Trump says suspect in custody in killing of Charlie Kirk

[Chesterton]

He just used the terms 'transgender community' and 'the left' in a way that implied that they are not one amorphous entity. I wouldn't have thought that it needed to be specifically stated.

I've never seen a "pride" flag with a cross on it.

(And yeah, I suppose you'll go to Google Images and find one, or make one.)

 

[iluvatar5150]

So you're saying his whole life was a fraud? He even fooled his wife who loved him dearly, and his countless friends who spoke of his kindness and faith after his death. It was all a facade to fool us all.

I don’t think it was entirely, or even mostly, a fraud, but I do think there was a degree of deliberate theatrics to it. You don’t ascend to the level of media success that he did without curating an image and style.

I also added some more to my previous post that further explains my opinion.

 

[Bradskii]

He was demonstrating what used to be common place at college universities when they actually cared about open discussion and a free exchange of thought. If you feel that he was only trying to "stick it to the opposition," it was because his opponents positions were so flawed.

Maybe you haven't seen some of his 'debates'. If he got to debate someone reasonably intelligent who could string a sentence together then it was readily apparent that he was a very poor debater. In fact, he rarely 'debated'. He wasn't keen on listening to other views and generally repeated his standard claims ad nauseam and was quite disdainful to anyone who disagreed.

I quite like listening to a good debate, especially if one person is in opposition to my personal views but does it really well. Watching Kirk was a depressing experience. On more than one level.

 

[Postvieww]

To advertise his views, of course. To show people who supported his views how he could stick it to the opposition. Did I really need to point that out?

Poor analysis of Charlie’s motives and goals.

 

[Bradskii]

I've never seen a "pride" flag with a cross on it.

(And yeah, I suppose you'll go to Google Images and find one, or make one.)

Why would I even need to? It's a nonsensical position to suggest that there aren't Christians who are transgender. Or those on the political right.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Maybe you haven't seen some of his 'debates'. If he got to debate someone reasonably intelligent who could string a sentence together then it was readily apparent that he was a very poor debater. In fact, he rarely 'debated'. He wasn't keen on listening to other views and generally repeated his standard claims ad nauseam and was quite disdainful to anyone who disagreed.

I quite like listening to a good debate, especially if one person is in opposition to my personal views but does it really well. Watching Kirk was a depressing experience. On more than one level.

Would you agree that is a good thing for there be an opportunity for flaws in Charlie Kirk's arguments to be exposed through civil discourse?

 

[Bradskii]

Poor analysis of Charlie’s motives and goals.

Hey, he didn't debate privately. It was generally in a public situation, advertised and often broadcast. You do know that one of the terms used to describe him was as an 'influencer'? It's kinda difficult to influence people if you don't advertise your views. Don't you think?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Hey, he didn't debate privately. It was generally in a public situation, advertised and often broadcast. You do know that one of the terms used to describe him was as an 'influencer'? It's kinda difficult to influence people if you don't advertise your views. Don't you think?

Well...debates are usually held in public for a reason. Want to take a guess as to what that reason is?

 

[Postvieww]

Hey, he didn't debate privately. It was generally in a public situation, advertised and often broadcast. You do know that one of the terms used to describe him was as an 'influencer'? It's kinda difficult to influence people if you don't advertise your views. Don't you think?

Charlie wasn’t trying to “stick it to “ anyone. He was sincerely trying to make a positive difference in this country. Your characterization is still off base.

 

[Chesterton]

Why would I even need to? It's a nonsensical position to suggest that there aren't Christians who are transgender. Or those on the political right.

Okay maybe I'm out of touch. I don't follow popular culture very closely. Name some right-wingers who identify as trans. I'm sure they'd be quite famous because the media loves such incongruous combinations. I'm sure they've appeared on every talk show that I don't watch.

 

[Bradskii]

Would you agree that is a good thing for there be an opportunity for flaws in Charlie Kirk's arguments to be exposed through civil discourse?

I think it's great. And not too difficult either. I can honestly say that I never saw a genuine debate he had when he didn't come a distant second. But that's a personal opinion.

 

[Bradskii]

Well...debates are usually held in public for a reason. Want to take a guess as to what that reason is?

I think I pointed it out earlier. To advertise his views to his base. To show how his 'arguments' dismantle those of the liberal left. I'm certain that he thought that they did. He had a very high opinion of himself.

 

[Bradskii]

Charlie wasn’t trying to “stick it to “ anyone.

It was his MO. I'm beginning to think you've never watched any of his debates...

 

[Chesterton]

I think it's great. And not too difficult either. I can honestly say that I never saw a genuine debate he had when he didn't come a distant second. But that's a personal opinion.

Can you link to a video or audio clip where he came in second in your personal opinion?

 

[Chesterton]

I think I pointed it out earlier. To advertise his views to his base.

Nope, it was to advertise his views to those outside his base.

To show how his 'arguments' dismantle those of the liberal left. I'm certain that he thought that they did.

Because they did.

He had a very high opinion of himself.

You don't get candlelight vigils across a country the size of America unless millions of people also have a high opinion of you.

 

[BPPLEE]

I really don't know how to answer it, but there are going to be some transgender people who identify as both conservative and Christian.

Caitlyn Jenner?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I think it's great. And not too difficult either. I can honestly say that I never saw a genuine debate he had when he didn't come a distant second. But that's a personal opinion.

It is a personal opinion that many disagree with. Because if it was true, TurningPoint USA would have failed a long time ago.

 

[BPPLEE]

So you're saying his whole life was a fraud? He even fooled his wife who loved him dearly, and his countless friends who spoke of his kindness and faith after his death. It was all a facade to fool us all.

I read that he believed in keeping the Sabbath. He turned his phone off Friday evening and didn't turn it back on until Saturday evening.
I don't believe that his religious beliefs were part of an act

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I think I pointed it out earlier. To advertise his views to his base. To show how his 'arguments' dismantle those of the liberal left. I'm certain that he thought that they did. He had a very high opinion of himself.

This point of view completely explains why academia has failed so many students and have regressed to propaganda machines with the intent of radicalized their students to become the next generation of activists. If Kirk failed so miserably in "dismantling tose of the liberal left" wouldn't more liberals want more debates to expose him instead of trying to silence him and his supporters?

 

[NxNW]

A rebellious child surrounded by leftist influences.

Why do you think his MAGA family were a leftist influence?