Charlie Kirk Assassination

[EricDMMiller]

Equally trivially, force has a long-standing place in political discourse.

And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Some would say that violence is the only force that has ever reduced historical inequality in any meaningful way.

 

[placebo]

It's hard, but this is what it means to be free. If he's broken a law, send him to trial, don't murder out of cold blood for what someone says.

There's a difference between condemning his murder and mourning his loss.

 

[fresh_42]

For those who can stand his voice (I can't):

“What do we do about our country?” Earhardt pressed, after Trump complained about the state of the nation he leads. “We have radicals on the right and left, people are watching videos and cheering, some people are cheering that Charlie was killed. How do we fix this country? How do we come back together?”
“I tell you something that is going to get me in trouble, but I couldn’t care less,” Trump replied. “Radicals on the right are radical because they don’t want to see crime.”

He continued with a jeremiad of political attacks on the left.

“We don’t want people coming in, we don’t want you burning our shopping centers, shooting our people in the street,” he said. “Radicals on the left are the problem and they are vicious and horrible and politically savvy. They want men in women’s sports, they want transgender for everyone, open borders. Worst thing that happened to this country.”

Source (with video): https://www.mediaite.com/media/tv/t...s-when-pressed-on-how-do-we-fix-this-country/

 

[EricDMMiller]

Like I said, we know what they want.

 

[placebo]

Guess what. Not the profile MAGA wanted to see.

I don't think it will matter. Trump, Bondi, Patel, Hannity, etc. will simply tell more lies to fit the us-vs-them narrative they prefer.

 

[Grinkle]

bully

If you are referring to Trump, I think he's a both a bully and a danger to US democracy, but he ran and he won by getting the most electoral votes. My answers to him are my voice, my spending choices and my vote. I don't like that a bully won, but he won within the rules of the system.

We in democratic societies are not entitled to our systems survival. One hall-mark of its demise is when no one thinks that voting is effectual any longer. If one thinks that way, one shouldn't delude oneself into believing there is a path to saving democracy that doesn't involve winning elections. If one would take more extreme actions, then one is implicitly acknowledging that the democracy is dead, and its on to a different and much worse phase.

 

[EricDMMiller]

Your premise—that one must work within the rules to save the system—is historically illiterate.

We have the US with the War of Independence and Civil War, the UK with the British Civil War, France with the Terror and Imperial France, Germany with the Holocaust and Soviet occupation, Japan with Imperial Japan and post-war US occupation.

Honestly, it looks to me like some of the most functional democracies are founded on massive violent atrocity and are often forced from without. I don't think your initial hand-wringing premise passes any muster at all.

 

[Grinkle]

Still, I stick with

I suspect (time will tell) that you are giving the shooter far too much credit. I wouldn't be surprised if the shooter can't name the assassinated folks you referenced.

Perhaps I'm wrong and he was motivated by something as specific as those assassinations and the MAGA response to them.

Still, I condemn his commission of murder as morally reprehensible and as a further nail in the coffin of US democracy, full stop, no 'whataboutism' to follow.

 

[Grinkle]

some of the most functional democracies are founded

If you are saying the US is in a position of needing to found a democracy, then you are certainly saying the current one is no longer a democracy. I am not there.

your initial hand-wringing premise

Can you quote for me what you are characterizing? Its not clear to me which of my statements you mean.

 

[EricDMMiller]

If one thinks that way, one shouldn't delude oneself into believing there is a path to saving democracy that doesn't involve winning elections.

Sometimes, you really can kill your way to a functioning democracy. At least that is what has happened time and time again throughout history. Jefferson was clear that he felt that it was mandatory, and had to be re-commenced with some regularity. If we asked him, I would suspect that he would say that we are long overdue.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Sometimes, you really can kill your way to a functioning democracy

Until the other side also kills their way back to fascism.

 

[Grinkle]

you really can kill your way to a functioning democracy.

There is a difference between installing a new system and preserving an existing system - I expect you agree with that.

During the American Civil War, I would imagine that no one in the US felt they were living under the rules and norms of the pre-war democracy. I would imagine that most everyone agreed that system was broken when the South seceded from the Union. I think its fair to say the Civil War was embarked on with an open and common understanding that the system was broken. As I said earlier, I am not there. Trump won, and elections have consequences.

Acting so far beyond the bounds of our system as to commit murder must simply be condemned.

 

[jack action]

I don't like that a bully won, but he won within the rules of the system.

The problem isn't about how one wins the elections, but how one manipulates the system to ensure they stay in power.

If one thinks that way, one shouldn't delude oneself into believing there is a path to saving democracy that doesn't involve winning elections.

Democracy is more than winning an election. The rules determining the winner make a difference. We all have to agree to them before holding the election.

If you don't follow the rules, then you are obviously a "bad" element of society, no matter how the rule was established, with or without your consent.

Let us remind ourselves that the reason the right is acting the way they are right now is because they think the left has been unfairly ruling their country - playing with election rules, putting their people in power (i.e., judges, organization directors), etc. In the USA, they just see themselves as righting a wrong, using the same tactics.

No jurisdiction has a true democracy today. The root of the problem lies in having proper rules for a truly neutral election, which - sadly - no one wants to consider; they only want to make sure the "opposite side" never obtains power.

 

[placebo]

If you are saying the US is in a position of needing to found a democracy, then you are certainly saying the current one is no longer a democracy. I am not there.

Nor am I, but I do feel we are on the brink. I think a lot will depend on how the 2026 elections go. How will you feel if the Republicans succeed in rigging the election so they can't lose?

 

[Grinkle]

The root of the problem lies in having proper rules for a truly neutral election

IMO, perhaps not 'the root' but at least a root of the problem is too few common interests leading to too many zero-sum choices with no room for compromise. It seems impossible to have policies that more than half the country will say they can live with.

 

[Grinkle]

How will you feel if the Republicans succeed in rigging the election so they can't lose?

I think Gerrymandering deserves its own thread - I will start one. Correct me if that is not what you were referring to.

 

[fresh_42]

I suspect (time will tell) that you are giving the shooter far too much credit. I wouldn't be surprised if the shooter can't name the assassinated folks you referenced.

It is irrelevant what the shooter knows or does not. Those who now instrumentalize the crime should know.

Still, I condemn his commission of murder as morally reprehensible and as a further nail in the coffin of US democracy, full stop, no 'whataboutism' to follow.

Sure, but that's the trivial surface. If you ask why such things can happen, you get a far more detailed picture, and whatabouts become important. Those whatabouts seeded the grass the current crime grew on - if it was politically motivated, which we do not know for sure! Ignoring these leaves us with a simple condemnation. And, me, personally, with my question as to why Kirk was more important than Hortman.

This whole discussion reminds me of someone who brought drugs to the party and is now complaining about the drugs at the party.

If we only want to state that murder or any violence is condemnable, then this discussion is meaningless. That's trivial. Nobody is objecting. However, if we are allowed to ask for possible reasons, things get complicated on many levels.

 

[Grinkle]

you get a far more detailed picture

In terms of trying to make assassinations less likely moving forward, its a worthwhile discussion.

why Kirk was more important than Hortman.

Are you making a point and framing it as a question, or are you genuinely trying to understand why Kirk matters more to MAGA than Hortman does? Kirk matters more to MAGA than Hortman does because Kirk was MAGA and Hortman was not.

Posters here have drawn distinctions between murder being bad in general and feeling badly that Kirk is deceased - I doubt those posters would feel the same distinctions for Hortman. Its the same feeliings of tribalism, I think. Is that not obvious on its face? Not being snarky, honestly asking.

 

[placebo]

I think Gerrymandering deserves its own thread - I will start one. Correct me if that is not what you were referring to.

The question was intended to see where one draws the line in playing by the rules. When does one say enough is enough?

While you can say the current rules allowed Trump to be elected and we have to live with the consequences, some will argue he shouldn't have been allowed to serve because of the 14th amendment. The Supreme Court just decided it didn't need to follow the rules. You can, of course, dismiss that as an isolated bad decision, but is it part of a larger pattern that reveals that one side has decided the rules don't apply to them when it's inconvenient? If one side has decided it's not going to follow the rules, when should the other side give up on the rules?

 

[EricDMMiller]

It looks like the shooter may have killed Kirk because he wasn't enough of an anti-semitic Nazi.



Still early, but I will laugh a lot if he's a Fuentes fan. Apparently all of the video game stuff on the shells are references to things that Fuentes' group, the "Groypers" have appropriated.

Here his is dressed up as the Groyper mascot for Halloween:

 

[fresh_42]

In terms of trying to make assassinations less likely moving forward, its a worthwhile discussion.

Long overdue in my mind. Since 1865, to be precise.

Are you making a point and framing it as a question, or are you genuinely trying to understand why Kirk matters more to MAGA than Hortman does? Kirk matters more to MAGA than Hortman does because Kirk was MAGA and Hortman was not.

I am asking why it should matter more to the rest of us, not MAGA. Why are we discussing it here? Hortman was on 6/14/25. Did I miss her thread? And if so, was it also about the threat to "free speech"? A reason Americans use far too often. It has become a fetish. Of course, it is not valid in hundreds of cases, like for instance, Kaepernick. But this is my personal opinion.

The basic tune here is that Kirk's assassination was condemnable for the use of violence in a political confrontation. If that is the subject, then it should be legitimate to ask about comparable crimes in the past that, in my opinion, paved the way and were widely ignored. I do not see how you can separate them by using the polemic term 'whatabouts'. Those cases are relevant in assessing this specific case.

Posters here have drawn distinctions between murder being bad in general and feeling badly that Kirk is deceased - I doubt those posters would feel the same distinctions for Hortman. Its the same feeliings of tribalism, I think. Is that not obvious on its face? Not being snarky, honestly asking.

Well, Kirk was a racist and an ... . Hortman was not. This leads to the distinction between rational and emotional reasoning. And his specific standpoint that human losses must be accepted since the 2nd is more important brings involuntary irony to the table. It is not easy to ignore that.

We all agree that murder is wrong under any circumstances. Do we miss Kirk? Certainly not. I don't think this is tribalism. I am unable, not the least because I'm German, to feel sorry for any racist. So maybe this is tribalism. That does not mean I justify murder. It means I'm unable to mourn in this case. The picture at the end of my post #5 summarizes it. The different measures are annoying.

 

[EricDMMiller]

His Grandmother says the entire family is die-hard MAGA.

Charlie Kirk Suspect’s Grandma Says Family Is All MAGA

Tyler Robinson, the prime suspect for Charlie Kirk’s assassination, comes from a proud MAGA family, according to his grandmother.

www.thedailybeast.com

 

[Grinkle]

he shouldn't have been allowed to serve because of the 14th amendment.

Someone, iirc @EricDMMiller posted (I paraphrase) - "The constitution is dead paper, it means what people let it mean".

When does one say enough is enough?

This is subjective; if that is your point or a part of your point, I agree.

 

[fresh_42]

Someone, iirc @EricDMMiller posted (I paraphrase) - "The constitution is dead paper, it means what people let it mean".

I once read in a book, ok, the author had some questionable opinions; however, the pun was nice. I forgot which specific constitution he meant.

Break the constitution as often as you want, but don't park at a fire hydrant.

He meant that a constitution isn't - how to say "nicht strafbewehrt" in English - not protected by penalty for breaking it.

 

[placebo]

Here’s a column on Vox on the response to Kirk’s assassination.

Let’s be honest about Charlie Kirk’s life — and death

We can hold two thoughts in our head at the same time.

www.vox.com

 

[Borg]

It looks like the shooter may have killed Kirk because he wasn't enough of an anti-semitic Nazi.

View attachment 534

Still early, but I will laugh a lot if he's a Fuentes fan. Apparently all of the video game stuff on the shells are references to things that Fuentes' group, the "Groypers" have appropriated.

Here his is dressed up as the Groyper mascot for Halloween:


View attachment 535

If that's true, I need to get my popcorn.

 

[Grinkle]

If that's true

WSJ is not reporting anything along those lines, says his family claims to be conservative and claims the shooter is far left, my paraphrase. Link below, I think its behind a paywall.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/who-tyler-robinson-charlie-kirk-suspect-814fd21f?mod=WSJ_home_mediumtopper_pos_1

 

[Borg]

I did think that it was too ironic to be true expecially given the fascist comment on one of the bullets. We'll see how the right wing spins this.

As far as the family goes, no matter what they say, it won't protect them from the things that MAGA world will now subject them to. Like those before them, they will find out just how little their loyalty means. I do feel bad for them.

 

[Borg]

Meanwhile, the widow has made her first statement and told the world "you have no idea what you have unleashed". I'm guessing that there will be no reflection on what they unleashed or will continue to unleash.

 

[gleem]

See, we shouldn't jump to conclusions until all the facts are in. All this fussing for just a family spat.