But it comes at the cost of brown people as well
Except apparently in high school he was also left wing. And he wasn’t living as a moderate left winger — dude was dating a dude trying to trans himself.
Sure and if the mom swallowed, the killer wouldn’t have killed. We can always argue over causation. But saying “the mom is responsible because she likes vaginal sex” actually misses the real proximate cause.
That’s even worse. It’s like saying “he wasn’t blue because he was bad. If bad, then MAGA. Bad therefore MAGA.”
I’m sorry but if your position is that a blue tribe person thinks operating a gun is some kind of magic, then I don’t think we can move the conversation forward
Except the left cheered on (or tried to downplay) the siege and was worried about “police violence” vis-à-vis the attackers. I would’ve shot the lot.
I don’t think that argument coheres. There is just a step difference between permitting Holocaust denialism and permitting massive multibillion dollar mayhem.
One could make the argument about protest if there was maybe a car or two turned on fire. Still despicable but within the pale to say “but all of the peaceful protest is worth not shutting down the very small rioting.”
But when you get to night after night attempted to siege a federal courthouse it’s just too far removed from a concern about protest.
I’ve m this argument being promulgated by the left. It’s nonsense. Despite the asshole being the opposite of MAGA in pretty much every conceivable way you are saying because he grew up in a red space he is basically forever red.
But nobody but nobody would make the claim if the roles were reversed (ie kid who was super maga but grew up in a left wing household). It’s also far from obvious why the things he was acting on (eg dating a trans dude) influenced him significantly less than growing up red. He clearly had turned his back on that upbringing.
Isn’t this just another way of saying “blue tribe supports the riots because it thinks without the riots other what they view as good things won’t come to fruition?”
Maybe you think that’s unfair, but I really struggle to understand the above thinking as it’s divorced from reality.
Shouldn’t those people want the riots to stop even more?
That assumes the people are aware of the facts. Maybe they just hears Jimmy Kimmel.
And that number only counts insurance payouts. There were certainly places that were not insured or were underinsured.
I think Kenosha is more like an exurban place
-
Bullet casings suggested he was deeply left wing.
-
Romantic entanglement with trans suggest deeply left wing.
-
Text message suggests he is left wing.
-
People near him say he is left wing.
-
Left wing Discord kept saying “something would happen to Kirk on the day of the assassination.
-
The target was MAGA.
If put to a jury, that would be beyond reasonable doubt. And right now MAGA is grieving. One of their prominent own was murdered publicly for speaking by a leftist. Then, we have Kimmel go on the air and say “hey MAGa grievers, your own murdered Kirk so it’s really a ‘you’ problem” despite zero evidence to support that and significant evidence to support that the killer was left wing.
There were people here desperately trying to spin it away from the obvious (prioritizing indeterminate evidence while ignoring damning evidence). I hope they reflect on their failures.
More than a few blocks were destroyed in Kenosha alone. This is just retconning recent history. There was billions in damage.
Yeah but they’re experts.
This is somewhat tongue in cheek. One can be an expert in one area and not in another. But when one is claiming expertise and is that wrong, then it really calls into question all of their pronouncements.
I’m sorry but that’s bullshit. There is the famous imagery of the CNN reporter stating fiery but peaceful with a building burning behind him.
It was a meme. People knew. Everyone knew. But CNN (mouthpiece of the establishment which is blue) was encouraging it.
I don’t disagree (ie do t leave your keys in your convertible with the roof down).
The difference I see it is (1) the poster called Kirk a bigot and (2) used the word graciously. The latter has a connotation of being good and well mannered. The opposite is bad and uncouth. So the poster is saying “if Kirk wasn’t a bigot and didn’t do this bad thing, then he’d be alive.”
That strikes me as categorically different than “if Kirk didn’t give his view, then he’d be alive.”
The first is value laden to suggest Kirk maybe it had it coming. The second is purely descriptive
How many BLM related violent events were there? What about the dude that gunned down five cops?
The world where money is thrown at a long of things that don’t take hold. Analogizing to plants misses the point entirely. Building organizations is not like growing a plant where you just need fertile soil and water. Many attempts at building organizations fail despite have moneyed interests backing them.
And on J6, a lot of the people were probably unaware of the violence or if they were opportunistically took a tour of the Capitol.
But even here, the other poster is confusing categories. He is confusing cold feet with a change of mind (he assumes the killer wants an out when I bet most killers don’t change their mind as much as get nervous).
This guy needs to be banned. He offers a stupid theory. He then insults people whilst focusing on minutia. He states views that are basically unfalsifiable. And, he implicitly justifies (though he denies it) murder (who the fuck would say that if Kirk was more “gracious,” the shooter wouldn’t shot unless they were tacitly explaining away the murder?)
- Prev
- Next
What were the bad things done by DOGE?
More options
Context Copy link