The Charlie Kirk Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rock
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 106K
  • Politics 
nycfan said:
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.
Click to expand...
Agree. And when the Pubs do 10x more than that at Kirk's funeral, I won't care much because that's what Kirk clearly would have wanted. The sitting VP hosting a podcast in which a slew of administration officials lay out the war they have planned against the left seems like a very different thing to me.
 
lawtig02 said:
Agree. And when the Pubs do 10x more than that at Kirk's funeral, I won't care much because that's what Kirk clearly would have wanted. The sitting VP hosting a podcast in which a slew of administration officials lay out the war they have planned against the left seems like a very different thing to me.
Click to expand...
Not saying it’s better or worse, just noting that Dems did get skewered for an arguably similar (if less aggressively divisive) behavior.
 






“… Vance called out the “generous tax treatment” that George Soros’s Open Society Foundations and the Ford Foundation receive as he accused the groups of funding a “disgusting article” in the Nation magazine that he said was used to justify Kirk’s death.

Vance’s effort to link the two foundations to the article appears to be inaccurate. The Ford Foundation last provided a grant to the Nation for an internship program in 2019 but has not provided money since, according to online records. Bhaskar Sunkara, the president of the Nation, saidon X that the publication had never received funds from the Open Society Foundations.

Vance’s office, asked about his accusation, provided a link to a report about the Nation by a conservative group, which in turn cited a 2017 report about Open Society Foundations grants.

…
L“There is no unity with the people who celebrate Charlie Kirk’s assassination,” Vance said, raising his voice during a broadcast from the White House on Kirk’s podcast, which he hosted.

“There is no unity with the people who fund these articles, who pay the salaries of these terrorist sympathizers, who argue that Charlie Kirk — a loving husband and father — deserved a shot to the neck because he spoke words with which they disagreed.”…”
 
nycfan said:


“… It started Friday when the Associate Principal Cynthia Rehberg was included in a post on X by conservative influencer Ryan Fournier.

In the post, Fournier said Rehberg "celebrated the death of Charlie Kirk's assassination."

The post, which was later deleted, included a photo that showed Rehberg's school employee photo underneath a Facebook post made by Cynthia Irene.

… Tadlock said that the woman who posted it is not Rehberg. He also added that Rehberg does not have Irene as a maiden or middle name.

… The district received 800 voicemails as of Sunday morning from people angered, thinking Rehberg was the one who made the post. 12 News obtained some of the voicemails.

Many of the voicemails demanded that Rehberg be fired. A number of them even included death threats.…”
Click to expand...

She should sue his ass and X.
 
superrific said:
He does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. He was not talking about affirmative action. He openly talked about black women not having sufficient "brain processing power" (hey, dead dumbass, we aren't PCs). He had a worldview in which white people were the smartest and thus most qualified to lead. I don't know why you would give him the benefit of any doubt. He most certainly did not deserve it, at all.
Click to expand...
I was thinking about that particular quote when I wrote my previous post and agree that that one is really bad and impossible to justify.

Anyway I used the one quote to show that 1) some people missed the context of it being about affirmative action (and the pilot one was) and 2) it doesn't matter because he was so intent on being provocative that it crossed the line into being racist.
 
www.rawstory.com

'You're lying': JD Vance under fire for 'incredibly irresponsible' podcast rant

Vice President JD Vance's appearance on Monday's episode of "The Charlie Kirk Show" raised the eyebrows of many political observers. Vance interviewed White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller on a new episode of the late conservative activist Charlie Kirk's namesake podcast. Observers...
www.rawstory.com www.rawstory.com

Glenn Kessler, author and former fact-checker at the Washington Post, posted on Bluesky. "I recently checked the ADL data, which has some issues because they include non-ideological murders. But even with those removed, over the past decade right-wing extremists would account for about half of the murders, with about 35% by Islamist extremists, and 8% by left-wing extremist."
 
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...
Wow. You cracked it. Tyler wasn't a fan of Kirk.

I don't think any of us would have known that had you not pointed this out.
 
4thgenheel said:
"meaningful involvement" is way subjective.

i've said this to you no less than 17 times over the last several days. there are some examples of bad, divisive rhetoric from the left but it is categorically outnumbered in both frequency and temperature by the rhetoric coming from right wing politicians and influencers.
Click to expand...
If you’ve responded to that poster 17 total much less on one topic, you are part of the problem.
 
Yeah, just forget the racism and bigotry that Kirk spewed. People should just be tolerant of it. Just tolerate that some people hate non whites, gays, trans, and non Christians just because they aren't straight white Christian nationalists. Can't people just be inclusive and tolerate it? Also, never mind that Kirk was killed because Robinson thought Kirk wasn't racist and bigoted enough.
 
What does it say about a person that when they die, merely the act of directly quoting them can be viewed as a hostile act that sullies their memory and can lead to termination of their job?

When Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated, was there a mass of people getting fired for quoting his “I Have a Dream” speech? What about JFK’s “Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You” speech?

What type of shit person must you have been in life where simply the act of quoting you directly gets people fired after you die?
 
WaynetheDrain said:
What does it say about a person that when they die, merely the act of directly quoting them can be viewed as a hostile act that sullies their memory and can lead to termination of their job?

When Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated, was there a mass of people getting fired for quoting his “I Have a Dream” speech? What about JFK’s “Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You” speech?

What type of shit person must you have been in life where simply the act of quoting you directly gets people fired after you die?
Click to expand...
What kind of shit employer do you have to be to fire people for just quoting Kirk?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top