I believe very strongly in the golden rule. As in; Other people are treating you in the way that they want to be treated.
If the right actually wants this shit to stop, they'll stop forcing us to reach across the entire table and try to meet us in the middle. Though at this point, they might have to reach across the whole table if they want me to cooperate with them.
You don’t understand that we are already meeting you in the middle. Having the state only deport some illegal immigrants is the moderate solution. Pretending to forget about the COVID lockdowns so that we can be neighbors again is the moderate solution. Abortion being a state’s issue is the moderate solution. Trusting the police and even National Guard to keep major cities safe is the moderate solution. Every “right wing” policy is already a compromise.
I know you want to keep this contemporary, but you could easily add Giffords, all the school shooting, ‘I don’t like Mondays’, Vegas, Brietbart, going postal, Reagan, the Kennedy’s and more going all the way back.
This take is refreshing. Yes political violence is bad no matter who does it or why they do it. But it’s been frustrating to see so many people gloss over the plain fact that Trump and his allies, including people like Kirk, have been relentlessly turning up the temperature of political rhetoric for a decade now, which has normalized extreme rhetoric on both sides.
On gun control, I agree with you, but the politics of the issue are brutal. I don’t see how pro-gun control Democratic Party wins back the senate, for example.
I know that's not what you intend but the second half of this piece reads as if Kirk got his just desserts and is strangely discordant with the first half. If the first half of this piece about the difficulty of stopping violence once it begins is true, and I think it is, then the only thing to say, at least in the immediate aftermath, is how sorry you are. The analysis can wait.
Thank you for having the courage to stand up and say this. I'm sure there will be a bunch of people who want to minimize the negativity of his rhetoric because he's dead, but the truth is that while it's a tragedy for any family to lose their father, our national discourse is better off without Charlie Kirk in it.
This isn't true in the slightest. In the full clip, he has a shit eating grin on his face while talking about how his audience should definitely bail the guy out. He then engages in conspiracy bullshit about how this guy only needs to post bail in the first place because the Pelosi family is getting special treatment.
He doesn't come out and say 'I am happy this attack happened' but you need to learn about the concept of subtext if you're going to survive on the internet.
You're either arguing dishonestly or you just can't see what's right in front of your face. You don't even have to listen to other people talk about Charlie Kirk. Just go watch what he said.
I believe very strongly in the golden rule. As in; Other people are treating you in the way that they want to be treated.
If the right actually wants this shit to stop, they'll stop forcing us to reach across the entire table and try to meet us in the middle. Though at this point, they might have to reach across the whole table if they want me to cooperate with them.
You don’t understand that we are already meeting you in the middle. Having the state only deport some illegal immigrants is the moderate solution. Pretending to forget about the COVID lockdowns so that we can be neighbors again is the moderate solution. Abortion being a state’s issue is the moderate solution. Trusting the police and even National Guard to keep major cities safe is the moderate solution. Every “right wing” policy is already a compromise.
It's nice to know that Trump was the compromise from you people.
Thanks for telling me that you really wanted Steven Miller to be president instead.
You’re right.
thank you for admitting it 👍🏾
now get thicker skin you snowflake
I know you want to keep this contemporary, but you could easily add Giffords, all the school shooting, ‘I don’t like Mondays’, Vegas, Brietbart, going postal, Reagan, the Kennedy’s and more going all the way back.
This is America.
This take is refreshing. Yes political violence is bad no matter who does it or why they do it. But it’s been frustrating to see so many people gloss over the plain fact that Trump and his allies, including people like Kirk, have been relentlessly turning up the temperature of political rhetoric for a decade now, which has normalized extreme rhetoric on both sides.
On gun control, I agree with you, but the politics of the issue are brutal. I don’t see how pro-gun control Democratic Party wins back the senate, for example.
I know that's not what you intend but the second half of this piece reads as if Kirk got his just desserts and is strangely discordant with the first half. If the first half of this piece about the difficulty of stopping violence once it begins is true, and I think it is, then the only thing to say, at least in the immediate aftermath, is how sorry you are. The analysis can wait.
Thank you for having the courage to stand up and say this. I'm sure there will be a bunch of people who want to minimize the negativity of his rhetoric because he's dead, but the truth is that while it's a tragedy for any family to lose their father, our national discourse is better off without Charlie Kirk in it.
This isn't true in the slightest. In the full clip, he has a shit eating grin on his face while talking about how his audience should definitely bail the guy out. He then engages in conspiracy bullshit about how this guy only needs to post bail in the first place because the Pelosi family is getting special treatment.
He doesn't come out and say 'I am happy this attack happened' but you need to learn about the concept of subtext if you're going to survive on the internet.
Just one month ago Kirk called for full military occupation of American cities: https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/charlie-kirk-trump-military-occupation-b2805750.html
But please, keep telling me the man didn’t push extreme rhetoric.
You're either arguing dishonestly or you just can't see what's right in front of your face. You don't even have to listen to other people talk about Charlie Kirk. Just go watch what he said.