Trump 2.0

[SirRumpole]

Yes, the cult is cheering the death of a good Christian man who would break bread with anyone, for real.

Why was he a good Christian man in your opinion?

 

[Antirnator]

Why was he a good Christian man in your opinion?

Did you deliberately miss the part where I said he would 'break bread with anyone'?

I am very offended your assumption that he wasn't a good Christian man and that I have prove he is the opposite.

Charlie was more than just a Political Activist, he was also a quiet evangelist who created strong friendships with people of all different lifestyles and beliefs.

 

[SirRumpole]

Charlie was more than just a Political Activist, he was also a quiet evangelist who created strong friendships with people of all different lifestyles and beliefs.

Not transgender people apparently, but I suppose they don't really count.

 

[Antirnator]

Not transgender people apparently, but I suppose they don't really count.

Can you see where you failed? You just made a claim that you cannot verify.

 

[sptrawler]

It certainly seems that many feel that actual assasination is ok, as long as it is accompanied with a character assasination.

It's strange that when Trump was nearly killed there was rejoicing, now this bloke seems to be eliciting the same response.

It is easy to see how mob mentality develops, a sad inictment on people in general IMO.

 

[Value Collector]

1. Sum of his beliefs is that its a human from conception. You are either for the killing of babies or not.
So while his opinion may offend you, yours also offends many. I had a mate who had a similar opinion on rape and carrying and looking after the child as it wasn't the child's fault. I couldn't get my head around it, but came to accept difference in opinion. He wasn't religious either. Better man than I.

You don't actually have the "gist" as you fed people a false narrative of what he believed through TikTok airheads that have no concept of context. I doubt you could find anything but edited short grabs.

Thats what I have a problem with-misinformation.

1.Thanks for the wrap up, but what’s you point? Are you trying to say I don’t have a right to think Charlie Kirk wasn’t a good person? Because I have already said many times he didn’t deserve to be shot, and I don’t think you are stupid enough or dishonest enough to keep arguing that point, so what is your point?

2. I haven’t given anyone a false Narrative, I have watched hours of Charlie Kirk’s debates directly from his own channels, you haven’t? You are just assuming he is being taken out of context, he isn’t though. Which leads me to think that you don’t actually think he is a good person based on those quotes. So to rationalise it in your head you assume he is misquoted

 

[Value Collector]

Yes, the cult is cheering the death of a good Christian man who would break bread with anyone, for real.

Even many Christian’s don’t believe he was good, listen to this short talks, even me as an atheist with say “Amen” to this preacher

 

[SirRumpole]

Even many Christian’s don’t believe he was good, listen to this short talks, even me as an atheist with say “Amen” to this preacher

Interesting. That video was blocked by Microsoft Edge.

Maybe it thinks I'm under 16. LOL.

 

[SirRumpole]

Can you see where you failed? You just made a claim that you cannot verify.

Well, we will see if Charlie Kirk's supporters are Christian enough to forgive his killer.

Are you?

 

[Antirnator]

Well, we will see if Charlie Kirk's supporters are Christian enough to forgive his killer.

Are you?

Yes. I have flaw of easily forgiving people.

But the killer has not wronged me, so I have no need to forgive them. I am not the victim.

 

[Antirnator]

Even many Christian’s don’t believe he was good, listen to this short talks, even me as an atheist with say “Amen” to this preacher

Haters are gonna hate. Insubstantial political rhetoric.

Confirmation bias is awesome!

 

[Value Collector]

Haters are gonna hate. Insubstantial political rhetoric.

Confirmation bias is awesome!

Who is the hater? Charlie Kirk? or the Christian Preacher?

You guys seem to think anyone that doesn't agree with Charlie Kirk is some kind of Hater or "Lib Tard", I don't get it. Surely you could understand that many people would have genuine valid concerns about many of the things he said.

I don't even actually think Charlie Kirk himself believed a lot of the things he said, I don't actually think he would allow his 10 year old daughter be forced to go through a pregnancy with her rapists child, but he said he would, you should be able to understand that people who hear that would rightly say he is crazy and not a great guy.

 

[Value Collector]

It certainly seems that many feel that actual assasination is ok,

Really, I don't know what social media algorithm you are on, but I haven't heard many people expressing those feeling at all. The genuine feeling I see is that people are appalled by the violence, but also don't agree we should be celebrating him and trying to make him in to a martyr / hero, when they feel in life he was actually a pretty dodgy character.

 

[moXJO]

no of that changes Charlie's opinions though, which as said were terrible. I already said he didn't deserve to be shot, regardless of who the shooter is.

Where are the terrible opinions?

Only for those who deal in extremist thinking perhaps. Most free thinking people want context.
This

1.Thanks for the wrap up, but what’s you point? Are you trying to say I don’t have a right to think Charlie Kirk wasn’t a good person? Because I have already said many times he didn’t deserve to be shot, and I don’t think you are stupid enough or dishonest enough to keep arguing that point, so what is your point?

2. I haven’t given anyone a false Narrative, I have watched hours of Charlie Kirk’s debates directly from his own channels, you haven’t? You are just assuming he is being taken out of context, he isn’t though. Which leads me to think that you don’t actually think he is a good person based on those quotes. So to rationalise it in your head you assume he is misquoted

1. I think good people can be biased and say stupid things in the moment. Often what they mean can be taken out of context or its part of a broader discussion. That in no way means that things he said might not have been provocative for social media hits.

2. Im more worried about how they lived their lives and treated those around them. Often these personalities are cultivated to get hits from particular demographics. My personal like/dislike doesn't need to be a factor here.

However I don't think I've seen anything he said that was a personal statement (as of yet) that would make me think he was over the top in what he said. Seemed pretty vanilla if anything.

 

[Antirnator]

You guys seem to think anyone that doesn't agree with Charlie Kirk is some kind of Hater or "Lib Tard", I don't get it. Surely you could understand that many people would have genuine valid concerns about many of the things he said.

Howard John-Wesley made hateful assertions without evidence not arguments hence insubstantial political rhetoric i.e. he hasn't got a leg to stand on.

I don't even actually think Charlie Kirk himself believed a lot of the things he said, I don't actually think he would allow his 10 year old daughter be forced to go through a pregnancy with her rapists child, but he said he would, you should be able to understand that people who hear that would rightly say he is crazy and not a great guy.

Why not, there is no evidence throughout history that going through with the pregnancy has been a significant problem. Like all suffering humans can overcome it in the right circumstances.

You seem to be conflating your one single issue with a collective 'he is not a great guy'.

 

[Value Collector]

Where are the terrible opinions?

Only for those who deal in extremist thinking perhaps. Most free thinking people want context.
This

Well if you are ok with a 10 year old that was raped being forced to keep the baby, I guess thats fine but I think its terrible.

1. I think good people can be biased and say stupid things in the moment. Often what they mean can be taken out of context or its part of a broader discussion. That in no way means that things he said might not have been provocative for social media hits.

2. Im more worried about how they lived their lives and treated those around them. Often these personalities are cultivated to get hits from particular demographics. My personal like/dislike doesn't need to be a factor here.

3. However I don't think I've seen anything he said that was a personal statement (as of yet) that would make me think he was over the top in what he said. Seemed pretty vanilla if anything.

1. You admitted you haven't even seen much of his stuff, I have seen hours of the stuff he posted. I think I am know what was in content and not better than you at this point. But the fact you think it must be out of context is an admission you think its bad.

2. You don't know anything about that side of his life either.

3. HAHAHA, any way I think I have wasted enough time wading around in your mud pit, you need to educate yourself before you speak.

 

[moXJO]

I keep hearing about how much "hatred" the guy had but the quotes seem to be taken out of context and its all brainwashed bs. If I ask for examples its pretty vague.

The left simply couldn't back up their positions in debates with him. He made a lot of the loons feel like dirt by calling out their shtty behaviour and actions. He was then dubbed as evil or spewed hatred.
But was he really?

There's a lot more diverse thinking on the right but some common themes.
The left all tend to think alike and you are shunned if you go against it.

I thought he was just your average rightist hustling for clicks. All these guys seemed to be losing ground.

 

[Value Collector]

1. Howard John-Wesley made hateful assertions without evidence not arguments hence insubstantial political rhetoric i.e. he hasn't got a leg to stand on.

2. Why not, there is no evidence throughout history that going through with the pregnancy has been a significant problem. Like all suffering humans can overcome it in the right circumstances.

3. You seem to be conflating your one single issue with a collective 'he is not a great guy'.

1. Such as? you have got nothing there.

2. Hahaha, you are showing how stupid you are here

3. No there are many topics I think Charlie has terrible opinions on, but Again as with MoXJO I don't think you are capable of a rational thought, so will leave you to wallow in your own mud.

 

[moXJO]

Well if you are ok with a 10 year old that was raped being forced to keep the baby, I guess thats fine but I think its terrible.



1. You admitted you haven't even seen much of his stuff, I have seen hours of the stuff he posted. I think I am know what was in content and not better than you at this point. But the fact you think it must be out of context is an admission you think its bad.

2. You don't know anything about that side of his life either.

3. HAHAHA, any way I think I have wasted enough time wading around in your mud pit, you need to educate yourself before you speak.

I've watched it over the years and more over the last few days.
I doubt you are stupid enough to think the point of his conversation was letting the 10 yo get raped as to the innocence and importance of the baby's life according to Kirk.

You could have just put direct links in instead you muddied up my clean space with a whole lot of dirt.

All you told me is you know nothing.

 

[Value Collector]

I keep hearing about how much "hatred" the guy had but the quotes seem to be taken out of context and its all brainwashed bs. If I ask for examples its pretty vague.

show us all how his statement that a 10 yearly should be made to keep her rapists baby was taken out of context then, don't try and cloud the issue, just go and look up that debate and put it in context for us. until you you do that, you showing yourself as just being silly, so I am out of this convo now, unless you can back up these repeated claims that he is taken out of context.