorable to admit he killed Kirk because he thought Kirk wasn't deplorable enough.
 


[Bondi didn’t make this distinction in her hate speech comments yesterday]

IMG_9711.jpeg

But a sizable portion of MAGA are offended by her references to “hate speech” at all — Kirk expressly denied the existence of hate speech and a lot of MAGA deplore heightening crimes based on “hate speech”. It is an interesting schism in the ranks.
 
nycfan said:


[Bondi didn’t make this distinction in her hate speech comments yesterday]

IMG_9711.jpeg

But a sizable portion of MAGA are offended by her references to “hate speech” at all — Kirk expressly denied the existence of hate speech and a lot of MAGA deplore heightening crimes based on “hate speech”. It is an interesting schism in the ranks.
Click to expand...

Bondi yesterday:



sample MAGA responses:





But as noted, her back-pedaling today is obvious damage control.

IMG_9712.jpeg
 
Last edited:
A bit surprised … Rand is a toad but he is a mostly consistent one to the point of being a gadfly in his own party. This is a bit off-brand for him, though absolutely of the political moment.

 
With all the news about the right compiling a list of people who "celebrated" kirk's death (approx 60k according tob1 group), it made me think about people who are so public in their support and praise of kirk...

If I were an employer, I would take note of each and every kirk-er and realize who I was employing. And then in 2 months or whatever, fire their assess when they make a mistake that could justify the firing.

Not as a retaliation for any of this cancel culture nonsense, but bc I would want to protect my business from anyone who is public in their support of racism, homophobia, and bigotry. Not a far leap to imagine how such a person could ruin any business that needs the entire general public to be successful.
 
Glad Charlie has merged into only one thread, and as somebody said zero threads might be better. It’s time for the Charlie stuff to fadeaway into the abyss of the 24 hour news cycle.
This may not be true, but I had heard that he was on a flight with Jeffrey Epstein to “the island” and it was there the two of them concocted the tariffs idea and floated it by Trump, who was also there. While there, they stumbled across Hunter’s laptop and therein found all of Hillary’s emails.
 
nycfan said:


[Bondi didn’t make this distinction in her hate speech comments yesterday]

IMG_9711.jpeg

But a sizable portion of MAGA are offended by her references to “hate speech” at all — Kirk expressly denied the existence of hate speech and a lot of MAGA deplore heightening crimes based on “hate speech”. It is an interesting schism in the ranks.
Click to expand...

The schism doesn’t matter. She’s generating pretext and it seems like the biggest conspiracy in all of the stuff surrounding the murder of CK is the concerted effort by various people in the administration and several right wing pundits/SM personalities is to fabricate a rationale to use federal law enforcement to harass, intimidate and persecute those on the left. I wonder which MAGA sociopath came up with this plan. Vance? Miller? Thiel?
 
heel79 said:
I continue to struggle with why his motive matters. That said, I would imagine that since he is alive we will learn more. I don't expect it will change much other than one team gets to say, "See, it was your guy."
Click to expand...

For many people it's important that "they" are blamed and not "us".
 
Trans terror groups? Yeah, that's not a thing. And if anyone knows about hate speech it's MAGA. Apparently, Kirk's hate speech wasn't hateful enough for scum like Robinson and the crazy internet group he was obsessed with, and that's why he killed Kirk. They are all rooted in racism, bigotry, lies and hate.
 
Centerpiece said:
Glad Charlie has merged into only one thread, and as somebody said zero threads might be better. It’s time for the Charlie stuff to fadeaway into the abyss of the 24 hour news cycle.
This may not be true, but I had heard that he was on a flight with Jeffrey Epstein to “the island” and it was there the two of them concocted the tariffs idea and floated it by Trump, who was also there. While there, they stumbled across Hunter’s laptop and therein found all of Hillary’s emails.
Click to expand...
Kirk was getting a lot of shit from Trump Loyalists (like Laura Loomer) before his murder because he was demanding Bondi quit obfuscating on Epstein and release the full files to clear the air and satisfy a key promise made to MAGA.

Under direct pressure froM Trump, he publicly said he would t talk about it anymore at one point but then clarified he was just giving them time to do the right thing. Kirk promoted the conspiracy theory (with a lot of left wing adherents) that Epstein worked for Mossad, which led to fever swamp suggestions that he had been killed by an Israeli assassin in the hours before his alleged killer was captured.

So for all his flaws, I don’t think there is an Epstein-Kirk connection (if nothing else, Kirk was too young to really have been involved unless he had been groomed to work at Epstein’s ranch at some point).
 
My hope is that the left retaliates against this cancel culture by reporting offensive right wing posts, which results in a death spiral of social media. People are too afraid to post anything controversial -> people stop posting -> people stop visiting -> dead internet theory -> end of social media.
 
rodoheel said:
I think there's a couple different things being conflated here, some of which I agree with and some of which I don't.

First, I generally agree (and have said many times) that Dems and leftists need to avoid hyperventilating, doom-crying predictions about what Trump will do in the future (like "he's going to put gays in cages!" or "he's going to try to stay in office forever," etc.). It worked against Dems in 2016 when they made all sorts of horrible predictions about what a Trump presidency would mean, and while Trump 1.0 was an objectively awful president, whose policies or lack thereof did real harm to a lot of people, the sky didn't fall and the country didn't descend into chaos and pigs didn't start flying. So when the same predictions got recycled in 2024 it fell flat with a lot of people. It made what was objectively a bad presidency seem not so bad because the predictions were so much worse.

Second, it is generally unhelpful and counterproductive for Dems to paint with a broad brush with pejorative terms applied to Trump's supporters (racist, fascist, "deplorables," etc) because nobody ever sees themselves as those things and using that sort of language just pushes people away.

But I simply can't agree that we should never apply labels like "authoritarian" or "fascist" to Trump (and the members of his administration and media mouthpieces), because it is important to put his actions and words into their proper political and historical context for people who might not understand that context. It is important, for example, to say and explain why stuff like these statements by Trump or his influential minions is overtly fascist rhetoric:

"In honor of our great veterans on Veterans Day, we pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical-left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country—that lie and steal and cheat on elections, and will do anything possible; they'll do anything, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America, and to destroy the American Dream"

"It's time for the Trump administration to shut down, defund, and prosecute every single leftist organization."

""The Democrat Party must be classified as a domestic terror organization and their members and leaders treated accordingly."

Calling the press "the enemy of the people"

Saying that the "Democrat Party . . . supports everything that God hates."

"[Immigrants] are poisoning the blood of our country."

"There is [a leftist] ideology that has steadily been growing in this country, which hates everything that is good, righteous and beautiful and celebrates everything that is warped, twisted and depraved. . . . It is an ideology that leads, always, inevitably and willfully, to violence. The fate of millions depends on the defeat of this wicked ideology.”

"The power of law enforcement, under President Trump’s leadership, will be used to find you, will be used to take away your money, take away your power, and, if you’ve broken the law, to take away your freedom."

Calling out rhetoric like this as overtly fascist rhetoric is important to help illustrate to people how far outside the modern American political discourse statements like this are. To not call out this rhetoric as extreme is too allow it to be normalized. Similarly, to not call out the Trump admin for its overtly authoritarian tendencies (many of which were explicitly outlined in Project 2025, which Trump laughably denied any knowledge of) - such as the the shameful example I gave of its lies, deception, and utter disregard for the law in immigrant deportations; the EO on birthright citizenship; the desire to suppress and punish critical speech; the willingness to leverage the executive power of the President to compel and coerce universities and businesses to do what the President wants them to do; etc) is to give the impression that they are all within the realm of ordinary political policy disagreements, rather than fundamental attacks on the legitimacy and power of the rule of law and the other branches of the federal government.

So while I agree that sometimes the use of pejorative labels can be problematic - especially when applied to followers rather than leaders of a political movement - I simply can't agree that when Trump walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, we shouldn't call him a duck.
Click to expand...
Right. I think when done appropriately, authoritarian or fascist, as descriptors of wording, are accurate. Those accurate comments don't exist in a vacuum and when you have the Dem presidential nominee (Kamala) calling Trump fascist, you have similar and worse coming from Liberal talking heads on CNN/NBC and similar from Liberal print media and it all sounds very similar to the far-left social media users...I think THAT is where the trouble starts, along with assassinations and assassination attempts among other things.

When
 
ZenMode said:
Right. I think when done appropriately, authoritarian or fascist, as descriptors of wording, are accurate. Those accurate comments don't exist in a vacuum and when you have the Dem presidential nominee (Kamala) calling Trump fascist, you have similar and worse coming from Liberal talking heads on CNN/NBC and similar from Liberal print media and it all sounds very similar to the far-left social media users...I think THAT is where the trouble starts, along with assassinations and assassination attempts among other things.
Click to expand...
This seems to suggest that there is some connection between what Kamala Harris and the talking heads on CNN say, and the assassination attempts on Trump and Kirk. As far as I know there is absolutely zero evidence to connect those things.
 
rodoheel said:
This seems to suggest that there is some connection between what Kamala Harris and the talking heads on CNN say, and the assassination attempts on Trump and Kirk. As far as I know there is absolutely zero evidence to connect those things.
Click to expand...
I think all of the rhetoric and hyperbole (government, media, social media) all sounds very similar and, as a whole, contributes to the violence.

That has been my entire point about the Left/Dems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top