No, it's just a fact mate.He’s at fault for that is he then?
"Both ends of the spectrum" assumes there is a spectrum (America has no meaningful leftwing, it's more liberalism v conservativism) and that the murderer was at the opposite end of it, if there is one.This thread proves that there just can't and won't ever be and kind of discourse between left and right leaning individuals.
Charlie Kirk came out with a lot of pretty batshit things, that's undeniable. He was the poster boy for American Conservatism and genuinely some of his views were like he was sucked out of 1957 - largely to whip up right wing hysteria while farming clicks/views to monetise his political influencer career. I very much doubt he believed half of the rhetoric he came out with.
But fundamentally what happened yesterday was abhorrent. Right or left you should be allowed to air your views without the concern of violence coming your way, least of all on the horrific scale of what happened to Charlie.
What's happening in the US is pretty concerning to say the least. The polarised gulf between both ends of the spectrum is getting wider and these incidents only serve to increase that gap and entrench partisan views further.
I do feel it's lost as a country and the increasing tension which is building is only going to end in more mindless violence being committed.
Well the wider publics reaction to his death suggests what he said was polarisingWho decides what is and isn’t polarising?
You?
You said that remain v leave was polarising, on that basis could you see why the UK prime minister at the time of Jo Cox's murder could be assassinated?Who decides what is and isn’t polarising?
You?
The person who shot him registered as a Republican.The squeeze continues.
WHO pulled the trigger?
Trump vows crackdown on 'political violence'published at 02:28
02:28BREAKING
Here's more from Trump's video statement. He said his administration would "find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence".
Trump said "radical left political violence has hurt too many innocent people". He cited the assassination attempt against him and the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson last year.
Trump has stirred controversy for regularly blaming the "radical left" for the country's deepening political divisions - with critics arguing that his rhetoric has incited violence against his political opponents.
You said that remain v leave was polarising, on that basis could you see why the UK prime minister at the time of Jo Cox's murder could be assassinated?
The person who shot him registered as a Republican.
Does that make him a bad person?
Well the wider publics reaction to his death suggests what he said was polarising
but that isn't what you're saying. You think his mission was to encourage debate. I don't think his actions support that.
the voice of reason ‘David’, keep at it you’ll be a super moderator one day. I find it absolutely hilarious how you are trying to be all ‘edgy’ when a guy that had a wife and 2 young children has died, you’ll post a load of shit until someone calls you out on it though, like when @Saddlebrains did and you went all quiet, absolute gobshitewhy does it? Everyone was getting on fine and agreeing until one person tried to police how people should feel.
I think it’s more relevant to why he was shot but utterly indefensibleIf nothing excuses taking another life, Charlie Kirk’s opinions and beliefs are irrelevant to his murder aren’t they?
"Both ends of the spectrum" assumes there is a spectrum (America has no meaningful leftwing, it's more liberalism v conservativism) and that the murderer was at the opposite end of it, if there is one.
i have no idea what you are talking about, where am I being edgy? Please show me you twatthe voice of reason ‘David’, keep at it you’ll be a super moderator one day. I find it absolutely hilarious how you are trying to be all ‘edgy’ when a guy that had a wife and 2 young children has died, you’ll post a load of shit until someone calls you out on it though, like when @Saddlebrains did and you went all quiet
I was talking about the person that shot Trump.That’s interesting considering they don’t know who shot him yet
I think part of that may be because he's not a well known figure over here, so people are naturally curious as to his position and what may have contributed towards some nutcase killing him. It's called determining a motive. The police do it all the time and you can be sure the authorities over there are looking at it to determine the cause.The point is no one at all brought up Jo Coxs opinions immediately after her death. Her attack was rightly seen completely unprovoked and unjustified.
People on her have brought up Charlie Kirk’s opinions immediately after his death. Now that is at best irrelevant, or at worst looking like an attempt at justification
Feels more like a circle where far right and far left meet round the back in some crazy extremist world where releasing rioters who attacked the capitol and attacked law enforcement is warranted as is a random individual shooting a 31 year old in the neck from 300 yards away because he didn’t like what he said or stood forI would say there very much is a political spectrum in the USA.
So why are you saying he shouldn't be posting what he has on here? As far as I can see all he's done is posted a list of quotes Kirk has made. Nowhere did he say he had less right to speak his opinions on them, as distasteful as they may be.You can’t get out of that mindset can you?
THIS IS THE PROBLEM
You’ve picked a bunch of things you personally disagree with, so have decided that he somehow had less right to speak his opinions than someone you agree with
Do you support the fundamental principle that people should have the right to say things that you disagree with?
Was intimating they were bonkers opinions which I just happen to agree they wereSo why are you saying he shouldn't be posting what he has on here? As far as I can see all he's done is posted a list of quotes Kirk has made. Nowhere did he say he had less right to speak his opinions on them, as distasteful as they may be.
You mean sometimes he failed in his aims?
I think it’s more relevant to why he was shot but utterly indefensible
So why are you saying he shouldn't be posting what he has on here? As far as I can see all he's done is posted a list of quotes Kirk has made. Nowhere did he say he had less right to speak his opinions on them, as distasteful as they may be.
I was talking about the person that shot Trump.
And yes, it is incredible that the President is blaming leftists when the identity of the shooter is unknown.
Twat haha rich coming from you Matthew, have a look in the mirror. Not once have you expressed sympathy for him, just looking to make ‘points’ which are completely ridiculous, some bloke has just lost his life and the usual weirdos on here are laughing about iti have no idea what you are talking about, where am I being edgy? Please show me you twat
Feels more like a circle where far right and far left meet round the back in some crazy extremist world where releasing rioters who attacked the capitol and attacked law enforcement is warranted as is a random individual shooting a 31 year old in the neck from 300 yards away because he didn’t like what he said or stood for
The rest of us are just trying to manage to pay our way, treat others as we would have them treat us and try and give opportunities to the next generation regardless of whether they are our children or others children
Bizarre, scary and mad
Who decides what is and isn’t polarising?
You?
We do often it’s a given that at any point someone will take offence at something we’re sayingI think that’s a dangerous relevance to accept as given that offence is taken not given, all of us can potentially offend others
I've said he shouldn't have been shot you thick c**t.Twat haha rich coming from you Matthew, have a look in the mirror. Not once have you expressed sympathy for him, just looking to make ‘points’ which are completely ridiculous, some bloke has just lost his life and the usual weirdos on here are laughing about it
There's polarising and there's the absolutely vain attempt to suggest there's any similarity between what she stood for and what Kirk did.
He was ok with people dying to support second amendment rights. School children. He was ok with violence against others in a political cause.
I'm not ok with any of those things.
Kirk didn't have a problem with violence against people he didn't agree with, wasn't too troubled about children dying to retain second amendment rights.
I get you're upset about his passing, but he literally died for something he believed in and was content to see others die for. I can't pretend that his death makes me particularly sad, violence is never the solution, but he wasn't too worried about other people dying for his chosen causes.
Jo Cox, as far as I'm aware, didn't want anyone to die for her beliefs, and in fact advocated for exactly the opposite during her lifetime.
How do you get all that on the back of your City shirt?I've said he shouldn't have been shot you thick c**t.
No one is laughing about it, why are you just making things up to create drama on a forum?
If you have a personal problem with me then have a word on Saturday.
And it's Matthew David Patrick Anthony O'Dea to you Domonic
He didn't say that to be fair, he said he had no problem with people dying if it protected their right to the second amendmentYou think he WANTED people to die?
Twat haha rich coming from you Matthew, have a look in the mirror. Not once have you expressed sympathy for him, just looking to make ‘points’ which are completely ridiculous, some bloke has just lost his life and the usual weirdos on here are laughing about it
He did think some deaths were a price worth payingYou think he WANTED people to die?
It does feel like he didn’t care if they did as there were more important factorsYou think he WANTED people to die?
I don't wear city shirts as I've left schoolHow do you get all that on the back of your City shirt?
BoooooooI don't where city shirts as I've left school
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?