Anonymous #4 1w

Most actual vets only get 2 honor guards while a glorified podcaster gets a full honor guard and ride on AF2. It’s a blatant attempt at martydom.

34

Anonymous #5 1w

She was 1 out of 4 private citizens to ever lie in honor in the Capitol. 2 of which were Capitol police killed on duty and the 4th being a priest. It’s very rare for regular citizens to be given such notable honor. I’m half surprised trump didn’t allow him to lie in honor at the Capitol too

44

Anonymous OP 1w

He is a martyr, he literally was assassinated for his opinions. He deserves to be treated with this level of respect.

-11

Anonymous #4 1w

Shooter is not in custody, you have no idea why he was killed, you are just spinning a narrative with no foundation.

26

Anonymous #7 1w

Fallen military members who they were originally meant to honor

61

Anonymous #6 1w

Not spinning a narrative, I’m understanding the reality of the situation. If your choosing to purposely ignore the context of this that’s on you, but trying to insinuate this wasn’t politically motivated is frankly disingenuous.

-8

Anonymous #4 1w

Again, you do not know anything that the rest of us do not know. You don’t know the shooter’s name, what he looks like, or what his motive is. I hope he gets caught and it’s some fucking groyper who thought Kirk was a cuck.

21

Anonymous #4 1w

Tragic, yes. But like it was said, we don’t know anything yet but when the president is already using his death to polarize the country and blaming the “radical left” you can see how he’s using his death for political points.

18

Anonymous #6 1w

Yes we don’t know everything yet, but human beings have the capability to understand the context of the situation and make an informed decision on why an event occurred. If your choosing to purposefully ignore this context to better align with your politics, again, that’s disingenuous.

-8

Anonymous #4 1w

Again, you have zero knowledge that the rest of us do not and are assuming that a link exists without evidence because you literally cannot wait four or five days to regurgitate your bullshit narrative about how the left is violent. I’m not even saying you’re wrong, I’m saying you are claiming to know the unknowable, and are a fucking dumbass.

19

Anonymous #6 1w

Don’t need to regurgitate it, the lefts inhuman reaction to murder speaks for itself, and from the context of the situation it was a political assassination, are you saying mr smarty pants that you don’t think that’s the most likely outcome.

-2

Anonymous #4 1w

By “the lefts inhuman reaction” do you mean universal condemnation from policymakers and media figures? Because that’s what happened. This is the difference between left and right. When you point out violent rhetoric on the left it’s a 41 follower account on Twitter with like 7 likes on the tweet. When I point out violent rhetoric on the right, it’s the President of the United States.

17

Anonymous #6 1w

No it’s the large group of leftists in this school that we’re jumping with joy at the news and didn’t hide it whatsoever, it’s the experiences of my republicans and non-Republican friends who’ve witnessed the same thing at this school and at other schools. And as for the media, they haven’t shown universal condemnation.

-6

Anonymous #4 1w

What does universal condemnation look like, because when democrats are attacked or killed, republicans from the president to your everyday podcaster make fun of the situation…

11

Anonymous #4 1w

Charlie was a pos who didn’t care for political violence he was 100% ok with supporting the guy who attacked Paul Pelosi with a hammer and was ok with running cover for Jan 6th it’s always sad when someone dies and him being a pos doesn’t justify his murder. Regardless he was a pos who was partly responsible for ruining the rhetoric in this country.

13

Anonymous #4 1w

Find me one mainstream or even large non-mainstream left of center voice that didn’t condemn the assassination (hint: you can’t.)

10

Anonymous #6 1w

“You can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and then not expect awful actions to take place.”

-4

Anonymous OP 1w

the capitol dome is under congressional jurisdiction, so if both the house and senate allow it, it will probably happen

7

Anonymous #6 1w

MSNBC Matthew dowd

-1

Anonymous #4 1w

You’re quoting the reporter who got apologized and got fired for saying a not so controversial thing, while right leaning reporters never apologize or get fired for saying worse thing about other attacks/deaths

6

Anonymous #10 1w

He’s already been taken to a funeral home I believe there is to be a service at his church. Let’s stop assuming the worst about people who are grieving the death of a friend and chill the fuck out.

-5

Anonymous #4 1w

This Matthew Dowd? Yeah you’re right, this doesn’t look like condemnation at all.

14

Anonymous OP 1w

There we go, “a not so controversial thing”, wow, I guess you think it’s acceptable to kill someone for saying something you don’t like.

-3

Anonymous #6 1w

Looks like damage control to me

-2

Anonymous #4 1w

It’s not so controversial. I believe when republicans say this phrase they prefer “FAFO” “Fuck Around and Find Out”

6

Anonymous #6 1w

he’s having to issue an apology because he said the shooter might’ve been a supporter shooting his gun off in celebration. Like what the fuck?

6

Anonymous #4 1w

Real the “you can’t expect to be able to share an unpopular opinion but take harmful actions against no one and not be killed and have your enemies proverbially drink your blood”

-1

Anonymous #8 1w

Is CRAZY

0

Anonymous #4 1w

Even granting that it might be damage control, this is so much more contrition than Trump or anyone on the right have ever shown for their violent rhetoric towards Democrats that the fact I’m even giving you this much consideration is actually insane

11

Anonymous #6 1w

We aren’t talking about everyone. We are talking about one man and his actions and the actions taken against him.

0

Anonymous #6 1w

Notice the bait and switch here, totally avoids your point that the most obvious situation is a political assassination

12

Anonymous #5 1w

hmm, famed civil rights activist vs white supremacist who said the civil rights act was a mistake and that mlk was a bad person. bit of a difference there dontcha think?

35

Anonymous #8 1w

So he’s none of the ones in (1), right?

24

Anonymous #7 1w

So uh…Matthew Dowd is not left of center. He was an advisor for George W. Bush

8

Anonymous #4 1w

“In this school” this isn’t your school yak btw

9

Anonymous #4 1w

He was a piece of shit, buddy. A genuinely awful human being

1

Anonymous #4 1w

Many Nazis were killed for their opinions as well. Either choose pacifism or acknowledge that certain heinous "political" convictions are a valid reason insofar as valid reasons exist. You’re such a fucking moron. You’re treating "opinions" as if it’s a buzzword for triviality when equating them even with FACTS that Charlie Kirk denied.

3

Anonymous #15 1w

Correct. Is he literally just a regular citizen that’s it

1

Anonymous #21 1w

He is*

1

Anonymous #15 1w

He is a part of the Democratic Party

0

Anonymous #7 1w

Like look it up lol he’s just been all over the place. He’s clearly aligned with democrats

0

Anonymous #7 1w

He’s a dem now, but considering he was a Bush advisor, he has a Republican history. He was fired pretty quickly for those comments, and I think that was justified

1

Anonymous #15 1w

Nice a lot of other people here are saying that what dowd was fired over wasn’t controversial

1

Anonymous #7 1w

The “supporter firing his gun in celebration” was profoundly stupid. But the “hateful words cause hateful actions” is kinda true. HOWEVER he absolutely should have said “that still does not mean he should have been killed”

1

Anonymous #15 1w

Yeah he deserved to be fired. what kind of idiot “well it could’ve been a supporter who aimed and shot him out of celebration”

1

Anonymous #7 1w

I don’t think it’s controversial when the president immediately blamed the left with no info. I like how we’re all sitting here talking about a random reporter who said something kinda stupid. When the president of the United States immediately used the shooting as a political attack on purpose. If people cared more about that I would care about the reporter.

6

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

I think Dowd’s comment was before the president said that. Dowd isn’t even a reporter though, he’s a contributor. He’s basically invited and compensated for his opinion

1

Anonymous #15 1w

Ok then I care even less now. Fuck it he should be rehired and given a bonus for his opinion. I won’t pretend to care if no one else does. As soon as I hear the outrage over the president I’ll care.

6

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

I like how a senior analyst got fired for immediately trying to do damage control after a public assassination

1

Anonymous #7 1w

What do you think about what the president said after the attack?

3

Anonymous #7 1w

His comments weren’t far off from the presidents in the sense both were speculating while the identity was of the shooter was still unknown

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Nope not at all Trump directly blamed the left while the report speculated and said he didn’t have details, but you don’t gaf it was all a virtue signal.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Their comments were polar opposite actually and Matthew dowd ended up w egg on his face because he was (obviously) wrong

0

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

Many people blamed the left. Bernie sanders joe biden the Clinton’s all also agreed it was political violence

0

Anonymous #7 1w

They didn’t blame anyone specifically. They condemned violence in general

2

Anonymous #15 1w

They did condemn political violence and anyone who wasn’t celebrating his death also saw it for what it was

1

Anonymous #7 1w

No one is disagreeing that it was political violence, saying it’s the left (ignoring how vague and weird that statement is) is a disgusting statement to make before you know anything about the shooter.

1

Anonymous #7 1w

My understanding is the reporter made those statements before any large politician made theirs if that’s your point.

1

Anonymous #15 1w

JFK jr had no connection to the US government other than being a member of the Kennedy family and he got a MILITARY BURIAL AT SEA…the VP escorting his body home is WAY less extreme than that. He received this burial on approval from the department of defense for “notable public service or outstanding contributions to the United States” which is a category Charlie does fall in to (according to the president and his administration).

1

Anonymous #21 1w

The point I’m making is that this is not unheard of for this and even higher rights of burial to be bestowed on non service members and non government officials. To deride people for grieving a friend and ensuring that they are laid to rest with the upmost respect is one of the most vile takes on this whole issue.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Gonna make a point that hasn’t been made: many of the service members who you are advocating for deeply respected Charlie Kirk and others like him and shared his beliefs. Do they still deserve to be treated with the highest honor in burial even though they were bad people in your view?

5

Anonymous #8 1w

Bold to assume most military personnel share his beliefs when the military itself is one big melting pot that doesn’t see color. Anyways unless a service member does something so egregious and acts on their beliefs they, like every other service member, deserve a military funeral

1

Anonymous OP 6d

.

5

Anonymous #2 6d

Did not fight for freedom and try to make the world a more peaceful place fought to take it away

3

Anonymous #8 3d

I’m curious to see how this would look now that there have been cuts to the VA, we escalate tensions for no reason, and we had a military parade

4

Anonymous #8 3d

Yes based military honors should be based on popularity that’s for sure what that was made for.

1