That’s what people have been saying about him but his opinions were too extreme for him to be a bridge between the parties. He was just a more intelligent, less belligerent version of Trump.
The people calling his positions extreme have no idea what his positions even were...
He's on the right and he's successful at swaying young minds so they hated him.
This poster is saying ‘don’t pay any attention to what Kirk says’
This poster is apparently saying that Dems are in favor of gun ownership by the mental ill. We all know Rs have fought tooth and nail to stop virtually all restrictions on gun ownership.
good god man.
Democrats in my city don't even prosecute gun crime out of some twisted sense of "equity"...
The left killed Charlie ultimately because he humiliated them and was effective in doing so. Humiliation is the Achilles heal of narcissistic psychopaths.
What happened to Charlie Kirk is horrific. There is no place for that type of violence. That said, he was wrong in saying that some shootings are acceptable and necessary in order to protect our 2nd Amendment rights. 2nd Amendment rights can still exist without the shootings.
Why was he wrong? Isn’t that what every Seconder implicitly believes whether or not they say it explicitly? Informed political stances are about an individual’s relative prioritization of their deeply held beliefs when they conflict with each other. Very few people just believe in evil outright or reject something good outright.
The people calling his positions extreme have no idea what his positions even were...
He's on the right and he's successful at swaying young minds so they hated him.
This poster is saying ‘don’t pay any attention to what Kirk says’
Idjit.
No I'm saying dont be one of the morons who reads 1 sentence of a 45 minute speech and draw the conclusion the man's political enemies want you to draw.
I realize asking someone like you not to be stupid is a waste of time.
This thread is sad. I just want to post in an effort to remind people to be human. Be kind. Think about your family and friends. Try to give the other person the benefit of the doubt. You will reap the violence and hate that you sow. Sow love and kindness.
What, exactly, is a "true school shooting?" Is the school shooting that took place yesterday not "true" enough for you? Did there need to be more casualties for it to be true? Would the victims need to be dead as opposed to just injured? If the one that is in critical condition dies will that make it a true school shooting? Are the other school shootings where "only" a few students are killed, like the one at the Catholic school a few weeks ago, not true because not enough kids died? Are those types of shootings acceptable so that we can have our 2nd Amendment rights?
What happened to Charlie Kirk is horrific. There is no place for that type of violence. That said, he was wrong in saying that some shootings are acceptable and necessary in order to protect our 2nd Amendment rights. 2nd Amendment rights can still exist without the shootings.
The problem is, if you say let’s start “gun control” by addressing it with the mentally ill first or anyone on mind altering medication for depression or extreme anxiety or suicidal ideation and prevent them from getting weapons, a very reasonable, common sense position that many conservatives actually agree with and a position that would cut down 90% of shootings, you’ve attacked a sacred cow of the left and a “marginalized” group and so it’s a non-starter. I know, because I’ve had this conversation with many leftwing friends, and instead of embracing the debate on its merits, they immediately accuse you of being a Republican and trotting out Republican talking points. And the reason for this, in every case, is because either they or one of their children are on psychotropic meds, so it’s “personal.”
Anyway, the cavalier and inhumane responses on this thread and from many of these same lib friends about Kirk’s death has revealed the people who really do traffic in hate.
Why would you want to discuss politics with your friends? There are plenty of other things to talk about and nothing good comes from arguments.
This poster is apparently saying that Dems are in favor of gun ownership by the mental ill. We all know Rs have fought tooth and nail to stop virtually all restrictions on gun ownership.
good god man.
Democrats in my city don't even prosecute gun crime out of some twisted sense of "equity"...
Honestly, you can debate on an anonymous message board without lying. You too could be an honorable person. Could happen. You just have to stop lying.
The left killed Charlie ultimately because he humiliated them and was effective in doing so. Humiliation is the Achilles heal of narcissistic psychopaths.
Did he though?
Most of 'the left' (which I presume you mean anyone who doesn't worship the pedo in the White House) just saw him as bit of a comedy character.
I appreciate you guys were wowed by him because he spoke fast and said words you didn't understand (which is odd for a conservative), but most of his debates were him repeating rehearsed diatribes and shouting down the other person (usually a clueless college kid).
Any time he came up against anyone well versed in debates (such as at Cambridge University), he was well and truly trounced.
This post was edited 18 seconds after it was posted.
The left killed Charlie ultimately because he humiliated them and was effective in doing so. Humiliation is the Achilles heal of narcissistic psychopaths.
Did he though?
Most of 'the left' (which I presume you mean anyone who doesn't worship the pedo in the White House) just saw him as bit of a comedy character.
I appreciate you guys were wowed by him because he spoke fast and said words you didn't understand (which is odd for a conservative), but most of his debates were him repeating rehearsed diatribes and shouting down the other person (usually a clueless college kid).
Any time he came up against anyone well versed in debates (such as at Cambridge University), he was well and truly trounced.
Let's see one video of Charlie shouting down a single person.
The problem is, if you say let’s start “gun control” by addressing it with the mentally ill first or anyone on mind altering medication for depression or extreme anxiety or suicidal ideation and prevent them from getting weapons, a very reasonable, common sense position that many conservatives actually agree with and a position that would cut down 90% of shootings, you’ve attacked a sacred cow of the left and a “marginalized” group and so it’s a non-starter. I know, because I’ve had this conversation with many leftwing friends, and instead of embracing the debate on its merits, they immediately accuse you of being a Republican and trotting out Republican talking points. And the reason for this, in every case, is because either they or one of their children are on psychotropic meds, so it’s “personal.”
Anyway, the cavalier and inhumane responses on this thread and from many of these same lib friends about Kirk’s death has revealed the people who really do traffic in hate.
Why would you want to discuss politics with your friends? There are plenty of other things to talk about and nothing good comes from arguments.
Friends are people you can trust to still be your friends if you disagree.
If you are afraid to talk politics with them, they might be good acquaintances but they aren't really your friends.
Let's see one video of Charlie shouting down a single person.
He was polite to even the worst of you animals.
He ran circles around the idiots at Cambridge.
I understand you're upset because this was someone you admired to the point of hero worship.
Just try not to get yourself banned, you're very emotional.
I hope you didn't watch his videos of those debates, where he took out all the embarrassing bits. You ought to watch the full unabridged versions. He struggled badly against seasoned debaters, but it doesn't matter when you guys are the intended audience.