The Charlie Kirk Thread

Even conservatives found his statements anti-semitic. (this guy is cofounder of the federalist, an editor at Heartland institute, Fox commentator, etc):


And he'd say stuff like this below. So of course neo-nazis get pissed when he rejects white supremacy.

1757606169510.png
 
ZenMode said:
What does the opinion of a conservative commentator on Twitter really mean? He/she doesn't represent the party or the direction of the party any more than Nick Fuentes or Mike Lindell.

Not sure what you mean by "authoritarian posturing". Within the last few days, Trump declined to sent the national guard into Chicago because the governor didn't want them there. One would think that a true Hitler-type would care nothing about the Constitution in that situation.
Click to expand...
my god, man. why are you so bad at this?!

you just tried to ID super's post on this very small, niche online message board as evidence of widespread escalated rhetoric on the left but now the awful views espoused by right wing influencers with millions of social media followers don't matter?!

the cognitive dissonance is staggering.
 
nycfan said:
A week or so ago, VP Vance made a comment (that was widely misquoted) that a wise pollster told him that the problem with midterm elections for almost every sitting president was that midterm voters tend to be the angry people and MAGA voters are happy with the Trump Administration, so they don’t have that angry driver to get out and vote in the 2026 midterm.

Well, this assassination provides exactly what the Trump Administration was looking for — a martyr to inflame their supporters to act by voting. I am not saying they are happy this happened to Kirk or engineered it or something — I am just saying this is a terrible political “gift” they will whole-heartedly exploit.

@Ramrouser is getting dragged by some for saying 9/10 will be the 9/11 for a lot of young conservatives but I think that may not be hyperbole — and I think conservative politicians will absolutely feed that fire. At least in the social media under 30 MAGAsphere, Kirk is an immensely popular and influential figure. He could be a powerful martyr for millions of young men and conservative young women.

The eventual power of his martyrdom will depend on the extend to which it reaches outside dedicated MAGA Men and I to the broader population. As a purely crass political matter, that makes it vitally important to Trump, Vance and those who will use his martyrdom for their own purposes to whitewash and nice Kirk’s views — simplify his often extreme rhetoric to be anodyne support for traditional family values, patriotism, being a good Christian Dad and free speech advocate.

I doubt that Trump will mention that Kirk was a vocal supporter of releasing the Epstein Files — mentioning that will be considered in bad taste or something. Bringing up Kirk’s radical statements about gun rights and LGBTQ rights to exist and women’s rights outside a traditional motherhood role subject to the husband’s control will be treated as disrespect for the dead to sanitize Kirk’s martyrdom.

How dare you speak ill of the dead — even if you are quoting his own recorded words — will be a well worn cudgel.

The playbook is well worn for political martyrdom. Martyrdom is political sainthood.
Click to expand...
He’s getting dragged because to any normal person, comparing the murder of a podcaster at the hand of a lone ranger to the murder of 3,000 Americans at the hands of terrorists is absolutely preposterously outlandish. I understand you probably feel the need to play some impartial arbitrator on this board for whatever reason you may have, but it’s objectively an incredibly asinine comparison with no merit. Can you imagine how deeply offensive it would be to any surviving family member or relative of a 9/11 victim to have that comparison made?

Also, not one single solitary person in Kirk’s audience is the persuadable kind who could be convinced to vote for Democrats. Therefore, his murder isn’t going to take one single, solitary vote from Democrats from that particular bloc. also, every single one of us here is to some varying degree of “extremely online” and know who Kirk is because we are dwelt immersed in political stuff on the internet every day. The overwhelming vast majority of people who go to the polls in November 2026 and November 2028 won’t really know who he was and won’t really care who he was. They’ll care about the same exact things non-political people always care about the most: the economy. Last time I checked, we ain’t doing so well on that front, are we? The notion that the shooting death of Charlie Kirk in September 2025 is not going to have more importance in November 20 26 or November 2028 than the fact that everyone is getting decimated economically, and it’s certainly not going to be the reason that the age old trend gets bucked of the in-party getting resoundingly repudiated at the ballot box in the midterms.
 
American flag on his shirt? Only maga would wear this. Obviously we now know it was a false flag operation.

- Ram logic

ETA: If Patel didn’t want to release these photos because of how it might shift the narrative on social media costing law enforcement valuable hours he needs to be fired immediately. We’re only going to see more and more fuckups from this agency under his “leadership”
 
ZenMode said:
What does the opinion of a conservative commentator on Twitter really mean? He/she doesn't represent the party or the direction of the party any more than Nick Fuentes or Mike Lindell.

Not sure what you mean by "authoritarian posturing". Within the last few days, Trump declined to sent the national guard into Chicago because the governor didn't want them there. One would think that a true Hitler-type would care nothing about the Constitution in that situation.
Click to expand...
As to the first point: that was just the most extreme example. You can find many other examples of highly powerful and influential MAGA media and political figures, many of whom are directly connected to the Trump admin (Laura Loomer. Sean Davis, Jesse Watters, etc) calling for the repression or presecution of the political left in response to this. Trump's own public statement about Charlie Kirk vowed retribution against the left for the killing. These statements are all right out in the open.

As to the second point - this is where I have to imagine that your professed ignorance is trolling rather than naivete. The entire trajectory of the second Trump admin has been to claim authoritarian power to the executive that no president has ever claimed before. He has, among other things, claimed the right to unilaterally end birthright citizenship, blown up a ship in international waters with no authority other than his own, declared that he may almost any government employees (including those over which he statutorily does not have authority) without justification, clamed the right to deploy the national guard in states to perform policing work, claimed the right to compel states to change their policies for running elections (contrary to what the constitution says), extorted concessions from private universities by unilaterally withholding research money that was already promised, and extorted and threatened to prosecute private law firms and lawyers for nothing more than being or representing his political opponents. I know you know about all of that, and about all of the many other examples I have named. These are all pretty obviously authoritarian things - done at the sole authority and behest of Trump, that he claims to have without restraint from any other branch of the government.

Honestly, do you even know what "authoritarianism" means?
 
4thgenheel said:
my god, man. why are you so bad at this?!

you just tried to ID super's post on this very small, niche online message board as evidence of widespread escalated rhetoric on the left but now the awful views espoused by right wing influencers with millions of social media followers don't matter?!

the cognitive dissonance is staggering.
Click to expand...
1000047297.gif
 
nycfan said:
The eventual power of his martyrdom will depend on the extend to which it reaches outside dedicated MAGA Men and I to the broader population. As a purely crass political matter, that makes it vitally important to Trump, Vance and those who will use his martyrdom for their own purposes to whitewash and nice Kirk’s views — simplify his often extreme rhetoric to be anodyne support for traditional family values, patriotism, being a good Christian Dad and free speech advocate.

I doubt that Trump will mention that Kirk was a vocal supporter of releasing the Epstein Files — mentioning that will be considered in bad taste or something. Bringing up Kirk’s radical statements about gun rights and LGBTQ rights to exist and women’s rights outside a traditional motherhood role subject to the husband’s control will be treated as disrespect for the dead to sanitize Kirk’s martyrdom.

How dare you speak ill of the dead — even if you are quoting his own recorded words — will be a well worn cudgel.

The playbook is well worn for political martyrdom. Martyrdom is political sainthood.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt about this. And you can see from ramrouser's posts that he is already ahead of the game on "whitewash and nice Kirk's views" to paint him as some peaceful lamb who just told us all to love our families and go to church. Which is what I have been dragging him for.
 
Last edited:
"You think that supporting gun rights and acknowledging that those rights are going to be misused, means that Kirk wants the rights misused or hopes they are misused and deserves to die as a result?"

Who said he deserved to die? But he also agreed with the sentiment that they should use their guns to combat election theft.

This isn't a "he deserves to die" so much as a FAFO. He was in favor of the First Amendment for himself and his peeps but not others. He was in favor of the Second Amendment for himself and his peeps but not others. Same with the 14th and the 4th. Well, it doesn't always work that way. Sometimes when you release the Joker, it rebounds on you.

What does he mean, exactly, to use a gun to protect his other God-given rights? How does that work? Doesn't involve pulling a trigger to kill someone? And now someone, perhaps having been stripped of those rights or in danger of it, is trying to protect their rights. He was killed by his own hand, regardless of whether he intended to be killed or not.
 
Carolina Fever said:
Wonder when these were taken since he doesn't have a gun with him.
Click to expand...
He appears to be wearing a backpack (like any college student might). Could a gun like that be broken down into pieces that fit in a backpack? If he broke it down would he re-assemble it to ditch it in the woods?

T-shirt looks to be a flag with an eagle in center and some document to the right (my guess would be the Bill of Rights or Constitution or Declaration of Independence but can’t tell from this blurry screenshot)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top