The Charlie Kirk Thread

nycfan said:
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)
Click to expand...
That footage could have been from him going up to the roof before the shooting. Gun would be naturally in the pack.
 
CFordUNC said:
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.
Click to expand...
I feel strongly both ways.

I think nyc's point is that the response to Kirk's death may close the enthusiasm gap that frequently hurts the party in power during the midterms. Ultimately, the 2026 elections will come down to democrats showing up and independents being persuaded by the conditions at the time. Of course, this analysis assumes that there will be free and fair elections next year.

I believe this fall's Virginia & New Jersey elections will tell us much about what may happen next year.
 
Not to sound insensitive but people have short attention spans, especially chronically online conservatives. My guess is they will gnash their teeth about this for a week or two and then something else will take over the news cycle.
 
UNCMSinLS said:
I feel strongly both ways.

I think nyc's point is that the response to Kirk's death may close the enthusiasm gap that frequently hurts the party in power during the midterms. Ultimately, the 2026 elections will come down to democrats showing up and independents being persuaded by the conditions at the time. Of course, this analysis assumes that there will be free and fair elections next year.

I believe this fall's Virginia & New Jersey elections will tell us much about what may happen next year.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I hear ya for sure. My contention is that the people for whom Charlie Kirk’s death would be a motivator to vote are already voting (because they’re already extremely politically-engaged) and they’re already voting against Democrats no matter what. Kirk isn’t an entity to anyone outside of the extremely-online right wing (which, obviously, isn’t exactly a small subset necessarily), and his death- again, IMO- isn’t going to be something that resonates to the average Jane and Joe voter next fall- much less three falls from now- if and when their economic circumstances are currently in the toilet due to the incumbent party’s policies.
 
Calheel said:
Ok @superrific. Am I still watching too many movies?
Click to expand...
I didn't say you were watching too many movies. I genuinely didn't know the answer. Obviously he would be wearing sunglasses. The part I didn't know about was the rifle that he assembled and disassembled. And it appears that maybe he didn't disassemble it?

I mean, maybe the movies get things right sometimes. Wouldn't surprise me if they get the military-type stuff correct. They use lots of consultants -- i.e. former criminals, military, etc. -- to help them get the crime or military action realistic.
 
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.
Click to expand...
So don't them do that. That's my goal in saying (truthfully) that he was less victim than collateral damage in his own war.
 
superrific said:
What do you think the risk-reward calculus looks like here?

What odds do you mean when you say, "unlikely?" 0.001%? 5%?

American democracy is so valuable that even a tiny risk cannot be justified. You're better off with your argument that all alternatives to quietism are worse. And I don't mean quietism in the sense of engaging in no political activity; I mean, living in an environment when activism means nothing because truth means nothing.
Click to expand...
I don't know what you mean by "all alternatives to quietism are worse." Can you explain? I'm certainly not advocating that anyone be "quiet" about what the Trump admin is doing, if that's what you mean. I have been here on this very thread talking about the danger of all the major MAFGA media figures trying to egg Trump into political repression because of the Kirk murder.

In terms of the odds that within months or a couple years from now we will have post-Reichstag Fire, Nazi Germany policies in the US (civil liberties suspended, "unfriendly" media publications shut down and only state-run or state-friendly media left, thousands of political opponents jailed or murdered, all political opposition outlawed, disfavored groups like the Jews in Nazi Germany terrorized and purged, brownshirts roaming the streets of major cities killing and terrorizing, etc) I think the likelihood is exceedingly low - like less than 5%, maybe less than 1%. I have gone into a lot of detail in other threads but I think there are a lot of reasons that make something like that almost impossible for the Trump admin to pull off in practice.
 
Assuming all of the information put out is reliable (ie the Antifa/Trans stuff is on the weapon and ammo, the pictures are actually the guy, etc.). There’s all sorts of wild possibilities about who this could be:

1. Trans person/ally. This is the obvious conventional answer and is still probably the most likely with the information we have. The super patriotic shirt and the MAGA classic wraparound sunglasses causes some pause. Could have worn the uber patriot gear to blend in at a TPUSA event, but he wasn’t actually at the event itself as far as we know so far, but inside a building across the way.

2. One of these neonazis that’s mad at him for publicly disavowing white supremacy.

3. Probably the most scary if it comes to pass and we’d only know if he’s successfully caught: a boogaloo-type accelerationist. A guy who wants to kick-off a civil war by drawing blame to a marginalized group in order to watch the world burn.
 
superrific said:
Sure. Just know that "we need to take down the temperature" is not going to get any results, just like it hasn't gotten any results the last million times it's been tried.

The right instinctively wants to be victims and search for martyrs. Don't give that to them. Kirk wasn't a victim. He was killed by things he thinks are good.
Click to expand...
Kirk, in the end, was a victim. That his career may have played some part in that doesn't change the fact that he is a victim of murder, of political violence, of America's unusually radical gun culture, and the dangerous rhetoric that overwhelmingly comes from his side.
That doesn't change the fact that a thirty one year old man lost his life. His children lost a father. As much as I might have disagreed with him, I wish this on no one. Yesterday was a sad day in this country, as are all the days with our senseless gun violence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top