Charlie Kirk did not feel the same way.[1] The political violence today exists in large part because he built a movement extolling political violence. It is supremely ironic that he was one of its victims.
[1] When he was shot, he was blaming the transgendered community for the rise in mass shootings.
I think comments like yours being on the internet are valuable. They show what kinds of human beings we're all - secretly - surrounded by, discouraging people from assuming their fellow citizens are good minded and just thinking, so they can prepare accordingly.
Stop pretending Charlie wasn’t pushing a harmful narrative that lead to an increase in hate crime.
Charlie was not targeted over a characteristic like sexuality, race, and whatnot that would make it a hate crime.
Charlie could have very well chosen not to push a narrative that strips 2A from a minority.
He has been fanning the flames for years. He has exploited political conflict for personal gain.
What you clearly missed is that Charlie could have had a life that was different had his behaviour been different.
He was not attacked over an immutable or protected characteristic. He was not murdered because he is white/straight/gay/black/trans. His murder was independent of his characteristics and entirely dependent on his character.
There is no “hate crime” here as far as the definition is concerned.
There are claims from media/reporters that Kirk made statements about “dealing with” transgender people “like in the ’50s & ’60s,”
Also the famous and now ironic comment that "Some gun deaths are worth it to protect the second amendment."
Who's inflammatory now?
Wink wink, nudge nudge.
Trans people must be stopped, for the children!
We all know what his words mean, the veil is thin enough that even a moron would understand it, and thick enough that the law protects him.
if you can’t correlate the exposure of the public to such comments with the rise in violence against LGBT people, I’d recommend some self-reflection and asking yourself what the consequences are if you are wrong.
Hopefully you are capable of feeling empathy towards others.
I think it's only natural to not want children to be part of a group with very high suicide rates or otherwise be ideologically compelled to take life changing medication based on short term emotions and group pressure.
Hopefully you are capable of not only empathy but understanding for the opinion of others even if they fall outside of your beliefs.
Never mind of course that this is parroted from the same people who push conversion therapy, where pastors and whatnot abuse, rape and otherwise damage children in the name of “fixing the gay out of them”.
Nobody is giving children cross sex hormones, so can we retire that argument already and have an honest and empathetic conversation?
If you really think people who take cross sex hormones are doing so because they are ideologically motivated tells me you are too far lost in the sauce. You have been lied to repeatedly and believe lies.
Maybe it’s worth it to talk to some real humans in real life and try to listen?
What Charlie has advocated for.
The more you try to sane-wash the more you show what kind of person you are.
How about we listen to the actual doctors and not a political opportunist whose legacy is advocating for guns right after kids have died?
Ah yeah the totally not politically captured science that made the problem worse in the first place.
Not having a authoritarian knee jerk reaction after a tragedy is indeed the right and level headed response. Or do you also think there should be no privacy online because bad people misuse it?
The good thing about science is that it doesn’t need a “trust me bro”.
Charlie was most famous for saying that the deaths at Sandy Hook were the price we pay to keep our Second Amendments rights. I wonder if he would have felt the same way knowing that he would be part of that price?
On a further note, unlike most of the people on HN, I've met and spoken with Charlie in real life (I met him through an ex and her admiration of him is why she's an ex.). He was even more extreme in real life, but he was media-savvy enough not to let that other stuff be filmed. What you see on camera was the filtered version of who Charlie was. I was, at one point in my life, a member of the Federalist Society. Charlie and his ilk are the reason I'm an independent now.
Yes, 1 of them was a transgendered individual. The other 99% were all right wing extremists, including shooter in the other shooting (in Denver) the day Charlie was killed. (And based on reporting as of Friday, so was Charlie's killer.)
As long as you understand that this opinion is wholeheartedly NOT shared by them at all.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/republican-s...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Paul_Pelosi#Misinfor...
But his children no longer have a dad in their life. That is just heartbreaking to me. It’s hard for me to understand people who are so wrapped up in political rhetoric that they think taking a person’s life is acceptable.
That said, while I don't condone it I can't say I'm surprised by it. It seems stoking divisions is a large part of the modern media landscape and all it takes is one person with the motive and the means.
I'm sorry, this is no longer a "both sides" matter.
This happens every day when someone's dad is sentenced and incarcerated for something like armed robbery.
If someone died in ICE custody due to neglect as you suggested, then EVERONE would have heard about it by now.
Well glad we said the quiet part out loud. You only get empathy when you're not deemed a criminal by the US government.
This is why conservatives deserve no sympathy. If it was viable, they would line up anyone liberal or leftists and put them into concentration camps.
I don't care about Kirk or his family, they can take care of themselves. I'd like this country to no self destruct in this glee for wanting to start another Civil War, though.
Agreed. Sadly the leader of one side openly and repeatedly calls for violence against anyone who disrupts his speeches [0]. The former leader of the other side condemns political violence and even calls his opponent after an attack out of concern for his welfare. [1]
[0] https://time.com/4203094/donald-trump-hecklers/
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/14/bide...
Ironically, assassinated Charlie Kirk was one of the most reserved US public figures in this regard.
And while political violence is abhorrent Kirk was no angel. In the aftermath of this his views on gun violence have been echoed widely but he is a man that called for political opponents (namely Joe Biden) to face the death penalty [0]. That page outlines much more. So are his calls for political violence including the death of his opponents, inflammatory language like slurs[0], encouraging violence against immigrants and transgender athletes[0] “reserved”? I would hate to see what you consider out of line then
[0] https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-has-h...
I'm not from the US, and do not have a horse in this fight, but I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of people in the US who believe that the most inflammatory and divisive leader America had in modern history was Obama. The main difference between Trump and Obama is that Trump is teared apart by the media, while Obama was cuddled by it.
(btw, speaking from my non-US experience, when a leader is cuddled by the press, it is a bad sign, not a good one)
Regarding your accusation that I work for Kremlin, you should be ashamed of yourself to say such things to a person who was literally beaten by Putin's polizai for protesting his policies. In your simplistic mindset, anyone who has a differing opinion from you surely must be a paid troll working for evil people. It is very fitting that you exhibit this attitude in a discussion about a person who was killed for his views. Should I be shot, too? I surely have it coming, right?
Good on you for protesting his policies. But maybe don’t spread his propaganda for free? I never celebrated, excused or wished death on anyone. Shame on you for implying that.
You want to know why a lot of those people, who are reactionary by nature, thought Obama was so divisive?
It's because they couldn't stomach being led by someone who wasn't white.
>The main difference between Trump and Obama is that Trump is teared apart by the media, while Obama was cuddled by it.
You'll notice that Obama was roundly (and rightfully) criticized by the left for his actual policies, and was criticized by the right for his skin color. For those who focus on policy ramifications, Obama was repeatedly critiqued. The problem is the right wing media machine couldn't outright drop a hard -er or call him "boy", so they had to use emotional cues to insult him personally. Forget about actual policy, especially because his signature policy, the Affordable Care Act, was copied verbatim from enacted GOP legislation.
In the past, I have wanted to know, so I asked several of them over the years. Now I understand quite well.
> who are reactionary by nature
This is untrue.
> It's because they couldn't stomach being led by someone who wasn't white.
So is this.
> and was criticized by the right for his skin color.
This is not even remotely a fair characterization.
> so they had to use emotional cues to insult him personally.
Such as?
I tend to think that many white people voted for Obama in part because he was black. Like, we elected this guy, can we now finally put aside the question of racism? And then, somehow, instead of putting aside the question of race, it was dialled up to 11, with all these diversity quotas and DEI initiatives.
Btw you too are guilty of furthering this division: your instant reaction to criticism of Obama was to play the racist card! Of course, the only reason someone can criticise mr Obama is because they don't like the color of his skin!
I have roundly criticized Obama for the last 17 years since he was elected. I was critical during his tenure, and critical of his actions after his tenure. He doesn't get a pass.
I voted for him in 2008, not because he was black, or because he was a Democrat, but because I was sick of no-bid contract loving Neo Cons whose stock portfolio was antithetical to national security, and thus I wanted and voted for change.
But let's look at his actions and what I disliked.
Drone strikes? Yup. Critical of those. Bailing out Wall Street? Yup. Some of those bankers should have been jailed, versus bailed out with golden parachutes. Continuing the forever wars in the Middle East? Of course I critiqued those. Ignoring actions by our "friends" in the middle east that furthered Arab hatred of the US? Absolutely hated that too. Trying to pacify Putin after his attacks in Georgia, invasion of the Donbas? Yes. Was particularly hard on him for this. Not standing up to the GOP reactionary wing? Yes, I blamed that on him too. Failed healthcare policy? Of course I have issues with that.
Let's stop pretending that Obama was some sort of liberal or far leftist. The dude was pretty center-right by world standards, and only considered remotely left because the GOP had spent the Bush II administration pushing the Overton window about a hundred quadrillion light years to the right.
I could go on. But as someone who spent some time in GOP heavy rural areas during one of Obama's campaigns, I can tell you a lot of the people in those areas routinely began their critiques of Obama with a word that starts with an N and ends with an -ER.
Show me one example of any of those figures you listed inciting violence. I'm waiting. "inflammatory rhetoric" is not the same as saying "the Left is a national security problem"
Obama:
- "If they bring a knife to the fight, we're going to bring a gun." [0]
Biden:
- "If we were in high school, I'd take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him" [1]
- "We’re done talking about the debate, it’s time to put Trump in a bullseye." [2]
- the whole "Darth Biden" event speech was filled with statements framing political opponents as enemies of the country, kinda sinister from the head of the most powerful state in the world, no? ("Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.", etc) [3]
Waltz:
- "When it’s an adult like Donald Trump, you bully the shit out of him back." [4]
- "I tell you that... because we need to whip his butt and put this guy behind us." [5]
Newsome:
- "But right now, with all due respect, we’re walking down a damn different path. We’re fighting fire with fire. And we’re gonna punch these sons of bitches in the mouth." [6] (apologies for the Twitter link, didn't find direct video elsewhere)
Would that be enough?
[0]: https://www.factcheck.org/2011/01/obama-guns-and-the-untouch...
[1]: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/21/politics/Joe-biden-donald...
[2]: https://nypost.com/2024/07/15/us-news/biden-defends-bullseye...
[3]: https://www.newsweek.com/read-everything-joe-biden-said-his-...
[4]: https://www.startribune.com/in-key-2028-state-tim-walz-says-...
[5]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/tim-walz-brea...
That said, these pale in comparison to Trump's many, many endorsements of or acceptance of violence. Even mocking an attack on Pelosi's husband. I've never heard Trump apologize for his words, actions, or inactions. He could not even be bothered to call the governor of a state whose elected representatives were attacked, saying even to speak would be a "waste of time". Only when one of his sycophants is harmed does he suddenly see a serious problem.
In fact Trump pardoned those who violently attacked national police as the attackers sought to disrupt the transfer of power. (Some of whom went on to rape and murder others.) The very people he urged to "fight like hell", and he endorsed by waiting to see whether they would succeed before changing his tune.
Meanwhile Democrats prosecute their own for violence and corruption.
Trump acts like a mob boss. Doing and saying whatever he wants, and punishing those who oppose him with whatever means he thinks he can get away with. Even boasting that his supporters would stand by him if he shot someone on a famous public street.
It is also telling that you weren't content with just stopping after the words 'disrupt the transfer of power', but felt necessary to add smear about rape and murder. I am not willing to even verify the veracity of this claim, and will just ask you this: how many of those who took part in BLM riots were convicted for rape and murder crimes, likely quite a few, right? Should we bring that in every conversation on every action supported by the politicians that you support?
> Meanwhile Democrats prosecute their own for violence and corruption.
No, they don't. They do, however, openly prosecute their political adversaries for fabricated crimes. It was quite characteristic that democrat-friendly talking heads spent months in late 2020-early 2021 how Trump is going to issue a presidential pardon for himself and his allies, and then Biden, four years later, did just that.
I am not Trump supporter. I'm just telling you that you are extremely biased and unwilling discuss politics in good faith: you just know what truth is and consider everyone who disagrees as being wrong or stupid or evil. That is exactly kind of mindset and rhetoric that inspired someone to kill Kirk. He was such a bad fascist, after all!
Waltz should not speak that way. Perhaps he is given more grace since his words didn't incite an insurrection which he watched closely and refused to intervene for hours in the hope it would succeed. Waltz also doesn't express the desire to be a dictactor, plans to give police unlimited power, ask foreign governments to hack his opponents for his gain, shake down foreign leaders for dirt on his opponents and their families, or openly weaponize the DoJ / ICE / IRS to persecute anyone who opposed him.
>> Meanwhile Democrats prosecute their own for violence and corruption.
> No, they don't.
I guess the prosecutions of Quintez Brown, Robert Menendez, and Eric Adams don't count?
> ...how many of those who took part in BLM riots were convicted for rape and murder crimes, likely quite a few, right?
Did Biden pardon BLM protesters who then went on to rape and murder?
> Should we bring that in every conversation on every action supported by the politicians that you support?
If there is a discussion on political violence and how seriously leaders handle it, then I'd say the consequences of pardoning such actors is in scope.
> ...you are extremely biased and unwilling discuss politics in good faith: you just know what truth is and consider everyone who disagrees as being wrong or stupid or evil.
If there is a disagreement, then thinking the other person may be wrong is common, no? I don't presume every disagreement is because of stupidity or evil. Though I do believe evil exists (not in any spiritual sense), and that evil is more manifest in some actions than others. Assassination is quite evil for example. I try not to hold any beliefs too strongly, since I've been very wrong in the past.
> That is exactly kind of mindset and rhetoric that inspired someone to kill Kirk. He was such a bad fascist, after all!
You know what inspired Kirk's killer? Perhaps you should inform the FBI. I'll wait for the facts because it's not clear to me what motivated this attacker. It's just as likely he played a lot of Helldivers, surfed 4chan, and thought Kirk wasn't far enough to the right.
That said, rhetoric like mine is far less likely to inspire violence than say a "Professor Watchlist" which--in practice--functions something like a who-to-harrass-or-kill list.
> Perhaps he is given more grace since his words didn't incite an insurrection which he watched closely and refused to intervene for hours in the hope it would succeed.
Yeah, tweeting non-stop urges for protesters to stay peaceful. It is a certain kind of delusion to think that this 'riot' was at attempt to overthrow the state. Of course, Democrat propaganda bent over themselves to present it that way, but anyone with critical thinking understands, that even if Capitol was taken over by the unarmed protesters, then what? Oh, Senate would capitulate and declare Trump God Emperor? Please.
If we stop talking about fabricated mythology of a horribre horrible coup attempt, and look at reality, Jan 6 riot was a relatively peaceful affair, far more peaceful than BLM protests from the previous summer. I happened to watch it all live, on youtube, as it happened, it culminated in QAnon shaman strolling down the halls saying 'God bless you' to every security guard who were just standing there and doing nothing.
It is no wonder that all these livestreams were promptly scrubbed off all social media afterwards, because if anyone would watch it, as it happened, the narrative of a coup would just fall apart.
> I guess the prosecutions of Quintez Brown, Robert Menendez, and Eric Adams don't count?
I don't know who are the first two, but Eric Adams is a name I know, and from what I understand he mas prosecuted after he broke ranks with the Dems on the migration issue.
So yeah, they prosecute insignificant pawns and those who broke rank, and they also fabricate criminal cases against their chief political opponents, trying to deny him the right to be a candidate in presidential elections. However, these attempts were found unconvincing by the supreme jury - people of the US, whe majority of whom voted to re-elect Trump as president.
> Did Biden pardon BLM protesters who then went on to rape and murder?
Why would he need to pardon people who were neither prosecuted nor convicted?
Literally ignoring any and all recorded footage clearly demonstrating violence to the contrary, what kind of vocabulary judo do you have to perform to label a woman being shot to death[1] a "relatively peaceful affair." Calling anything "relatively peaceful" where someone dies by getting shot genuinely boggles my mind. By this standard, Charlie Kirk's debate was "relatively peaceful."
But seriously, damage from BLM riots is estimated to be over 1 billion USD and the number of fatalities during those riots was far higher than one Ashley.
Comparing killing of Ashlei Babbitt and Charlie Kirk is highly inappropriate. The former is at worst a voluntary manslaughter (and actually classified as a justifiable use of force), and second is a first degree murder, premeditated and with a deliberate intent to kill.
Damn, sounds like more terrible people who encourage violence then, wish they didn't encourage it either, kinda sounds like a problem America and its politics has in general.
There hasn’t been a day in the last decade that Trump wasn’t making the news for a new insanely inflammatory remark—including in the last 48 hours. To help you remember when that was: that’s when he called for War on an American city, using the visual language of Apocalypse Now, a movie about war crimes. That was in the same breath as his new “Secretary of War” detailing that war would be violent, pro-active and excessive. This is true for almost everyone in his cabinet: daily dehumanizing remarks, threats, calls to attack.
One vs. many thousands: There are three to four orders of magnitude of difference in how inflammatory each side is.
You want to prove me wrong? Give me one date, a single date in the last ten years and if I can’t find Trump publicly insulting to someone that day, I’ll concede.
The only examples of call to violence you can find are people quoting Trump and his enablers, or mocking their style. Those horrible things you read? Those insanely callous dismissal of Charlie Kirk, victim of gun violence? Those are quotes of Charlie Kirk, reacting to mass shootings.
You are wagging your finger and scream "Here’s a monster!" but what you are looking at is a mirror.
> There are three to four orders of magnitude of difference in how inflammatory each side is.
Not really.
One can only agree with this statement if he considers that calling Trump and his supporters Nazis, fascists, racists, etc, is not an inflammatory rhetoric, but a totally acceptable objective truth that just truthfully describes them. (Btw, do Nazis deserve to be shot on sight?)
However, if one doesn't consider this an objective truth, but a violent dehumanizing rhetorics, then suddenly he finds that one side routinely smears the other in the worst ways possible, and that the total amount of such rhetoric vastly drowns the messaging from another side.
> You are wagging your finger and scream "Here’s a monster!" but what you are looking at is a mirror.
That's a nice straw man you made. Please, refrain from messaging me again, if you don't plan to argue in good faith.
Fascist works too: you can look at different combinations of nationalism, far-right ideologies and how they call for a combination of military power, education, businesses together (fasci means the "bundle"): that’s something that Trump has repeatedly called for, until today.
Trump has said he had _Mein Kampf_ on his bed-side table, read it twice. Elon Musk explicitly made a Nazi salute at a republican convention, repeated the gesture for emphasis, and the participants loudly applauded him for it. There is a lot of evidence that those people are very comfortable with Nazi ideas.
Let's be better than that and address all claims that you made (repeated) here:
> Trump routinely makes racist remarks and has been condemned by justice for racial discrimination. Most people around him have done the same. That’s an objectively true fact that’s been tested in court.
Opinions differ on whether Trump's remarks are indeed racist (his haters say that they, of course, are, and his supporters say that they, of course, aren't), so let's concentrate on the more verifiable part of your statement, that he has been condemned by justice for racial discrimination.
This statement appears to be false: the only more or less fitting case is 1973 DOJ case for his hiring practices, which was settled without admission of wrongdoing, which hardly counts as a "condemnation", that has been "tested in court".
Next, you claim, "most people around him have done the same". This is just a broad smear that you just feel to be true. Please, provide a full list of people around Trump and prove that most of them make racist remarks and were discriminating people based on race.
Next, fascism. It is ironic that you decided to base your case that Trump is fascist on his calls for unity and that unity is represented by fasces. Like, anyone, who calls for unity is surely fascist.
No. In fact, U.S. is practically a fasces fan convention: bundles of rods flank the Lincoln Memorial's columns ("E Pluribus Unum", anyone?), are present on the House podium, Statue of Freedom podium, are in the Senate seal, etc etc etc, all predating any fascists by millennia. And if calling for unity vs common opponent is fascism, then, of course Kamala Harris is fascist ("We must unite to overcome this season of darkness... Donald Trump’s agenda is a threat to our democracy, and we must stand together to defeat it."), as is Obama ("We need every patriot—civilian, soldier, veteran—to stand united against that kind of authoritarian nonsense.").
I am, of course, not suggesting here that Harris or Obama are fascists, I'm simply lamp shading the absurdity of your statement. In fact, calls for unity are bread and butter for any politician, and it is rather silly to throw accusations of fascism based on that.
Next, you state that Trump has Mein Kampf on his bed-side table and that he read it twice. This statement appears to be completely false. [1]
Btw, I actually did read Mein Kampf, and if you forget for a moment the infamous achievements and atrocities perpetrated under the leadership of its author, it would be a rather funny silly book written by a poorly educated person with rather narrow worldview. However, given an audience that lacks critical thinking and eagerly laps up propaganda, it became a blueprint for catastrophic harm, amplifying divisive narratives without scrutiny. Which brings us neatly back to Orwell's duckspeak: when you are uncritically pushing someone's talking points, stop for a second and ask yourself, aren't you the baddie?
[0]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/duckspeak
[1]: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-hitler-mein-kampf/
> Testers from the New York City Human Rights Division had found that prospective black renters at Trump buildings were told there were no apartments available, while prospective White renters were offered apartments at the same buildings.[32] During the investigation, four of Trump's agents admitted to using a "C" (for "colored") or "9" code to label Black applicants and stated that they were told their company "discouraged rental to blacks" or that they were "not allowed to rent to black tenants," and that prospective Black renters should be sent to the central office while White renters could have their applications accepted on site. Three doormen testified to being told to discourage prospective Black renters by lying about the rental prices or claiming no vacancies were available.[33][34] A settlement was reached in 1975 where Trump agreed to familiarize himself with the Fair Housing Act, take out ads stating that Black renters were welcome, give a list of vacancies to the Urban League on a weekly basis, and allow the Urban League to present qualified candidates for 20% of vacancies in properties that were less than 10% non-White.[32][35]
> Elyse Goldweber, the Justice Department lawyer tasked with taking Trump's deposition, has stated that during a coffee break Trump said to her directly, "You know, you don't want to live with them either."[36]
> The Trump Organization was sued again in 1978 for violating terms of the 1975 settlement by continuing to refuse to rent to black tenants; Trump and his lawyer Roy Cohn denied the charges.[37][38][39] In 1983 the Metropolitan Action Institute noted that two Trump Village properties were still over 95% White.[40]
In what world your argument is anything but clutching at straws?! Get a grip, he openly hates Black and Latino people and has never been shy about it. The fact he came to an out-of-court agreement, and immediately had to come back… It’s so beautiful that your richly referenced note forgot that point.
> Like, anyone, who calls for unity is surely fascist.
No, but people who threatens to napalm-bomb a major city in their own country because the mayor isn’t in their party; people who threaten to court-martial any soldier who express an opinion critical of an influencer outside of the chain of command; people who call law enforcement officers to throw political opponents in a jail without due process… Those might be fascist. And that’s just this week.
Obama and Harris were not selling access to enrich themselves with the loincloth of crypto, for example. That’s a little different than century-old symbol about Unity between States…
Yes, billions of people noticed in horror the entire Republican Party in congress applauding a Nazi salute, twice, and yes, a handful of people used the same word to describe it. Do you really think lessons on grammar is the point to make here?! Because for someone who talks so much about how much you don’t like that Hilter guy, you seem to raise no qualms in your very detailed note with having with so many people in your party applauding that gesture. If you worried about people not thinking for themselves, I’d start there.
> In what world your argument is anything but clutching at straws?! Get a grip, he openly hates Black and Latino people and has never been shy about it. The fact he came to an out-of-court agreement, and immediately had to come back… It’s so beautiful that your richly referenced note forgot that point.
Yeah, right. You had to dig up a case from 50+ years ago, that concerned a policy likely was not directed from the top but was enacted by some middle managers, and which was corrected, and act like I'm grasping the straws and not you.
Then you try to strengthen your argument with a blatant claim that Trump openly hates Black and Latino people, when in fact in his public speeches he frequently says that he loves them. You will, of course, fail to provide a single quote by Trump that would prove your outlandish claim.
And also, I struggle to understand how could this horrible vile racist man significantly increase his support amond Black and Lation voters. [0]
> No, but people who threatens to napalm-bomb a major city in their own country because the mayor isn’t in their party; people who threaten to court-martial any soldier who express an opinion critical of an influencer outside of the chain of command; people who call law enforcement officers to throw political opponents in a jail without due process… Those might be fascist.
So, how many major cities were napalm-bombed?
How many soldiers were court-martialled?
How many political opponents were thrown in jail without due process?
We did, however, see one political execution this week, but the murdered man was definitely not a Democrat.
https://www.npr.org/2024/11/22/nx-s1-5199119/2024-election-e...
I can’t claim to know Kirk’s entire body of work -- just watched a couple of debates and his RNC speech -- but since of us two I’m the one who’s actually read Mein Kampf, I can say with a significant degree of confidence their views could hardly be more different:
Hitler pushed authoritarian control, racial hierarchies, and expansionist wars. Kirk was advocating for small-government conservatism and anti-woke culture fights. Even Barack Obama, with his big-government moves, like the ACA or his stimulus plans, had more in common with Hitler’s state-heavy policies, than Charlie!
Can you link some examples?
I wish more people on both ends of the political spectrum felt that way. Either committing or supporting violence against those we disagree with, has no place in a civil society.