The Charlie Kirk Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rock
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 106K
  • Politics 
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...
Well, one side is using it as a justification for threatened oppression, denial of civil liberties, and perhaps worse. so it does seem to matter to them, and that means it matters to everyone.
 
superrific said:
You are so bad at logic.

If Dems are not divisive, and also Jesus, Gandhi and MLK were not divisive, that does not mean Dems are like Jesus, Gandhi and MLK in any other respect.

Here we go again. You make errors that my 11 year old would see through. Why you are proud of that, I have no idea.
Click to expand...
Jesus was a nobody talking to maybe a few hundred people in a tiny portion of the Middle East but, like you said, dems are just like Jesus!

Who's gonna argue with what Jesus does??? :rolleyes:
 
heel79 said:
I continue to struggle with why his motive matters.
Click to expand...
^ This. It's simple. A young kid who grows up in gun culture irresponsibly desires to go from bad/good guy with a gun to good/bad guy with a gun. Too bad he didn't opt for good/bad guy with a slingshot. Just another day in the SCOTUS Hellscape. Carry on.
 
nycfan said:
Don’t disagree about the NFL blowing in the wind, but wasn’t the thing with the slain cops more a tone deaf enforcement of strict rules about equipment decals rather than some political action? The NFL didn’t say no, no don’t have a moment of silence or prayer or dedicate the game or do whatever else, they just wouldn’t make a (reasonable) exception to a strict uniform policy(?)
Click to expand...
Yes, they strictly enforced the dress code. However, that dress code also allowed players to wear the name of a person who died while shooting at police worn on their helmets. As I mentioned, none did.
 
superrific said:
Did they honor him? Or did they include him in a list of names of people shot by police or otherwise impacted by systemic racism, possibly without full knowledge of the facts of his case?
Click to expand...
They honored him and also chose to allow his name to be worn on the helmets on NFL players.

 
ZenMode said:
Again... anything is possible but Kirk was clearly anti-trans, anti-gay, anti-LGBTQ. Tyler was in some kind of relationship and living with a transgender person.

I guess I don't see how anti-semitism/white nationalism fits into this
Click to expand...
Yeah but this hate was on the record, yet you want to stretch and make assumptions.

you don’t even know what this person’s relationship and ideas towards the trans community are… but we do know that he was part of the Groyper incel losers.

I kinda don’t care what he came from because he’s not a card carrying member of any party..but part of a sickness.

but why did the right jump so hard to try to say the killer wasn’t from the right? We had an elected official killed recently on the other side with proof…none of this performance? It seems like everyone from the President to his wife are being completely irresponsible and incendiary in response to his murder.

They treat him like he died for a cause, but then when people talk about some of the things he said that were racist or fascist or just plain ignorant, they whine about it.

Heck they are trying to get ppl fired, deny passports for calling that out. I thought that this party was against cancel culture? Against wokeness! Against poetical correctness??
 
Willy said:
It's certainly reasonable that Robinson was entrenched in meme-culture. It seems very likely. However, the theory I've seen here is that Robinson was a groypher who killed Kirk because Kirk wasn't conservative enough, e.g., Robinson was ultra-conservative. That doesn't pass the smell test if he had a trans roommate.
Click to expand...
Lots of conservative people are gay and
1moretimeagain said:
Click to expand...

dumbass pos
 
ZZLPHeels said:
Yes, they strictly enforced the dress code. However, that dress code also allowed players to wear the name of a person who died while shooting at police worn on their helmets. As I mentioned, none did.
Click to expand...
Four years later after blowback on the strict sticker policy (in no small part because of their tone deafness in 2016 about decals for the fallen officers).
 
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...
Why he did it means not an iota to me personally. What it means for the country is pretty serious though:

Screenshot 2025-09-15 at 5.13.59 PM.png



NYT

Vance hosts Kirk’s podcast with a parade of Trump officials.​


Trump administration officials on Monday responded to the activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination by threatening to bring the weight of the federal government down on what they alleged was a left-wing network that funds and incites violence, seizing on the killing to make broad and unsubstantiated claims about their political opponents.

Investigators were still working to identify a motive in Mr. Kirk’s killing, but the Republican governor of Utah, Spencer Cox, has said that the suspect had a “leftist ideology” and that he acted alone.

The White House and President Trump’s allies suggested that he was part of a coordinated movement that was fomenting violence against conservatives — without presenting evidence that such a network existed. America has seen a wave of violence across the political spectrum, targeting Democrats and Republicans.

On Monday, two senior administration officials, who spoke anonymously to describe the internal planning, said that cabinet secretaries and federal department heads were working to identify organizations that funded or supported violence against conservatives. The goal, they said, was to categorize left-wing activity that led to violence as domestic terrorism, an escalation that critics said could lay the groundwork for crushing anti-conservative dissent more broadly.

Some of the highest-ranking officials in the federal government used Mr. Kirk’s podcast, “The Charlie Kirk Show,” to lay out their plans.

From his official office at the White House, Vice President JD Vance served as a guest host of the podcast, inviting senior members of the administration, including Stephen Miller, the president’s top policy adviser, to praise Mr. Kirk while also detailing their plans to crack down on what they called leftist nongovernmental organizations. The show was broadcast on the television screens in the White House briefing room and in several West Wing offices.
 
altmin said:
Why he did it means not an iota to me personally. What it means for the country is pretty serious though:

Screenshot 2025-09-15 at 5.13.59 PM.png



NYT

Vance hosts Kirk’s podcast with a parade of Trump officials.​


Trump administration officials on Monday responded to the activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination by threatening to bring the weight of the federal government down on what they alleged was a left-wing network that funds and incites violence, seizing on the killing to make broad and unsubstantiated claims about their political opponents.

Investigators were still working to identify a motive in Mr. Kirk’s killing, but the Republican governor of Utah, Spencer Cox, has said that the suspect had a “leftist ideology” and that he acted alone.

The White House and President Trump’s allies suggested that he was part of a coordinated movement that was fomenting violence against conservatives — without presenting evidence that such a network existed. America has seen a wave of violence across the political spectrum, targeting Democrats and Republicans.

On Monday, two senior administration officials, who spoke anonymously to describe the internal planning, said that cabinet secretaries and federal department heads were working to identify organizations that funded or supported violence against conservatives. The goal, they said, was to categorize left-wing activity that led to violence as domestic terrorism, an escalation that critics said could lay the groundwork for crushing anti-conservative dissent more broadly.

Some of the highest-ranking officials in the federal government used Mr. Kirk’s podcast, “The Charlie Kirk Show,” to lay out their plans.

From his official office at the White House, Vice President JD Vance served as a guest host of the podcast, inviting senior members of the administration, including Stephen Miller, the president’s top policy adviser, to praise Mr. Kirk while also detailing their plans to crack down on what they called leftist nongovernmental organizations. The show was broadcast on the television screens in the White House briefing room and in several West Wing offices.
Click to expand...
Yet another thing in the long, long, long list of things that would cause the Right to lose their ever-loving minds if a sitting Dem VP ever did.
 
superrific said:
The cross dresser part is unsubstantiated, but not the gay part. His lifelong "close friend" Clyde Tolson sure as hell acted like a life partner. They would go on vacation together. Hoover bequeathed his estate to Tolson. Tolson accepted the flag that draped Hoover's coffin. Tolson is buried a few yards away from Hoover.

Roy Cohn was a source of information about Hoover, and he was definitely credible on that particular subject. Cohn's take was that Hoover was too scared of his sexuality to act on it, but that's still confirming that he was gay or bi. As for the cross-dressing, you're right a lot of the published material relies on an unreliable witness, but Roy Cohn apparently told people about it before it became a topic of public discussion. Now, that's hearsay and unreliable I think, but it's more than just one witness. That said, it is not well established at all.

The homo/bisexuality seems pretty solid, even if there are people who deny it. Another piece of evidence: Lela Rodgers was his beard.
Click to expand...
I don’t care all that much, but FTR it seems possible but unsubstantiated

Five myths about J. Edgar Hoover​


——
daily.jstor.org

The Truth About J. Edgar Hoover's "Cross-Dressing" - JSTOR Daily

The story of J. Edgar Hoover dressing in women's clothing is part of American myth, but it's truth maybe less revealing than what the gossip tells us about Hoover and his times.
daily.jstor.org daily.jstor.org

abcnews.go.com

J. Edgar Hoover: Gay or Just a Man Who Has Sex With Men?

Clint Eastwood's film, "J Edgar," leave an ambiguous impression of the FBI director's close relationship with his deputy, Clyde Tolson.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com

——
JEH was an awful person completely unrelated to his sexuality so I won’t waste anyone’s time more on this. I just had read a good bit about it a while back (longer than I thought looking for links) when a movie about him came out. But screw him, just a terrible person with a lot of power that he abused rampantly.
 
Among Americans aged 12 years and older, 47.7 million were current illegal drug users (used within the last 30 days) as of 2023.
This includes pot I believe

The rest is just capitalism at work
Where there is a demand three is a supply
Maybe we should work on drug addiction?
 
lawtig02 said:
Yet another thing in the long, long, long list of things that would cause the Right to lose their ever-loving minds if a sitting Dem VP ever did.
Click to expand...
The Dems did disgust a lot of people when they turned Paul Wellstone’s memorial service into what felt more like a political rally. And got dragged for it by media and GOP and some Dem politicians pretty mercilessly. His death and that behavior (and picking Walter Mondale to run in his stead?) probably cost the Democrats that seat (to Norm Coleman) at the time.

Coleman won in 2002 then went on to lose the seat to Al Franken by a hair in 2008.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top