My favorite Charlie Kirk quote is:
I can’t stand the word empathy, actually, I think it’s a made up new age term, and it does a lot of damage.
But Charlie wasn’t just a one-note ideological thinker.
I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.”
Kirk was, needless to say, all for the Gaza genocide, but he was for it by lying about it. Most famously, he denied starvation in Gaza.
Anyway, Kirk was an evil, pro-genocide douchebag, who was shot, which he said was an acceptable price to pay for the second amendment. I’m not going to waste crocodile tears on someone who actively worked for the mass murder of civilians and who died in a way he thought was an acceptable sacrifice.
But we need to unpack this properly. One thing commenters on the right have been saying is that Charlie may have died, in full of in part, because of neo-liberals and the left calling him and people like him Nazi or fascist.
Now I don’t know the motives of who killed him, but in our society many people do genuinely believe that killing Nazis was justified and the right way to deal with them. There’s a version that swings left, of course. “The only good Commie, is a dead Commie.” The Black Book of Communism and the constant reminders of deaths under Mao and Stalin are meant to justify this sort of hatred, as reminders of the Holocaust and German war crimes are to justify killing Nazis.
So the right isn’t wrong. If you call someone a Nazi there’s a certain subtext where “and killing him would be justified” is implied. Fascist is weaker, but same general idea.
But the reverse version is Communist/Marxist/Socialist. The right calls their enemies this all the time and it has the same implication. “Cultural Marxist” was the battle cry used by people like Kirk to justify purges of the university system of left wing professors.
I don’t want to imply these are mirror phenomena. The fact is that since the early 20th century being Communist, Marxist or Socialist has been much more likely get one fired, jailed, deported, beaten or killed than being a fascist. Indeed, there was a huge taboo against calling anyone a Nazi, so much so that doing so was considered “losing the argument.”
It took a lot of boundary pushing in the right for that taboo to be partially broken.
Back in 2016, during Trump’s first run for the Presidency, I wrote that constantly calling him a fascist or Nazi, and branding resistance ANTIFA would naturally lead to violence, because if someone is a Nazi, violence isn’t just justified to stop them, it’s a moral imperative to use any means necessary including violence to oppose them.
But in America, the same is true of stopping Communism or socialism or Marxism. And the same is true of calling Abortion a holocaust.
So what’s happened here is that the shoe is now on both feet. The right had their Commies and their abortion Holocaust to justify their actions. Now the center has Nazis and the left has Nazis and the Gaza genocide to justify their violence.
By their lights, all three sides are justified in violence. If Commies and Nazis and Genocide are true evil, and if all sides have committed genocides and are Nazis (right) and Commies (left/center) then, indeed, it is ethically required to use any means necessary to stop them.
What we’re seeing right now is a cry from all the “responsible people” of “don’t resort of political violence! It’s never justified!” (This in a country formed by violent revolution, who’s almost always mass murdering people for political reasons.)
But the issue is that the right and, actually, the center, are acting like fascists, at the least, and really like Nazis. (That whole inconvenient genocide thing.)
The right’s case is weaker, unless you do view abortion as a Holocaust, in which case, yes, you are hard pressed not to find yourself wondering why you aren’t murdering the abortionists. Neoliberals aren’t left wing, socialists or communist and there are no socialists or communists anywhere near power in the US. The right calls neoliberals the left and pretends “cultural Marxism” is Marxism, so they’re really Stalinists, which is ludicrous to anyone who knows the politically correct crew that the right calls “cultural Marxists.”
If you want avoid domestic political violence over these issues (though it’s all really a proxy for the impoverishment of the majority of the population) you either have to decide that being a Nazi (pro genocide, pro gestapo/ICE thugs) is OK, or stop being a Nazi. On the other side, you have to give up abortion or decide that it isn’t a Holocaust. And since “cultural Marxism” is really proxy for a series of policies meant to help women and various racial and sexual minorities, you have to decide whether prejudice, including legal prejudice against them is OK (Issue one) and whether or not they deserve any sort of helping hand (a separate issue. You could keep them legally equal and let them keep their rights like gay marriage and the female vote but get rid of affirmative action and so on.)
In other words, to avoid political violence over ideology, you need to have the vast majority of the population agree on what is acceptable. Is genocide is OK? Abortion? Affirmative Action. Women having the vote? (Peter Thiel, who bankrolled Vance, has suggested women shouldn’t have the right to vote.) Gays marrying. People being able to choose their own gender. Police raids by badgeless masked men without warrants from unmarked vans.
If people don’t agree on what is right and the red lines being crossed are of “this is a holocaust” or “this is completely destroying millions of people’s lives” then of course it’s going to break out into political violence. Expecting otherwise and hand waving that “we should kill over difference in opinion about whether it’s OK to commit genocide” are ludicrous and pathetic and foolish.
There’s political violence because Americans disagree over life and death issues as large as, but not limited to “should we commit genocides?” Well, again, that and general immiseration, which lowers the ignition point.
If you don’t want political violence, don’t wag your finger and say “political violence is bad, ‘kay”, either agree as a society to be a bunch of Nazis with an immiserated population, or decide not to be Nazis and make sure that almost everyone has a good life.
As for Kirk, I’m glad he got a death in line with his beliefs: making the ultimate sacrifice for the right of Americans to bear arms. It was “worth it” and I will assume he meant that, and if he still exists he’s at peace, having died for what he truly believed.
***
If you’ve read this far, and you read a lot of this site’s articles, you might wish to Subscribe or donate. The site has over over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, take money to run.
Larry
As usual, extremely well said. The right has been stoking and commiting violence without blowback for so long now that they likely are shocked to find out that some people are willing to kill them.
The left has been protesting with some destruction of property or vandalism, but no violence of note that comes to mind. MAGA has ramped up the temperature to a level where some people are ready to use violent means as a counter weight.
bruce wilder
The whole society hardly has to agree on a full litany of moral imperatives; it just has to be willing to agree to disagree on many moral rationalizations and tolerate human ambivalence, while holding leadership accountable for some modicum of social care and respect for the general welfare. Some “horizontal” communication and respect channels have to be open to limit “divide-and-conquer”.
We ordinary non-elite people are many of us complicit with a political system of top-down manipulation by means of cynical propaganda into Manichean name-calling. The manipulators — professionally skilled but apparently amoral — serve someone (a billionaire boys club of sociopaths? I don’t know, not my social circle.) But, why do we go along when elites openly betray us?
Charlie Kirk appeared to me to be a professional manipulator, a grifter. His Christian Nationalism is alien to me ideologically, but I cannot fathom the utility of thinking for one moment that he deserved to be murdered. His politics of promoting “debate” and discussion and mass organization remained small-d democratic. Yes, I know he was abusive toward people he identified as enemies of his people. I never followed him closely, but I was aware that he occasionally channeled the concerns of his base. He was worried about Israel’s genocide and its heavy-handed censoriousness, maybe because he felt vulnerable, caught in a conflict between his masters and the sensibilities of his base of idealistic Christians. I noticed that he gave Tucker Carlson a platform for an epic rant a few months ago about the economic despair of the young in the U.S. Again, a conflict between the interests of his masters and the experience of his base where his sympathies or at least his instinct for leading from the front of the moving mob led him to go off-script?
I see many Democrats in the general vicinity of my age bracket recalling the political violence and assassinations of the 1960s, almost nostalgically I think, because their heroes (my heroes) were the martyrs of that by-gone era. A lot of performative virtue-signaling on the so-called left consists of cosplay and retconns of the 1960s. The same elite amoralism practicing cynical manipulation by means of well-financed media propaganda drives the remnants of the Democratic Party establishment. And, the same conflicts arise between the elites serving their genocidal billionaire masters, on the one hand, and normal people fearing for their economic futures and repulsed by images of innocents dying in Gaza or destruction in Ukraine.
We the ordinary, little people become complicit because we go along with the manipulation from above. We are apparently happy with our two-minute hate instead of a decent society. We are happy to blame the Other. Happy to believe our worthless pols are the lesser evil.
Senator-Elect
Interesting, unpredictable and even delightful piece, Ian. But I think the flaw in your logic is that the reason for liberals and leftists raising the stakes and using the fascist or Nazi label was not to make them justifiable targets for violence; that may have been the signal understood by a tiny number of people, but the goal was simply to stop people from voting for the increasingly extreme Republican candidates. And lo and behold, the Republicans are governing like fascists now! So it was accurate, if premature.
Similarly, the right started bringing out the socialist, communist and Marxist labels because they are ignorant and propagandized to oppose anything that blocks the “free” market. Perhaps it was also a dog whistle for a certain Black president. And, as you say, these labels are laughable: Dems are almost 100% neolibs. Again, perhaps a tiny minority takes the label to mean justifiable targets for violence.
So while there’s some symmetry in the labels, there is no comparison in their connection with reality. The real problem is quite obviously the right-wing’s mega-delusion–it’s a doom loop and it might just take us all down with it.
Senator-Elect
I should add, though, that the response from business and media elites and the Democratic Party leadership since January, and the response to this killing specifically (e.g., from the NYTimes), indicates a willingness to take the deal that being fascist state and genocide are fine as long as the stock market keeps going up and they can have brunch and vacation around the world. So point to you on that one!
GM
I know this may not have been the intention, but it is mandatory to note that communism and Nazism were not at all morally equivalent, and should not be presented as such.
Sure, in real life communists killed a lot of people that didn’t deserve to die. But they also killed a lot of people that did (because the actions of those people had caused the deaths of millions for purely selfish reasons).
Nazis barely killed anyone who did deserve it.
And on a fundamental level we have the difference that communist ideology promised a future just world freed of the oppression of the existing order, where people would be equal. In real life it didn’t get to where it promised to, but it definitely achieved equality and social justice at a level never seen before or after in human societies of any moderate complexity. And that is a good thing.
On the other hand Nazis didn’t promise anything of the sort and entirely rejected the idea that people are equal — they promised to kill the subhumans, where subhumans were defined based on race and ethnic origin (i.e. immutable characteristics), take over their land and resources, and redistribute them to their followers. That never is and never can be a good thing.
Also, in America today there is barely anyone who is actually a communist. The fight is between the ultra-right and the liberals, the latter being called “left” in one of the most unfortunate acts of violence against language and terminology in history. Stalin would have, of course, lined up all the liberals to be shot, and so would have Lenin, and even Trotsky. There is nothing communist about them.
anon
“You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It’s drivel. But I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe.”
I’ve been reading Kirk’s compilation of hate mongering, racist, and homophobic quotes over the last 24 hours. Many of his quotes regarding gun violence ironically and literally came back to put a gaping hole in his neck.
I understand that political commentators left and right are horrified by what happened. If it happened to Kirk, I suppose it can happen to any political commentator, even the ones I like. But I’m not going to be lectured by these commentators that I should have empathy for Kirk because he was allegedly a loving husband and father. His daughter may be better off not having a father who would have been okay with her delivering her rapist’s baby: https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/charlie-kirks-hardline-abortion-views-resurface-after-his-killing-in-utah-viral-video-101757562999575-amp.html
Unfortunately, getting your head blown off is the risk anyone takes living in or visiting the USA. Anyone here can be shot and killed at any time because we are swimming in guns and untreated mentally ill people. This is the kind of country Kirk wanted and he paid the ultimate price.
It would be hilarious if there is some sort of afterlife and Kirk could see the irony of his last words about mass shootings and his using racist dog whistles about gang violence before a fellow white man in conservative Utah blew his neck off.
Interestingly, I’ve seen a video of Kirk beginning to be more critical of Israel in the last months of his life. Maybe enough of his young MAGA supporters were starting to turn against Israel that he knew he had to make some sort of shift to maintain his fanbase. I’ve also read that he allegedly said that he was afraid of Israel killing him if he went against him. Just something to ponder.
different clue
Here is a comment from a thread about Kirk offering a theory of who and why might be motivated to have this assassination done.
” @Evomertheorange
18 minutes ago
Charlie Kirk had several heated Arguments with Trump about the epstein files. Trump demand to be silent about this issue, but Kirk just 3 days ago demanding to unseal the epstein files and hold every predator accountable with the highest punishment…so now he got silenced by Trump and Trump is making this big ugly fuss about it to distract from the fact who really is behind this assasination. Sadly the stupid Magamushbrains believe this BS 🙄Trump shows to everyone that in his world only the lives of republicans count ,even if he took one of his own people 🤬
different clue
Here are some different Black people offering their thoughts on this Kirk shooting deal.
” must watch: Black Americans SHARES their HONEST & UNFILTERED Reaction To the death of Charlie Kirk. ”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpIEOvajrKs
Mark Level
As to the post title question, one should obviously kill Nazis (if you’re not one they are coming for you) and not mourn them. I don’t think you should kill Communists. They are a very mixed bag however. Some are intelligent and have good ideals, but may be overly focused on 19th century dogma and cant, justified by materialist window dressing. Others are just lunatics (a Sparticist tried to recruit me as a 17 year old College freshman; even at that age I saw the man was a cultist and could not think for himself, and should not be emulated.)
Commie cults are mostly funny, and are pure distractions. LaRouche 3x out of 20 would make germane observations about things like the British Royal family, but there were too many utterly insane projections in his ideology (a very risible one was about how some tone needed to be removed from the musical scale because it was sinister and harmful). Kirk has a certain correspondence in his M.O. with these people, clearly, bruce w. nails it as usual. Mainly these grifters are about what their hero, the Donald is about. 1) get rich off your moronic fanboys (& a few self-hating girls); 2) if you are emotionally insecure (which most far-right people by definition are) lap up the adulation of the crowd as you perform your Spectacle (see G. DeBord) and feel better about yourself; 3) Own the Libs, it is good fun, clean or dirty!! It’s also as easy as falling off a log, the Libs are such sensitive, performative snowflakes with their pretend virtues, from which the French Revolutionary ideas of Liberte, Egalite, and Fraternite have been utterly and forever scrubbed.
Kirk was very good at what he did, he was no Milo Yiannopolis. DD (Due Dissidence) covered that TPUSA (the TP always stood for toilet paper to me) has big student groups across at least 350 US cities and towns who are active. Someone like Bernie Sanders who (at one time) had a more sensible and mainstream, slightly “Left” perspective, yet was a failure (his Democrat party adjacency almost guaranteed this), showed no ability to organize over even a decade’s time, just a sheepdog for the Party Apparatchiks show shat and spat on him for being a tiny bit left. Some folks are masochists, I guess?
I like Ian’s axis of the Right v. “Commies + left/center” is very useful. We have an extreme Right which is almost entirely sincere, vicious, violent, and full of hate. We have a pretend-opposition in the electoral realm of corporatist, war-mongering phonies who have exploited Muricans’ lack of class consciousness by opening up a virtue-gathering Identity politics Pandora’s Box and pretend that because they “like” black, Latinx (sic), gay, Trans, Furries, or any other of hundreds of micro-identities they deserve your vote. They do nothing to support those identities when in actual power, see Obama’s “forgotten” promise to legally enshrine Roe v. Wade at the start of his 2nd term. Does the mighty O shed tears over 11 year old girls forced to give birth to their rapists’ babies, or women forced to carry an ectopic pregnancy to term in Red states and the physical and emotional agony this causes? Clearly he feels no more genuine sorrow than Charlie Kirk would.
I’m going to go with the DD initial take and say that I don’t believe that Charlie was killed by a lefty, Commie or other MAGAt enemy. That was clearly a professional, paid assassin, extremely effective, still at large, may never be caught. The cops at the event falsely picked out an old, fat Boomer man as their first suspect (the perfect distraction) & he played to the cameras during his 15 minutes of fame while cuffed by shrieking at them, “Shoot me!! Shoot me now!!” I don’t know if the Op was fully scripted or this was spontaneous, but like Trump says, “this is great TV.”
I could be mistaken, but at the moment I think Charlie was taken out by his former own team. Commenters who note that he was legitimately America First (TM) and not Israel First, had started to follow a big chunk of his base and NOT support Zionism over U!S!A!, like some others on the far Right such as Marjorie Taylor Green, Candace Owens, Rep. Thomas Massie and other voices who realize that any pretense that they are Christians and follow the “Prince of Peace” would be negated by supporting the Genocidal Zionist Entity. He had a presentiment that if he went off the Reservation on this one, he would be eliminated, seems prescient. I give him some grudging respect (if this is true), & find it interesting that like MLK, Malcolm X, Gandhi and some others he knew he’d touched a “3rd rail” and was a likely target. He was more cowardly on the Epstein files and organized pedo rings popular in both parties among the Elites. He did vacillate on this as well though, that’s 2 strikes against him, clearly. Nobody takes on Daddy Donald, that would be like public deprecating Herr Hitler in 1939.
I usually just scroll past dc’s posts, since after Donald won last year he started the rants about how he wanted “leopards eating the faces off of” those of us who didn’t faithfully vote Kop Kamala. I do not regret my vote for Jill Stein (though I don’t pretend it accomplished much of anything), as I tell to many shrill, Right wing “Libs” who are also offended by it. As meaningless as voting in a Presidential race actually is, better to keep one’s integrity than sacrifice it for nothing.
Habitual behaviors do limit one’s personal potential over time, so I broke mine and read away. 1st post by dc is good, factual. Endorsing the Elite Pedo cover-up was a bridge too far for Kirk, likely he realized his base would badly fracture by going there, like I said, 2 “bridges too far”, 2 Strikes for Uncle Charlie with the actual Elites, Mr. Charlie told ’em so for awhile, let’s see who replaces him as the biggest TP purveyor and if that person falls into line. Likely I think. DC’s 2nd post is great, it is good to hear from people who have every reason to existentially hate and fear the Trumpist movement at this particular time.
Don’t expect a meaningful answer to who killed Charlie Kirk. A convenient Patsy may be found, we only kind of know who killed JFK (a huge cabal) over 6 decades after his martyrdom, these kind of Answers are not allowed in American political theater.
Mark Level
Breaking News– alleged Assassin of Kirk caught. See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8iKwdorXTU
I have respect for Daniel Davis, Tulsi Gabbard wanted to give him a position in the Trump admin, but was vetoed by the top people. Davis is thoughtful and smart, he’s not one of those Vets who is all into the cult of killing and violence.
The story here seems a little too seamless and simple. It could be what it seems or not. Davis and his partner point out that this Tyler Robinson character comes from an “intact home”, supposedly “recently radicalized.” One of the most discordant aspects is the shell casing engraving, including one saying “If you are reading this, you are gay. LMAO.”
The Governor hogged a lot of time campaigning from the stage about the “greatness” of Utah, and Kash Patel (who has said Epstein “was murdered” and had NO connection to filming subjects with underage girls) has his habitual Crazy Eyes/ Deer in the headlights look. Maybe this is one not done by the Mossad or CIA assets, Harper’s some time ago did an “Arm the Left” cover story. The boy was obsessed with guns, lots of pictures, look real– Maybe he was the perfect patsy to start a Civil War against “the Left”, I hope it doesn’t go that way, but many on the Fascist Right will attempt that.
Mark Level
OOPS!! Patel said Epstein committed suicide, a ridiculous lie. Sorry for omitting the word “not”. (He did actually say Epstein was murdered for years, until the Trump crew closed ranks that “nothing to see here”. So a typical Establishment shameless liar.”
Purple Library Guy
There are traditionally quite different views of political violence between the hard left, the broad centre, and the hard right.
For the hard left, politics is very important and so sometimes violence is justified in achieving important political ends (such as overthrowing fascism).
For the broad centre, violence for political reasons is never justified, never ever . . . except when it doesn’t count, for reasons.
For the fascist right, violence for political reasons is a core part of what the ideology is about–if you’re not either committing, or trying to arrange to be in a position to commit, violence for political reasons, you’re not a proper fascist. Political violence and the threat of it is both a major part of fascism’s policy prescriptions and a key way they rally support. “Kill brown people (or someone like that) and leftists” is as central a part of fascism’s agenda as “Seize the means of production” is for Communism.
mago
No one including the blind can be surprised by anything anymore. I hear the rain falls up, not down so what’s that falling on my head?
Must be the sound of silence I’m listening to according to Paul Simon anyway.
Living in a zombie nation an a bomb it nation.
Am I missing something somewhere?
someofparts
Bruce Wilder’s points about how regular people tolerate perfidious elites instead of fighting back against them strikes me as actually a large topic that could easily occupy several posts and related comments.
Sophisticated propaganda deployed on a massive scale is one of the obvious culprits. I’ve been reading around this week in an interesting book, Smoking Mountain, by Kay Boyle (one of the many fine writers whose career was trashed by Joe McCarthy back in the day) who provides many on the ground glimpses of the thinking of ordinary Germans immediately after WWII. The impact of propaganda on Germans of that era comes through pretty clearly.
Beyond that however, I suspect there are other factors like a social structure that tends to isolate people instead of fostering community. Although, even in that case, things seemed to have been better before our current misuse of the internet exacerbated such problems.
Overall, to me at least, the Charlie Kirk business is just a data point in larger trends that sealed our doom long ago. Hua Bin pointed out recently that in 1917 Lenin told us that late stage capitalism would 1) financialize, 2) monopolize and 3) go to war against everyone. Maybe you could say that this country is just the biggest open air crime scene the world has ever known and, as such, never was, or could be, sustainable.
Chuck Teague
I was always astonished to see female students at post-secondary institutions gushing over Kirk and his views, when his appearances there were covered by FoxNews et al. It boggled the mind to see the sheer lack of understanding by them that if this slimy MAGA misogynist had his way, they wouldn’t be permitted to attend college/university.
– CT
different clue
Here from the law subreddit is a little video-bit of noted present day American Maganazi Stephen Miller speaking about this Kirk deal . . . ” Miller: The power of law enforcement under President Trump’s leadership will be used to find you, will be used to take away your money, take away your power and if you have broken the law, take away your freedom ”
https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1nfnxo2/miller_the_power_of_law_enforcement_under/
Stephen Miller is one of Trump’s principal thinking-brain dogs and a key designer of Trump’s tone, approach and policies.
Black podcaster Phillip Scott recently decided that Stephen Miller was worth a podcast, and here it is. ” Stephen Miller Is Advising Trump To Ramp Up The Anti-Black Racism In Washington DC ”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0tgmWHNdXw
Now, there is a long distance between “kill” and “mourn”. There may still be a short time and a narrow way to find a best place along that gradient in order to delete Stephen Miller and its Trump from influence, power and visibility short of actually killing it.
And here is a little article about Trump ( channeling Stephen Miller?) explaining that he “couldn’t care less” about re-uniting the country.
“Trump Says He “Couldn’t Care Less” About Unifying The Country After Charlie Kirk’s Death”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/trump-says-he-couldn-t-care-less-about-unifying-the-country-after-charlie-kirk-s-death/ar-AA1MrsBh?ocid=BingNewsSerp
I look at that picture of Trump and hope he is feeling as bad as he looks.
different clue
Now here is Deep Conspiracy thinking just to show how far it can go and in what strange directions. It is a podcast titled: ” Why Nick Fuentes will be blamed for Charlie Kirk’s Death”. Some of the information-particulars it offers are of the “interesting if true” variety.
If you want some political conspiratainment, put on your tinfoil crash helmet and watch this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYTPkLVTEbA
someofparts
Taibbi and Kern have a fresh take and plenty to say about the Kirk assassination.
https://www.racket.news/p/america-this-week-september-12-2025
different clue
Here’s a little video from CringeTikToks, titled: ” 2025 Isn’t Real”. Actually, that’s the title of the post re-offering the video. I suppose the video itself could be called Charley Kirk goes to Heaven or some such title.
Anyway, here is the link.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CringeTikToks/comments/1nfsorf/2025_isnt_real/
different clue
Here is a “Simpson ShitPost” illustrating why the Facistrump Right is so deflated and disappointed by who/what the possible shooter turns out to be, titled: ” They were so looking forward to it too!”
https://www.reddit.com/r/simpsonsshitposting/comments/1nfyvre/they_were_so_looking_forward_to_it_too/
different clue
And here is a little BlueSkyStreets subreddit entry highlighting Charlie Kirk’s principled support of Free Speech and Truthseeking, titled: ” Only certain debates are valued until you are fact checked “.
Here is the link.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueskySkeets/comments/1ng297k/only_certain_debates_are_valued_until_you_are/
different clue
And here is something from TotallyRealTweets, titled: ” In a new statement on X, Trump compares his experience with recent events. ”
Here is the link.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TOTALLYREALTWEETS/comments/1nfwne4/in_a_new_statement_on_x_trump_compares_his/
The Marching Maga Morons will worship this tweet, as they worship every tweet from their beloved God-Emperor Trump.
Someone should figure out how to viralize this tweet to every single member of the Kirk Youth to see if they all join the Maga Moron March in loving and celebrating this tweet.
Jeff Guinn
“His daughter may be better off not having a father who would have been okay with her delivering her rapist’s baby”
0kay? Really?
Within Kirk’s moral reasoning, which is very difficult to refute, elective abortions are always homicide. Doesn’t matter how the pregnancy happens: homicide.
In that moral universe, a very bad thing has already happened. Does committing murder alleviate it somehow?
Okay. Let’s say killing the innocent life that was created by this rape is OK.
Executing the rapist?