Charlie Kirk shot dead at Utah university

[The Stockport Iniesta]

Very out of touch im afraid, I’d say vast majority of 16-30 year olds know of him very well - he is constantly on the timelines of most people scrolling through social media and has millions of followers from the UK.

And that's the big problem with social media. Or brainwashing as I prefer to call it. Say what you like, it doesn't have to be true, as long as it fits into the narrative that you are pushing. The indoctrinated will lap it up. There's no checks and balances, just fake news if you get caught out.

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

That deserves more attention than a person who is on record saying that shooting deaths should be accepted if Americans want to have an armed populace.

Source for your claim please.

 

[VOOMER]

Obviously unless those views don't coincide with your own by some people.

Thankfully most people don't resort to violence.

 

[VOOMER]

It isn't, but one of his opinions was that it was worth having a few shooting deaths every year if it meant they could continue their "god-given" right to own guns.

So feel he had it coming?

 

[VOOMER]

The wider point mate is that if you murder someone for their political views you're a **** and if you support that murder you're a ****.

From Lincoln to MLK to this young lad if you support any one of those murders you're an unfit human being.

Fucking A

 

[p.taker]

is this not the biggest assassination since Martin Luther or JFK?

You have got to be fucking p.taking

 

[p.taker]

Weird. None of my family know who he is.

I thought Charlie Rose had died. I barely knew who this goofball was

 

[VOOMER]

It'll be interesting to find out the background and motives of the shooter. Can't remember hearing much about the one that had a pop at trump once they caught him. I can understand why trump and Kirk get on people's tits, but shooting them seems a bit extreme.

Regarding Trump, weren't there two attempts?

 

[happy_blue_apple]

I agree with what you’re saying about not underestimating the likes of Kirk or the little grifting cokehead from Luton. Their influence and reach regardless of their abhorrent views is undeniable and brushing them off as irrelevant is a mistake…

However I think you’ve misunderstood @robbieh point or maybe I have. I took it as the issue isn’t whether Kirk had influence, it’s the comparison to JFK and MLK. Those figures were fighting for equality and justice, whereas Kirk’s rhetoric for the most part aligns far more with someone like Tommy “PayPal” Robinson i.e. divisive and often hateful. So yes, influential, but the nature of that influence is worlds apart,

I didn't miss any point. Will MLK leave a bigger legacy and have more historical impact? One million percent. However, his response was to someone asking if it was the biggest political assassination since those times.

I was replying to say that it may well be and not to consider it the murder of someone irrelevant, because he wasn't, he had influence. Who else in USA in modern times has been assassination in a public place like that in front of large crowd there for them because they're very well known and have millions of followers around the world?

The guy had a big reach, especially with young people. Nobody is saying he will go down as a legendary figure, but it's still the murder of a young man with a pretty large influence in a public setting just because someone didn't agree with his words. All he did was debate people on political views.

The original point wasn't comparing his character to MLK. It was making the comparison of the assassination of a political figure with some influence. The guy I replied to missed the point by comparing their characters, I didn't miss the point.

 

[p.taker]

Source for your claim please.

Lol at this point thats like asking did MLK actually say I have a dream. Where have you been??

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Regarding Trump, weren't there two attempts?

Yes - or a suspected one at least, on a golf course iirc.

 

[happy_blue_apple]

Really? If he was an advocate for the free market and supported Trump’s tariffs (which he did) then he should have taken a remedial economics class.

Personally, I think the reality is he had one “belief”: being pro-Trump gave him money, power and influence, which was good for Charlie Kirk.

Of course, there's no doubt that's part of it. It's a good gig. Afterall, most people in USA voted for trump, hence why he's in office, so it's a hell of a market to tap into eh? Hundreds of millions worldwide support Trump, so if you can be seen as quite a big figure aligned with that, you're gonna get the rewards.

Although it should be worth nothing that Turning Point USA was founded in 2012, before Trump ever entered politics and he was certainly conservative back then too with plenty of the same views.

 

[yankblue]

Source for your claim please.

As requested, straight from the man himself:

This was in response to a school shooting in which multiple children died.

Would you like to hear his views on women, racial minorities, or the LGBT community? Because they're equally vile.

 

[cucumberman]

Seems that

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Of course, there's no doubt that's part of it. It's a good gig. Afterall, most people in USA voted for trump, hence why he's in office, so it's a hell of a market to tap into eh? Hundreds of millions worldwide support Trump, so if you can be seen as quite a big figure aligned with that, you're gonna get the rewards.

Although it should be worth nothing that Turning Point USA was founded in 2012, before Trump ever entered politics and he was certainly conservative back then too with plenty of the same views.

“You’re gonna get the rewards.” And, in bell curve-like symmetry, take the risks.

This is what I’ve been saying for 48 hours. He wasn’t killed because of what he believed under any circumstances. IF his beliefs were a motive in his killing, it was because of how he ACTED on those beliefs.

Again — not what he thought — what he did.

Is that right? Not in my view, at all. But there’s a huge distinction — as there should be — between what you believe and how you act on those beliefs. Both Charlie Kirk and the shooter are examples.

 

[SWP's back]

to be honest the likes of George Soros, Klaus, Gates, Blackrock etc are far more dangerous

Ah you’re one of those nutters are you.

 

[SWP's back]

there's a LOT of people out there who don't live in a very left wing mainstream media driven echo chamber

There’s always a lot of people on the left hand side of a bell curve.

 

[SWP's back]

Source for your claim please.

Fuck me, it’s only been posted a dozen times on the thread.

 

[happy_blue_apple]

“You’re gonna get the rewards.” And, in bell curve-like symmetry, take the risks.

This is what I’ve been saying for 48 hours. He wasn’t killed because of what he believed under any circumstances. IF his beliefs were a motive in his killing, it was because of how he ACTED on those beliefs.

Again — not what he thought — what he did.

Is that right? Not in my view, at all. But there’s a huge distinction — as there should be — between what you believe and how you act on those beliefs. Both Charlie Kirk and the shooter are examples.

What did he do? He pretty much just debated people in public and gave people a platform to oppose him. Isn't that a good thing?

He's been killed for speaking his views, that's it. He's never told people to go out and harm others. If others listen to him and agree with what he says about religion and politics, so what?

So his actions are maybe influencing people to hold more conservative views? That's it. What's the difference between that and influencing people to hold more liberal views?

I dont know what these "actions" are that you speak of regarding this fella.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Inscribing messages onto munitions to commit political violence is abhorrent .... especially when it is real.

When did defending your own country become political violence?