Politics CHARLIE KIRK SHOT IN UTAH (2 Viewers)

[Phatguysrule]

View attachment 75201

Tell you what, Spencer - how about you MAKE it a watershed moment by being the first modern Republican to advocate for gun control? I won't hold my breath.

We already have gun control. Can you be specific about what you're advocating for?

Trump literally enacted the bump stock ban. Countless Republicans have supported red flag laws.

There's no gun law that is going to change any of this. Reducing gun crime does nothing if you aren't reducing violent crime.

The most effective way to reduce violent crime is to improve access to education and health care and social services.

The gun control debate is simply a red herring designed to confuse the population and extract campaign funds from them. Much like the abortion debate.

The Constitution is clear. We have the right to bear arms. We have the right to abortion.

We should Just listen to the Constitution and focus on the best ways to provide Universal Education, Universal Healthcare, and a more robust and efficient social safety net.

Of course, we already know exactly how to provide the best universal health care by instituting Bernie Sanders Medicare For All plan which would be the best health care in the world and cost less than our current health care system.

Of course we could also try to pattern our education system after Finland, but I'm not sure how that transition work since we have so many uneducated parents.

To further help reduce the threat of gun crime in school I would suggest ramping up staff trained in mental health care as well.

38 states have been expanding ease of access to firearms. We're not going to make any significant changes on gun control unless we become a fully authoritarian country.

Gun voters are single issue voters. Republicans will not win primaries if they run on gun control.

 

[julius]

The shooter wasn’t a trans, antifa, or left wing. He was a terminally online incel, with brain rot from the internet.

Writing “if you’re reading this your gay, lmaooo” like the whole thing is a joke just shows how unserious we have become.

Also our enemies, both foreign and domestic, just took notes on how bad our FBI is right now.

Yeah, that's kind of my feeling too. If anything, he sounds more like someone who isn't all there. Hating CK tho, that seems weird though. I mean, I get hating CK, but would someone who is conservative hate CK?

 

[Phatguysrule]

I don't care anymore but thanks for proving my point. Incapable of having open and honest dialogue. So mute me. Ban me.
How sad that an individual cant bring up the need for open and honest dialogue from both side without being attacked and wanted silenced.

how incredibly sad. Thanks for proving my point.
I probably should give any public speeches. Might be a target for people wanting to silence those wanting to engage in this extremely huge topic.

Seems familiar….

Open and honest dialog while ignoring the scientific community is not possible.

Then you just resort to discussing which magician is better. And I don't believe in magicians.

 

[Shaboid]

I don't care anymore but thanks for proving my point. Incapable of having open and honest dialogue. So mute me. Ban me.
How sad that an individual cant bring up the need for open and honest dialogue from both side without being attacked and wanted silenced.

how incredibly sad. Thanks for proving my point.
I probably shouldnt give any public speeches. Might be a target for people wanting to silence those wanting to engage in this extremely huge topic.

Seems familiar….

Lol I was just making an observation.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Open and honest dialog while ignoring the scientific community is not possible.

Then you just resort to discussing which magician is better. And I don't believe in magicians.

What are you talking about? No on is ignoring the scientific commumity. The only ignoring going on is that scientists are also humans and can have agendas. Not all of course. But yes. Some do. So do teachers. So do politicians. So do cops. Guess whst? So do religious clergies and parents. We all have agendas. And we are all human. Are the vast majority of teachers and scientists on the up snd up? Sure. 100%? Only a fool would believe that. And only someone who isn't interested in honest dialogue would dismiss that and make the debater the target like you have done.

 

[ehizzy3]

Yeah, that's kind of my feeling too. If anything, he sounds more like someone who isn't all there. Hating CK tho, that seems weird though. I mean, I get hating CK, but would someone who is conservative hate CK?

He probably didn’t hate Kirk. Kirk was just the easiest person for him to target. Who else is going to bumfuck Utah?

We have a real problem with mental illness due to social media and the internet.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Ditto. What you are advocating, that there is not any possibility of foul play in science, is very harmful to this country. Id suggest you check yourself and give light to the fact that scientists are also human and have agendas. Covid proved this. Not all scientists agreed on covid. I rest my case.

You are getting so far off the point to try to prove my statement wrong and i have no clue why.

do you disagree that without open and honest dialogue we can still improve things? Yes or no?
Are you advocating we don't need open and honest dialogue from both sides? Are you claiming the left has been open and honest aBout everything but the right has not?

What is your point in debating what i said? We need open and honest dialogue from all sides.
You disagree with that? You think a side can lie snd spread falsities and we can still improve?

Rather than making it personal and claiming im harming the country id suggest stay on point to what i said and don't read into it.

Its simple. Without open and honest dialogue from all sides, we are doomed.

WhT about that do you disagree with and why?

Yes, all legitimate scientists agreed on COVID.

When you say things like that it proves that you aren't capable of having open and honest dialogue.

That is how we get Donald Trump, RFK Jr. and the rest destroying this country.

Statements like that and assholes like Charlie Kirk spreading statements like that.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Lol I was just making an observation, Mr. Victim, Sir.

You are saying you took the time to make that observation without an agenda and being biased? And then insult me on top of it?
Whatever you say sir…..

 

[Phatguysrule]

What are you talking about? No on is ignoring the scientific commumity. The only ignoring going on is that scientists are also humans and can have agendas. Not all of course. But yes. Some do. So do teachers. So do politicians. So do cops. Guess whst? So do religious clergies and parents. We all have agendas. And we are all human. Are the vast majority of teachers and scientists on the up snd up? Sure. 100%? Only a fool would believe that. And only someone who isn't interested in honest dialogue would dismiss that and make the debater the target like you have done.

You can say these things because you don't understand the scientific method or how academia works.

You aren't qualified to have this conversation. And I'm not qualified to teach it to you. If you are interested in these kinds of things you should seek education.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Yes, all legitimate scientists agreed on COVID.

When you say things like that it proves that you aren't capable of having open and honest dialogue.

That is how we get Donald Trump, RFK Jr. And the rest destroying this country.

Statements like that and assholes like Charlie Kirk spreading statements like that.

What is a legit scientist? Anyone with a degree? If so, i do not believe they all agreed.

 

[tlongII]

This has assassination by FBI all over it.
Pointing at the left?
Why would the left want a up and coming very popular political influencer that wanted the Epstein Files published killed.

Trump had this man taken out. Anyone who can’t see that isn’t paying attention.

Trump is using the Putin playbook.

I don’t believe the FBI had anything to do with this.

 

[Phatguysrule]

He probably didn’t hate Kirk. Kirk was just the easiest person for him to target. Who else is going to bumfuck Utah?

We have a real problem with mental illness due to social media and the internet.

We have real problems with mental illness due to our lack of access to healthcare and a decent social safety net.

 

[bulls_with_booz]

Yeah, that's kind of my feeling too. If anything, he sounds more like someone who isn't all there. Hating CK tho, that seems weird though. I mean, I get hating CK, but would someone who is conservative hate CK?

Incomprehensible political beliefs that can be interpreted by both sides however they please. He is just vague enough of a person that two different realities will start to form around him.

1) that the shooter is a leftist antifa wackjob who was probably on HRT or something
2) that the shooter is an incel/groyper/4chan dweeb accelerationist

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

You can say these things because you don't understand the scientific method or how academia works.

You aren't qualified to have this conversation. And I'm not qualified to teach it to you. If you are interested in these kinds of things you should seek education.

But see, you have been trying to teach me. You have been trying to teach me I'm being harmful. You have been trying to teach me about scientific methods. Dont you see that? In telling me im wrong and to seek education, you are trying to teach me im wrong but are self admittedly not qualified to do so and this is my point.

My whole point.
Most of us are unqualified, but were still gonna discuss it. Just read facebook man. So when discussing it, we need open and honest dialogue. Honesty includes admitting not knowing all the facts. Open means willing to listen to all to determine what is factual and what is not.

This is all silly. I simply stated that all sides must engage in open and honest dialogue for improvements to be had and you tried to cut that down and dismiss it as harmful.

I stand by my original statement.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

No, that is you misreading/misunderstanding/twisting my post. I never once said respect him. I never once said he was a good man or bad man. Im only commenting on the flood of emotional expressions of common folk who are basing their judgment off of truncated quotes. Don't read anymore into it than that.

Both sides love to quote portions of statements, publications, etc, to support their beliefs/ideologies.
This is a both side issue whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not.

The same goes for the murder of the Melissa Hartman.
Both sides are using this violence as agendas and finger pointing. If one is engaged in this finger pointing, they are part of the continual problem and not part of the solution.
You are mostly part of the solution because you continually push for improved healthcare, etc.
But when we stop pushing for improvements(mental health care, etc) on all sides and start pointing fingers at once side, while engaging in the same behavior, we will not improve anything.

Whether right or wrong, good or evil, no one gives a three year old temper tantrum the time of day. So whether the left is right or not, without ending the agro rage, nothing will improve.
Whether the right is right or wrong, without dividing religion from politics, nothing will improve. Religious beliefs should not supersede honest science.

That is a generalization, but it's also reality.
Both sides have communication breakdowns and both sides need improvement in that arena to make any change for the better. Without acknowledging this the left can yell all they want about how evil the right is. No one is listening.
Not saying that is right. It’s just the way it is. Its reality.
Sometimes it’s on the messenger to give the message in a way it is understood. No one understands fingerpointing and being called evil nazis because they voted on their conservative beliefs.

I can't believe you actually wrote this. Forty percent of America elected that tantrum throwing three year old to the presidency, twice!! I'd sure as hell say that people gave him waaaayyyy more than the time of day.......

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Yes, all legitimate scientists agreed on COVID.

When you say things like that it proves that you aren't capable of having open and honest dialogue.

That is how we get Donald Trump, RFK Jr. and the rest destroying this country.

Statements like that and assholes like Charlie Kirk spreading statements like that.

It appears you are incorrect:


No, all qualified scientists did not agree on how to stop COVID-19. While a broad scientific consensus emerged on core preventative strategies, significant disagreements and ongoing debates persisted on more specific issues, such as the overall effectiveness and necessity of certain interventions
. These scientific discussions were further complicated by political and social polarization surrounding the pandemic.
Scientific consensus and core prevention strategies
Despite the disagreements, there was a strong, widespread consensus among the scientific community on certain fundamental measures to combat the pandemic. These included:

• Vaccination: The consensus was that vaccination was the most effective tool to significantly reduce the risk of severe illness, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19. Health officials, such as those at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), emphasized that staying up to date with vaccines was a core prevention strategy.
• Hand hygiene: Frequent and proper hand washing was universally recommended as an effective way to stop the spread of the virus.
• Physical distancing: Limiting close contact with others was shown to limit the spread of the virus and was a broadly agreed-upon strategy, especially early in the pandemic.
• Expansion of treatments: Experts largely agreed on the importance of expanding treatments and care options for those who did get sick.

Areas of scientific disagreement
Scientific debate and disagreement often focused on more complex aspects of the response, including:

• Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs): While measures like lockdowns, travel restrictions, and school closures were implemented in many countries based on scientific advice, there was not unanimous agreement among scientists on their effectiveness, especially regarding the long-term consequences versus the benefits. A Nature article highlighted disagreements on whether a more targeted approach was possible and the potential disproportionate impact of lockdowns on disadvantaged communities.
• Face masks: Early in the pandemic, the recommendations and evidence on mask-wearing were less conclusive, leading to debate. Initial concerns included preserving medical masks for healthcare workers and the potential for a false sense of security. Over time, strong evidence emerged supporting mask-wearing as an effective tool, but debate continued regarding the effectiveness of different types of face coverings and their appropriate use in various settings.
• The origin of the virus: From the beginning, scientists disagreed on the origin of SARS-CoV-2. The debate centered on two main hypotheses: a natural spillover from animals and a laboratory-related incident, or "lab leak". The politicization of this issue further complicated open scientific discussion.
• Long-term vaccine side effects: While vaccine safety has been consistently monitored and supported by robust data, discussions have continued on rare side effects like myocarditis. Some scientists, while acknowledging the benefits outweigh the risks, have called for more thorough long-term studies.

Political and social factors
The context of the pandemic made these scientific discussions particularly visible and contentious.

• Misinformation and polarization: Misinformation, fueled by political polarization, undermined public trust in scientific expertise. Non-scientific views and conspiracy theories about vaccine safety and effectiveness proliferated on social media and other platforms.
• Government messaging: Attempts by governments and public health officials to present a "unified front" and portray certain interventions as "following the science" were sometimes viewed as an oversimplification of complex issues and ultimately eroded scientific authority for some.
• Dissenting expert opinions: Some qualified scientists with different views on COVID-19 interventions were demonized or marginalized, further hindering open debate.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

I can't believe you actually wrote this. Forty percent of America elected that tantrum throwing three year old to the presidency, twice!! I'd sure as hell say that people gave him waaaayyyy more than the time of day.......

Context UCD. Again, im referring to common folk interacting with common folk. sigh…..

 

[julius]

Of the many things I hate about this, is how initially one side instantly claimed he was a "Lefty loon", I hate now now I'm seeing my progressive family members already forwarding the memes claiming he's a 100% conservative loon.

But what I really hate is how Trump, on Fox News, basically said "the loony right is about safety, the loony left is about violence".

And these fucking knobs will believe it.

 

[Chris Craig]

Open and honest dialog while ignoring the scientific community is not possible.

Then you just resort to discussing which magician is better. And I don't believe in magicians.

Leave magicians out of this.

 

[Phatguysrule]

What is a legit scientist? Anyone with a degree? If so, i do not believe they all agreed.

A scientist is an educated and trained person who professionally uses the scientific method to do research.

All of those people agreed on the best general courses of action during COVID.

Real epidemiologists pretty much all agreed. And they were proven right.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

A scientist is an educated and trained person who professionally uses the scientific method to do research.

All of those people agreed on the best general courses of action during COVID.

Real epidemiologists pretty much all agreed. And they were proven right.

Areas of scientific disagreement
Scientific debate and disagreement often focused on more complex aspects of the response, including:

• Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs): While measures like lockdowns, travel restrictions, and school closures were implemented in many countries based on scientific advice, there was not unanimous agreement among scientists on their effectiveness, especially regarding the long-term consequences versus the benefits. A Nature article highlighted disagreements on whether a more targeted approach was possible and the potential disproportionate impact of lockdowns on disadvantaged communities.
• Face masks: Early in the pandemic, the recommendations and evidence on mask-wearing were less conclusive, leading to debate. Initial concerns included preserving medical masks for healthcare workers and the potential for a false sense of security. Over time, strong evidence emerged supporting mask-wearing as an effective tool, but debate continued regarding the effectiveness of different types of face coverings and their appropriate use in various settings.
• The origin of the virus: From the beginning, scientists disagreed on the origin of SARS-CoV-2. The debate centered on two main hypotheses: a natural spillover from animals and a laboratory-related incident, or "lab leak". The politicization of this issue further complicated open scientific discussion.
• Long-term vaccine side effects: While vaccine safety has been consistently monitored and supported by robust data, discussions have continued on rare side effects like myocarditis. Some scientists, while acknowledging the benefits outweigh the risks, have called for more thorough long-term studies.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Of the many things I hate about this, is how initially one side instantly claimed he was a "Lefty loon", I hate now now I'm seeing my progressive family members already forwarding the memes claiming he's a 100% conservative loon.

But what I really hate is how Trump, on Fox News, basically said "the loony right is about safety, the loony left is about violence".

And these fucking knobs will believe it.

Who would he consider the most Looney left? Bernie Sanders? I challenge anybody to find any instance of Bernie Sanders advocating for violence in any way.

These people are fucking morons.

 

[Chris Craig]

He probably didn’t hate Kirk. Kirk was just the easiest person for him to target. Who else is going to bumfuck Utah?

We have a real problem with mental illness due to social media and the internet.

Yeah, from what I read he isn't politically affiliated. Probably just wanted to stir up a hornets best and he did.

 

[RR7]

The ONLY fix is to engage in open and honest dialogue with those we do not share ideologies with, while exhibiting aggressive restraint and providing respect enough to hear each other out. This goes for everyone on all sides.
The moment we close our ears to those we disagree with, its the beginning of the end…

What sort of open and honest dialogue is there to be had with someone who thinks gays should be stoned to death? Who abhors trans people and think they should be locked up? They're to be treated with respect while offering none? You can both sides it all you want to, but as phats and others have said, there's only one side that routinely advocates for restricting rights to large segments of individuals, who denigrate others based on race and sexual orientation. What sort of honest and open dialogue do you honestly expect one deserves who hates my family members and think of them as not worthy of life and social standing? Who want to take away their rights because of the way they were born.
Let's sit down and listen to the Nazis AND the Jews during this world war, and have an honest and open discussion on our differences...

 

[Strenuus]

yeah I've seen it. On fb and in here. The truncated misleading quotes, some so dissected they are out of context. Ive seen what was posted on here, did my research and found the full quote. Realized that people are either sheep, believing a seven word quote, and not watching full videos to get the full truth, I don't know. But its a fact quotes like he said he is okay with kids being shot to keep the 2nd amendment haven been twisted to fit the lefts narrative.
Ive seen people up in arms. White men up in arms because he said women go to college to find a husband. But in that video, not one girl was offended and understood what he was saying.

If you don't think there are both sides, you are one of their victims, the ones who want us all to fight.
Ive seen it. If you haven't, do more research. Its out there.

Honest question:

How do you propose to talk and rationalize to a bigot and a racist?

In turn,

How then do you propose to talk to someone who wants Healthcare for all, affordable living, equal rights for all?

See where the chasm is? Dialogue isnt going to help when one is about hate and one is about trying to help people. I think thats where people are having the issue.

We need solutions, yes, but when the solutions are blocked by the very people who have the power to change it, this is what happens. This was inevitable. Its just weird that in a time where communication is at its most efficient, the higher ups decided to erode it with misinformation.

Your cause is noble, wanting to talk it out... there just isnt an actual framework for it to ever be constructive based on not having the ability to do anything about it. We literally cant get common sense bills passed because the powerful people aim to block it all. Its systemic, and talking about it, while it should be the way, just isnt feasible in the current enivronment.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Areas of scientific disagreement
Scientific debate and disagreement often focused on more complex aspects of the response, including:

• Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs): While measures like lockdowns, travel restrictions, and school closures were implemented in many countries based on scientific advice, there was not unanimous agreement among scientists on their effectiveness, especially regarding the long-term consequences versus the benefits. A Nature article highlighted disagreements on whether a more targeted approach was possible and the potential disproportionate impact of lockdowns on disadvantaged communities.
• Face masks: Early in the pandemic, the recommendations and evidence on mask-wearing were less conclusive, leading to debate. Initial concerns included preserving medical masks for healthcare workers and the potential for a false sense of security. Over time, strong evidence emerged supporting mask-wearing as an effective tool, but debate continued regarding the effectiveness of different types of face coverings and their appropriate use in various settings.
• The origin of the virus: From the beginning, scientists disagreed on the origin of SARS-CoV-2. The debate centered on two main hypotheses: a natural spillover from animals and a laboratory-related incident, or "lab leak". The politicization of this issue further complicated open scientific discussion.
• Long-term vaccine side effects: While vaccine safety has been consistently monitored and supported by robust data, discussions have continued on rare side effects like myocarditis. Some scientists, while acknowledging the benefits outweigh the risks, have called for more thorough long-term studies.

None of that disputes anything I said.

Social distancing worked. Masks worked. Vaccines worked. Good luck finding any epidemiologists who said they didn't.

 

[julius]

Who would he consider the most Looney left? Bernie Sanders? I challenge anybody to find any instance of Bernie Sanders advocating for violence in any way.

These people are fucking morons.

My guess is they would categorize the antifa/protesters as the "loony left", but they were a small very disorganized group that didn't infiltrate the democratic party the way the tea party did in the past and now MAGA has taken over the GOP (or at least, took that side of the party out of hiding).

 

[Chris Craig]

But see, you have been trying to teach me. You have been trying to teach me I'm being harmful. You have been trying to teach me about scientific methods. Dont you see that? In telling me im wrong and to seek education, you are trying to teach me im wrong but are self admittedly not qualified to do so and this is my point.

My whole point.
Most of us are unqualified, but were still gonna discuss it. Just read facebook man. So when discussing it, we need open and honest dialogue. Honesty includes admitting not knowing all the facts. Open means willing to listen to all to determine what is factual and what is not.

This is all silly. I simply stated that all sides must engage in open and honest dialogue for improvements to be had and you tried to cut that down and dismiss it as harmful.

I stand by my original statement.

I don't know if much is being discussed on Facebook. Mostly just shared viewpoints being reciprocated.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

None of that disputes anything I said.

Social distancing worked. Masks worked. Vaccines worked. Good luck finding any epidemiologists who said they didn't.

It shows all legit scientists did not all agree. It says it right there and explain where snd how they didn't.
Not all scientists agreed on everything. This is a fact.

 

[Phatguysrule]

My guess is they would categorize the antifa/protesters as the "loony left", but they were a small very disorganized group that didn't infiltrate the democratic party the way the tea party did in the past and now MAGA has taken over the GOP (or at least, took that side of the party out of hiding).

So boogeymen... That sounds about right...