The Charlie Kirk Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rock
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 94K
  • Politics 
Calheel said:
Apparently he was viable.
Click to expand...
Let’s revisit this in 6 months. Disney may just want to create space between Carr’s stupid comment and JK’s firing.

Either way it doesn’t really matter to me as he’s a non factor in impacting politics
 
JCTarheel82 said:
Link to those things happening after Democratic politician Melissa Hortman was murdered a few months ago?

Also, the day after Kirk's death, a number of HBCUs as well as the DNC headquarters received bomb threats, and many Democratic politicians across the country received threats against their lives and their families. Additionally, there was a deadly school shooting in Colorado carried out by a 16-year-old influenced by far right ideology mere hours after Kirk's assassination.
Click to expand...
In June EVERY Republican lawmaker voted to condemn Melissa Hortman’s murder. In September 96 Democratic lawmakers ( voted no, voted preset, or skipped vote) refused a similar vote on Charlie Kirk’s murder.
 
Ramrouser said:
refused a similar vote on Charlie Kirk’s murder.
Click to expand...
Similar vote? That is a good one.

The Minnesota resolution condemned "the June 14, 2025, attacks on Minnesota state legislators" and called "on all people in the United States to reaffirm our commitment to a safe, civil, and peaceful democracy." The only thing even a little bit controversial in the Minnesota resolution was a throwaway whereas clause saying "Hortman was a formidable public servant who served her community and the people of Minnesota with deep devotion, compassion, and strength."

I mean, even if you hated her politics, that is a fairly milquetoast statement.

In contrast, look at all the highly contentious language added to the Kirk resolution:

Whereas Charles “Charlie” James Kirk, born October 14, 1993, was a courageous American patriot ...;

Whereas Charlie Kirk was a fierce defender of the American founding and its timeless principles of life, liberty, limited government, and individual responsibility; ...

Whereas Charlie Kirk became one of the most prominent voices in America, engaging in respectful, civil discourse across college campuses, media platforms, and national forums, always seeking to elevate truth, foster understanding, and strengthen the Republic;

Whereas Charlie Kirk personified the values of the First Amendment, exercising his God-given right to speak freely, challenge prevailing narratives, and did so with honor, courage, and respect for his fellow Americans;

Whereas Charlie Kirk’s commitment to civil discussion and debate stood as a model for young Americans across the political spectrum, and he worked tirelessly to promote unity without compromising on conviction; ...

(4) honors the life, leadership, and legacy of Charlie Kirk, whose steadfast dedication to the Constitution, civil discourse, and Biblical truth inspired a generation to cherish and defend the blessings of liberty;
 
Calheel said:
Similar vote? That is a good one.

The Minnesota resolution condemned "the June 14, 2025, attacks on Minnesota state legislators" and called "on all people in the United States to reaffirm our commitment to a safe, civil, and peaceful democracy." The only thing even a little bit controversial in the Minnesota resolution was a throwaway whereas clause saying "Hortman was a formidable public servant who served her community and the people of Minnesota with deep devotion, compassion, and strength."

I mean, even if you hated her politics, that is a fairly milquetoast statement.

In contrast, look at all the highly contentious language added to the Kirk resolution:

Whereas Charles “Charlie” James Kirk, born October 14, 1993, was a courageous American patriot ...;
Whereas Charlie Kirk was a fierce defender of the American founding and its timeless principles of life, liberty, limited government, and individual responsibility; ...
Whereas Charlie Kirk became one of the most prominent voices in America, engaging in respectful, civil discourse across college campuses, media platforms, and national forums, always seeking to elevate truth, foster understanding, and strengthen the Republic;
Whereas Charlie Kirk personified the values of the First Amendment, exercising his God-given right to speak freely, challenge prevailing narratives, and did so with honor, courage, and respect for his fellow Americans;
Whereas Charlie Kirk’s commitment to civil discussion and debate stood as a model for young Americans across the political spectrum, and he worked tirelessly to promote unity without compromising on conviction; ...
(4) honors the life, leadership, and legacy of Charlie Kirk, whose steadfast dedication to the Constitution, civil discourse, and Biblical truth inspired a generation to cherish and defend the blessings of liberty;
Click to expand...
💯
 
Calheel said:
Similar vote? That is a good one.

The Minnesota resolution condemned "the June 14, 2025, attacks on Minnesota state legislators" and called "on all people in the United States to reaffirm our commitment to a safe, civil, and peaceful democracy." The only thing even a little bit controversial in the Minnesota resolution was a throwaway whereas clause saying "Hortman was a formidable public servant who served her community and the people of Minnesota with deep devotion, compassion, and strength."

I mean, even if you hated her politics, that is a fairly milquetoast statement.

In contrast, look at all the highly contentious language added to the Kirk resolution:

Whereas Charles “Charlie” James Kirk, born October 14, 1993, was a courageous American patriot ...;

Whereas Charlie Kirk was a fierce defender of the American founding and its timeless principles of life, liberty, limited government, and individual responsibility; ...

Whereas Charlie Kirk became one of the most prominent voices in America, engaging in respectful, civil discourse across college campuses, media platforms, and national forums, always seeking to elevate truth, foster understanding, and strengthen the Republic;

Whereas Charlie Kirk personified the values of the First Amendment, exercising his God-given right to speak freely, challenge prevailing narratives, and did so with honor, courage, and respect for his fellow Americans;

Whereas Charlie Kirk’s commitment to civil discussion and debate stood as a model for young Americans across the political spectrum, and he worked tirelessly to promote unity without compromising on conviction; ...

(4) honors the life, leadership, and legacy of Charlie Kirk, whose steadfast dedication to the Constitution, civil discourse, and Biblical truth inspired a generation to cherish and defend the blessings of liberty;
Click to expand...
And wasn’t part of the resolution to create a national day of honoring Kirk or some nonsense like that?
 
Calheel said:
Similar vote? That is a good one.

The Minnesota resolution condemned "the June 14, 2025, attacks on Minnesota state legislators" and called "on all people in the United States to reaffirm our commitment to a safe, civil, and peaceful democracy." The only thing even a little bit controversial in the Minnesota resolution was a throwaway whereas clause saying "Hortman was a formidable public servant who served her community and the people of Minnesota with deep devotion, compassion, and strength."

I mean, even if you hated her politics, that is a fairly milquetoast statement.

In contrast, look at all the highly contentious language added to the Kirk resolution:

Whereas Charles “Charlie” James Kirk, born October 14, 1993, was a courageous American patriot ...;

Whereas Charlie Kirk was a fierce defender of the American founding and its timeless principles of life, liberty, limited government, and individual responsibility; ...

Whereas Charlie Kirk became one of the most prominent voices in America, engaging in respectful, civil discourse across college campuses, media platforms, and national forums, always seeking to elevate truth, foster understanding, and strengthen the Republic;

Whereas Charlie Kirk personified the values of the First Amendment, exercising his God-given right to speak freely, challenge prevailing narratives, and did so with honor, courage, and respect for his fellow Americans;

Whereas Charlie Kirk’s commitment to civil discussion and debate stood as a model for young Americans across the political spectrum, and he worked tirelessly to promote unity without compromising on conviction; ...

(4) honors the life, leadership, and legacy of Charlie Kirk, whose steadfast dedication to the Constitution, civil discourse, and Biblical truth inspired a generation to cherish and defend the blessings of liberty;
Click to expand...
No way Dems unanimously support the Hortman resolution if you used the same language for Kirk. 96 is a big number of no/ present votes. They would have balked at supporting any vanilla positive statement about Kirk while condemning political violence.
 
Ramrouser said:
No way Dems unanimously support the Hortman resolution if you used the same language for Kirk. 96 is a big number of no/ present votes. They would have balked at supporting any vanilla positive statement about Kirk while condemning political violence.
Click to expand...
Huh?
 
While I understand the temptation, why do we keep comparing a Minnesota legislator who did her job quietly and earned the respect of her colleagues from both parties with a homophobic provocateur who advocated for the establishment of a right wing theocracy in America? Why in the world would the same complimentary language be used for those two people?
 
Ramrouser said:
In June EVERY Republican lawmaker voted to condemn Melissa Hortman’s murder. In September 96 Democratic lawmakers ( voted no, voted preset, or skipped vote) refused a similar vote on Charlie Kirk’s murder.
Click to expand...
One was an elected politician , one of their peers, w/o hate speech directed at them and their constituants.

The other was an unelected internet troll whose rhetoric was often racist and sexist.
 
Ramrouser said:
In June EVERY Republican lawmaker voted to condemn Melissa Hortman’s murder. In September 96 Democratic lawmakers ( voted no, voted preset, or skipped vote) refused a similar vote on Charlie Kirk’s murder.
Click to expand...

No, the U.S. Senate has not passed a resolution condemning the murder of former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman. The U.S. House of Representatives unanimously adopted such a resolution in June 2025.

Here's the resolution, there's nothing to disagree with since they didn't add in anything that was controversial or disagreeable. Additionally she was an elected official:

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,
June 25, 2025.

  • Whereas, on June 14, 2025, a gunman entered the home of Minnesota State Senator John Hoffman and shot and critically injured him and his wife, Yvette Hoffman;
    Whereas the gunman then entered the home of Minnesota State House Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman and assassinated her and her husband Mark Hortman;
    Whereas the gunman had documents that listed dozens of lawmakers targeted for assassination;
    Whereas the law enforcement officers of Brooklyn Park and Champlin saved additional lives by intervening with their bravery and rapid response to the attack;
    Whereas Speaker Emerita Hortman was a formidable public servant who served her community and the people of Minnesota with deep devotion, compassion, and strength;
    Whereas acts of political violence have no place in the United States of America and represent a grave threat to our nation;
    Whereas swift condemnation of political violence by elected officials is necessary to preserve and protect American democracy;
    Whereas when these violent acts expose division, we must persevere in the pursuit of democratic principles, resolving our differences through debate and civil discourse; and
    Whereas political violence not only attacks the life and liberty of our representatives, it also attacks the right of the people to be represented: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives, in this moment of tragic loss—

(1) strongly condemns and denounces the attacks on Minnesota state legislators in Brooklyn Park and Champlin, Minnesota on June 14, 2025;

(2) honors the life of Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman for her devotion to public service and her tireless efforts to serve the people of Minnesota, and the life of her husband, Mark Hortman;
(3) honors Senator John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette Hoffman, who were shot and critically injured, and wishes their full and speedy recovery;
(4) honors the courageous law enforcement officers who saved additional lives with their rapid response to the attack and successfully apprehended and charged the suspected perpetrator on June 15, 2025;
(5) calls on all community leaders and elected officials to publicly and unequivocally denounce acts of political violence; and
(6) calls on all people in the United States to unite in this moment of pain and tragedy and reaffirm our commitment to a safe, civil, and peaceful democracy where violent rhetoric and acts are not tolerated.


This on the other hand:
RESOLUTION
Condemning the assassination of Charlie Kirk and honoring his life and legacy.

  • Whereas Charlie Kirk was horrifically assassinated on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University while speaking to a large group of college students;
    Whereas Charlie Kirk was a devoted husband, father, and Christian;
    Whereas, in 2012, Charlie Kirk founded Turning Point USA, a conservative campus advocacy group that quickly became one of the fastest growing college campus chapter organizations in the country; and
    Whereas Charlie Kirk frequently engaged college students of all political backgrounds in open debates and discussion, encouraging civil discourse on college campuses and among college students: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate—

(1) condemns the assassination of Charlie Kirk in the strongest possible terms;

(2) extends its deepest condolences and sympathies to Charlie Kirk’s family, including his wife, Erika, and their two young children; and
(3) honors Charlie Kirk’s commitment to the constitutional principles of civil discussion and debate between all people of the United States, regardless of political affiliation.

Number 3 isn't agreed upon. Many see it as a lie, I'm sure that many others did too. They shouldn't vote yes on a lie.

My personal opinion, they should have voted yes, if for no other reason than to avoid the right using it as you are. The real problem here is that they included the third statement. Just keep it honest.
 

Dozens of House Democrats voted Friday to oppose a resolution honoring Charlie Kirk and condemning political violence following his assassination last week in Utah.

The overwhelming majority of those 58 lawmakers represent one of the minority caucuses — the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), Congressional Hispanic Caucus or Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus — and many said they voted “no” because they didn’t want to extol Kirk’s most controversial political views, which frequently targeted minority communities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top