Charlie Kirk once said some gun deaths 'worth it' in order to have Second Amendment The Turning Point USA CEO and co-founder made the remarks while answering a question during a TPUSA Faith event in April 2023.
charliekirk1776's profile picture charliekirk1776 81w The “Great Replacement” is not a theory, it’s a reality.
I'm not for political violence of any kind against anyone. But let's not pretend charlie Kirk wasn't who he was.
1. If we're going to have executions, they should be public. There is evil out there, the law needs an answer for it. If we're going to do it, we shouldn't hide it from our children. The lesson that actions have consequences is important.
2. He quotes scripture at someone quoting scripture. Was it his solution or was he using it to illustrate her cherry picking?
3. To not be helpless in the face of government overreach, the people need the right to be armed. Unfortunately, people will abuse that right.
Do I like it? Not particularly. Can I see where he might be coming from? Perhaps. Hard to tell from a few clips.
You don't know who he was. (I don't know who he was.) You have your interpretation of what he was portrayed to be based on much less than 1% of his life.
He could be a complete cretin. I have some doubts based on the way his child runs to him in videos. But I don't claim to know.
You're not for violence, "but" you keep making excuses for those who are.
You mess with the "Bull," you get the horns. Fiercely Independent.
A lone gunman with no known ties to anything that was described is being used to target liberal groups. Murica! Using their political power to silence and demonize the opposition seems to be their only goal here. There's a name for that but dare not post it for fear of angering the snowflakes.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Typical political discourse. Attack the individual instead of admitting they have a point. No wonder the country is where it is.
You have an agenda - or you aren't following along. That's fine. You attack the individual... good for you.
Way to prove my point.
Who did I attack? I J/C'ed and commented on the entire thread and the state of the country.
Yes, my agenda is to let out a generic comment before I bite off my tongue from trying so hard to hold it while viewing so much hate and willful ignorance from both sides.
If the comment wasn't directed at me - I appologise.
A lot - and I do mean a lot - of posters respond to specific posters and the specific comments within a specific post and add "j/c" as some sort of passive aggressive deflection.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
So this is true and verified and fact checked right? You wouldn't post something from a complete Rando self proclaimed MAGA individual based on pure speculation?
That's why you got what you got. Fourth time I told you now, maybe clean out your ears.
Originally Posted by mgh888
One last note - everything you posted is exactly from your echo chamber.
Yep. So all the trash you post must be from yours then. Or let me guess, your views are so centered and righteous that algorithms don't work on you?
So, let's end there. With you attacking whatever media I consume because you still don't like the FACT. That's how it usually goes in these circles anyway. See the fact, deny the fact, hate the fact, blame the fact-bringer.
So, Fate points out the killers roommate is trans and you make multiple posts insinuating that claim is false and demand that Fate provide more proof. Meanwhile, in another thread, spiral claims prices have doubled due to tariffs. Yet not a peep out of you asking him to verify his claim. This leads me to the conclusion that it's ok for liberals to spew whatever false crap they want on this board and it's ok. But Fate pointing out an inconvenient fact for the left is not ok.
It's supposed to be hard! If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great!
Couple of questions that spring to mind this morning - and I honestly don't know how I feel about this. But:
- We recently had a politically motivated double homicide in Minnesotta. If I remember - there was also attempted murders in the same time period. It did not garner remotely near the attention - but they were Democratic victims.
- Trump / MAGA base and many who identify as 'Right' / 'Republicans' - have for years talked about the Democratic party being comunist. Unamerican. Etc ... we see that amplified now after the Kirk shooting. Along with utter nonsense about the Left rasing an army. About how they cultivate a Trans society ... and then someone posts a chart showing the number of people identifying as Trans has risen to as much as 3 1/2% of the population. What an army. What do they think the army is going to do? Cuddle them to death or bat eyelids till the Republicans can't vote?
- I've seen a lot of spam dragging up media and Biden/Politicians calling Trump a facsist. As if somehow that is an instruction to cause violence or an instruction to assinate right wing individuals. It was MAGA who coined the phrase snowflake and Karen. They are happy to spew 'Libtard' and Unamerican and Communist as lables for anyone with a different perspective? But if some on the "other side" reply in a like minded fashion, suddenly name calling is a deadly sin? Brain washing? In my small brain Fascist seems about equal and opposite to communist - where is the disconnect? I don't like either. I think both is wrong - I am not saying it is justified on one hand or the other. Merely pointing out - as always - both sides do it, in at least equal measure.
- If anyone wanted to drag trhough Bannon, Trump, Fox, Other politicians I am certain we could collect as many instances of those phrases - Unamerican, Communist. As we have seen here with the Fascist comments. Equally certain that many/most now crying (possibly with either fake outrage or spoon fed hysteria) about the word Fascist ... were resolute in defense of Donald and his Jan 6th rally - what happened subsequent to "you've got to fight like hell" and the fake electors and calling Pence a Traitor.
Maybe it's me - the double standards seem real and obvious.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Merely pointing out - as always - both sides do it, in at least equal measure.
“It’s time to put Trump in a bullseye” “threat to democracy” “so dangerous” “has to be eliminated” “It’s insufficient to merely defeat Trump. He must be thoroughly destroyed. His kind must not rise again” “The threat Trump poses to our democracy has never been greater" "A second Trump term means chaos, ripping away Americans’ freedom and fomenting political violence" “fascist” “authoritarian” "Literally Hitler" "Mussolini" “Hitler of our time” "sort of like Goebbels" "Trump will burn democracy to the ground” “He has to be eliminated” “The threat Trump poses has never been greater. "A dictator on day one” “Stop Trump at all costs” “Stop Trump by any means necessary.” “You must become immediately engaged in fighting against Trump’s return to the presidency." "We will fight in the streets."
And ALL THAT are just comments from politicians, many by the former president and VP. Politicians parroted by a 24 hour news cycle that has repeated all of this, hour after hour, for nearly ten years. Hundreds of thousands of times.
If you think both sides do that in equal measure, there is definitely no need for conversation. 🤣
Below is a copy-paste from Google AI when I asked for a list of threats Trump has made towards political opponents. It's not as clean as your list (it includes summaries of actions he's taken), but that's one dude since 2023.
"Both-side"-ing this is entirely valid, IMO. Nobody is blameless, but very few have been held accountable. Differences of opinion and political alignment will mean the various statements we've both quoted/posted will hit differently... and I'm not going to to put more time to try to create an accurate scoreboard to try to figure out which is worse when both are so wrong.
Threats of prosecution and retribution "I am your retribution": In 2023, Trump promised supporters that he would seek revenge against his political enemies if he returned to the White House. Investigating political rivals: During his 2024 campaign, Trump promised to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate President Joe Biden. He has also suggested prosecuting other political rivals, including Kamala Harris and Liz Cheney. Going after Democrats: In June 2024, Trump posted on social media that if he were reelected, "Democrats are going to start getting indicted". Weaponizing the government: Reports from organizations like the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) have documented over 100 times Trump has threatened to use the government to target perceived enemies.
Threats of legal or official action Stripping security clearances: Following his 2024 election win, Trump revoked the security clearances of former Democratic presidential opponents Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris. Revoking law firm contracts: After winning the election, Trump targeted law firms that had worked on investigations into him or his policies. His administration revoked security clearances and government contracts and initiated investigations into these firms. Targeting charitable organizations: In November 2024, Trump suggested that his administration would prosecute "radical left charity, non-profit, or so called aid organizations". Prosecuting election workers: He has also shared social media posts suggesting that election workers should be arrested. Inflammatory and dehumanizing language Labeling opponents "vermin": In a Veterans Day speech in 2023, Trump pledged to "root out the Communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical-left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country". Calling opponents "evil" and "unhinged": He has often described political opponents, including Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, as "evil" and "sick," framing them as an internal threat to the nation. Threatening to use the military: In 2024, Trump suggested that the National Guard or the military should be used against "radical left lunatics" if they cause chaos during the election. Connecting opponents to violence: In September 2025, following the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Trump and his allies attempted to connect the killing to the "radical left," even though law enforcement had not established such a link.
General themes "Enemy from within": A persistent theme of Trump's rhetoric is portraying his political opposition as a greater threat to the country than foreign adversaries like China or Russia. Attacks on the media: Trump has consistently labeled the mainstream news media as "Fake News" and "the enemy of the people," arguing that its reporting causes societal anger. Justification for action: Trump has often used his belief that his opponents acted illegally as a justification for his own potential actions against them
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
Why don't you run through that and tell me which of these you consider threats that could lead to violence.
Many of the things trump has said "could lead to violence." In fact it did on Jan. 6th. Things like the election was stolen and if ""We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore,"
And that's a single vent.
What do you think it is that several right wing politicians are doing at this very moment? Trump, J.D. Vance, Pam Bondi and a host of others?
Why do you insist on pretending this is only an issue with the left? You know that's a blatant lie.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
I watched it in real time. There was a lot of interesting stuff that is forbidden from conversation around these parts. That was right after Trump called Biden a racist, misogynist, threat to democracy similar to Hitler that must be stopped at all costs. Right? Or was it after he told people to go there and protest peacefully 24 hours after asking for extra patrol and security from Nancy Pelosi. I can't remember.
I just remember the look that washed across my wife's face when we watched security opening the doors and ushering all the "evil doers" in. It wasn't much different than the look that washed across my son's when Trump's would-be-assassin was shot within milliseconds of his bullets flying, because they already knew he was there. A lot of strange stuff in the political arena over the past few years.
But again, none of this is open to conversation. We can't talk about it because of what a stain it was on our democracy. There can only be one point of view. As far as the two assassination attempts on Trump and the assassination of Kirk -- we can talk about that -- as long as we accept that it's their own fault because of their "violent rhetoric".
Then why did she say take responsibility for the lack of National Guard presence at the Capitol that day? She does it in her own words in her daughter's documentary.
But I'm sure she's telling the truth when she says Trump didn't ask or offer, she's always been so truthful and forthright.
DOJ Deletes Its Own Study From Website Showing ‘Far More’ Domestic Terrorism Committed by ‘Far-Right Extremists’
Tue, September 16, 2025 at 10:25 PM CDT
Within the past few days, the Department of Justice deleted one of its own studies from its website showing that “far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists.”
The timing comes just a few days after Charlie Kirk, the 31-year-old founder of Turning Point USA, was fatally shot while speaking at an event at Utah Valley University on September 10. Tyler Robinson, 22, has been arrested and charged with aggravated murder, felony discharge of a firearm causing serious bodily injury, two counts of obstruction of justice, two counts of witness tampering, and commission of a violent offense in the presence of a child. The state is seeking the death penalty.
Kirk was a staunch supporter of President Donald Trump, encouraging the young voters in his organization to vote for Trump during his presidential campaigns and speaking at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee last year. In the wake of Kirk’s death, Trump and other Republicans have broadly blamed the “radical left” for the shooting.
The deletion of the study from the DOJ website was flagged by Daniel Malmer, a PhD student at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill who is studying “online extremism, radicalization, and conspiracy beliefs.”
Quote
What NIJ Research Tells Us About Domestic Terrorism NIJ-funded research projects have led to a better understanding of the processes that result in violent action, factors that increase the risk of radicalizing to violence, and how best to prevent and respond to violent extremism.
The report, “What NIJ Research Tells Us About Domestic Terrorism,” was a project of the National Institute of Justice, an agency under DOJ, and based on internet archives, was still available on the DOJ website on September 12 but was gone by September 13.
The quote about far-right extremists committing “far more” deadly acts of domestic terrorism comes from the very first paragraph of the report.
From the text of an archived version of the report:
Militant, nationalistic, white supremacist violent extremism has increased in the United States. In fact, the number of far-right attacks continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism. Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives.[1] In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives. A recent threat assessment by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security concluded that domestic violent extremists are an acute threat and highlighted a probability that COVID-19 pandemic-related stressors, long-standing ideological grievances related to immigration, and narratives surrounding electoral fraud will continue to serve as a justification for violent actions.
The DOJ website where this report was previously hosted displayed a message saying the agency was reviewing online content. According to a report by 404 Media, the message originally read, “The Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs is currently reviewing its websites and materials in accordance with recent Executive Orders and related guidance. During this review, some pages and publications will be unavailable. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.”
That message has now been updated again to a single sentence: “The requested page could not be found.”
Screenshot via Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs website.
Trump calls Democrats 'treasonous' and 'un-American'
What's the actual penalty for treason? Is calling a group "un-American" not the same as saying they are a threat to democracy? Where does calling a whole group of people communists come into it?
Calling Trump authoritarian is supposed to be a call to violence? Speaking the truth is a call to violence? Running the country like a would-be king and his private company is the definition of authoritarian. If you need a list of those actions let me know. But anyone paying ANY attention would accept this.... unless ....
Last edited by mgh888; 09/17/2502:15 PM.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
You don't think revoking security clearances for high-profile Democrats when stuff like the Pelosi break-in and the Minnesota Speaker murder is serious enough?
Again, I'm not going to put the effort into figuring out which side did it worse when both are so far beyond the acceptable limit. It takes the focus off the people who are perpetrating the bad behavior. I also don't want to keep sounding like I don't think the examples you put out are better or ok or anything like that. It's all BS.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
Verification of the StatementsI'll evaluate each of the three statements based on available polling data from the cited sources. These claims appear to stem from real surveys, but I'll assess their accuracy, including any nuances in wording, methodology, or context. All three statements are largely true, with minor caveats on phrasing for the first two and alignment for the third. Below, I break them down one by one.
1. "ABC News: 87% of Democrats view Trump as a fascist"This statement is true. An ABC News/Ipsos poll conducted October 18-22, 2024, found that 87% of Democrats described former President Donald Trump as a fascist, based on the poll's definition: "a political extremist who seeks to act as a dictator, disregards individual rights and threatens or uses force against their opponents." Overall, 49% of registered voters applied this label to Trump, compared to just 22% for Vice President Kamala Harris. The partisan divide was stark: 12% of Republicans and 46% of independents viewed Trump this way. This poll was referenced widely in media coverage following comments from Trump's former chief of staff, Gen. John Kelly, who called Trump a fascist in a New York Times interview.
2. "NPR: 47% of Democrats say the “rise of fascism” is their top political concern"This statement is mostly true, but the exact percentage is slightly higher (around 48-49%), and the poll is from NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist, not solely NPR-branded. A Marist College poll for NPR and PBS NewsHour, conducted in late April 2024 (released May 1, 2024), asked respondents about their biggest concerns for the future of the United States from a list of seven options. Among Democrats, 48% (or approximately 49% in detailed breakdowns) selected "a rise in fascism and extremism" as their top concern—far ahead of other choices like "a lack of values" or "becoming weak as a nation." For comparison, only 3% of Republicans chose this option. The poll highlighted deep partisan divides, with Democrats overwhelmingly focused on extremism tied to the 2024 election and Trump. The "47%" may reflect a rounded or preliminary figure from early reporting, but the core claim holds.
3. "Rutgers: 55% of Americans on the Left believe assassinating Trump would be “at least somewhat justified”"This statement is true, with "Americans on the Left" aligning with the study's terminology of "self-identified left of center" or "leftists." A joint study by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) and Rutgers University's Social Perception Lab, released April 7, 2025, surveyed 1,264 U.S. adults and found that 55% of respondents who self-identified as left of center believed that murdering President Donald Trump would be "at least somewhat justified." Overall, 38% of all respondents agreed to some degree. The study, titled "Assassination Culture: How Burning Teslas and Killing Billionaires Became a Meme Aesthetic for Political Violence," linked these views to online subcultures, left-wing authoritarianism, and platforms like BlueSky. It also noted similar sentiments toward Elon Musk (48% among left-leaning respondents). This research built on prior NCRI reports analyzing post-2024 election violence trends, including assassination attempts on Trump. Note that this is a study rather than a traditional poll, but it used nationally representative sampling.
At DT, context and meaning are a scarecrow kicking at moving goalposts.
Still trying to frame this as one side is right the other wrong. smh. Also from AI
Key Polling Data YouGov/Economist Poll (2022): This poll found that 58% of Republicans believe the Democratic Party is "a party of socialism." While "socialism" and "communism" are distinct, in modern American political rhetoric they are often used interchangeably by those on the right to describe a far-left, authoritarian, and anti-capitalist ideology.
Pew Research Center (2021): Pew found that a majority of Republicans (57%) believe the Democratic Party is "too liberal," but more tellingly, a significant portion uses more extreme labels. Many conservative media figures and politicians routinely describe Democratic policies as "socialist" or "Marxist."
The Specific "Communist" Label: While harder to find a direct percentage for "communist," a Reuters/Ipsos poll from 2021 found that a majority of Republicans (52%) agreed with the statement that Democrats are "a threat to the American way of life." This aligns with the broader narrative that Democrats are not just a political opposition but an existential, un-American threat—a sentiment deeply connected to the "communist" or "socialist" label.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Trump calls Democrats 'treasonous' and 'un-American'
What's the actual penalty for treason? Is calling a group "un-American" not the same as saying they are a threat to democracy? Where does calling a whole group of people communists come into it?
Calling Trump authoritarian is supposed to be a call to violence? Speaking the truth is a call to violence? Running the country like a would-be king and his private company is the definition of authoritarian. If you need a list of those actions let me know. But anyone paying ANY attention would accept this.... unless ....
You perp-walked yourself again. AKA Wednesday. A big nothing-burger from 2018.
1. He didn't say that, someone in the audience did.
2. It was all part of lighthearted banter that walked a fine line of comedy. A conversation about how all the democrats are always stone-faced at the SOTU even when there's great news.
Still trying to frame this as one side is right the other wrong. smh. Also from AI
Key Polling Data YouGov/Economist Poll (2022): This poll found that 58% of Republicans believe the Democratic Party is "a party of socialism." While "socialism" and "communism" are distinct, in modern American political rhetoric they are often used interchangeably by those on the right to describe a far-left, authoritarian, and anti-capitalist ideology.
Pew Research Center (2021): Pew found that a majority of Republicans (57%) believe the Democratic Party is "too liberal," but more tellingly, a significant portion uses more extreme labels. Many conservative media figures and politicians routinely describe Democratic policies as "socialist" or "Marxist."
The Specific "Communist" Label: While harder to find a direct percentage for "communist," a Reuters/Ipsos poll from 2021 found that a majority of Republicans (52%) agreed with the statement that Democrats are "a threat to the American way of life." This aligns with the broader narrative that Democrats are not just a political opposition but an existential, un-American threat—a sentiment deeply connected to the "communist" or "socialist" label.
So, basically, the amount of Republicans that think the Dems are basically a "party of socialism" is roughly equal to the percentage of Democrats that think the president should be assassinated.
Thanks for doing all the tough research... tell us more!
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/fkjZc8B/Bull-Dawg-Sig-smaller.jpg)
🤣
