Trump says suspect in custody in killing of Charlie Kirk

[Postvieww]

He praised Pelosi's attacker. He was fine with using a hammer.

False characterization! Would you please post the ENTIRE quote showing context.

 

[RDKirk]

Probably more than you. It was not worthy of the death penalty because he had the moral high ground. Debate is all about presenting facts to support your ideas, Charlie did that very well . Your opinion that many times he came in a distant second or was sticking it to them is a flawed biased opinion that shows if you really did watch some of his videos you really didn’t look at them objectively. That is my opinion!. I really would like to see at least one video where in your opinion Charlie came in a distant second, if there is one.

I disagreed vehemently enough with many of Charlie Kirk's propositions that I certainly would never have invited him to the barbecue.

But debating him certainly required a person to come fully prepared, and every one who proposed to debate him should certainly have fully prepared first. People hated him because he so consistently stripped their propositions naked in public.

 

[Postvieww]

I disagreed vehemently enough with many of Charlie Kirk's propositions that I certainly would never have invited him to the barbecue.

But debating him certainly required a person to come fully prepared, and every one who proposed to debate him should certainly have fully prepared first. People hated him because he so consistently stripped their propositions naked in public.

Truth usually wins debates!

 

[comana]

Truth usually wins debates!

I disagree. Debating is a talent but it doesn’t require truth, just the ability to to throw your opponent off.

 

[Postvieww]

I disagree. Debating is a talent but it doesn’t require truth, just the ability to to throw your opponent off.

I stand by my statement. I did say usually and in Kirk’s case he was the more knowledgeable debater against college kids who believed themselves to be morally superior in many cases.

 

[Servus]

I disagree. Debating is a talent but it doesn’t require truth, just the ability to to throw your opponent off.

It's about winning over the audience. And truth usually wins over the audience better than malarkey.

 

[Postvieww]

FBi now investigating the possibility of co- conspirators. Stay tuned

 

[comana]

It's about winning over the audience. And truth usually wins over the audience better than malarkey.

Winning over the audience, yes. His audience is also, for the most part, is already in his corner, so they watch the show involving a debater who already champions their beliefs. Most of his arguments involve opinion, so truth is subjective.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It's about winning over the audience. And truth usually wins over the audience better than malarkey.

If Trump had listened to that advice, he’d still be a former casino magnate up to his eyeballs in debt with two elder sons enjoying the level of national prominence they deserve.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

It's about winning over the audience. And truth usually wins over the audience better than malarkey.

I wish that were true. These days truth is hard to find and people really don’t care. What they want is validation of their own selfish beliefs.

 

[Postvieww]

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

Point out how you think Charlie who did not go to college came in a distant second in this debate with a college professor.

 

[rjs330]

It's about winning over the audience. And truth usually wins over the audience better than malarkey.

I think that depends on the scenario. A lot of college kids are fed a lot of malarky and are won over by it.

 

[Servus]

If Trump had listened to that advice, he’d still be a former casino magnate up to his eyeballs in debt with two elder sons enjoying the level of national prominence they deserve.

What does that have to do with debating? Or did you just take what I said and go off on a tangent with it?

 

[Servus]

I think that depends on the scenario. A lot of college kids are fed a lot of malarky and are won over by it.

Good point.

 

[comana]

What does that have to do with debating? Or did you just take what I said and go off on a tangent with it?

The connection was clear to me. Maybe read it again?

 

[Servus]

The connection was clear to me. Maybe read it again?

Had nothing to do with winning over a debate audience.

 

[comana]

Had nothing to do with winning over a debate audience.

Simple, Trump is not known for truth, yet has been very successful in winning over an audience. He would not be where he is today if he had held truth above malarkey.

 

[NxNW]

Wasn't that about the same time Kamala Harris was bailing out BLM thugs and vandals?

Never happened.

Maybe Kirk was making a sarcastic remark to point out how the left was encouraging violence?

He wasn't capable of that level of subtlety, nor was his audience capable of inferring such.

 

[NxNW]

Calling your bluff. Citation please and I would like direct quotes.

“Why has he not been bailed out?” Kirk said Monday on his podcast of the man who allegedly beat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband Paul with a hammer last Friday. “By the way, if some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out."

 

[Servus]

Simple, Trump is not known for truth, yet has been very successful in winning over an audience. He would not be where he is today if he had held truth above malarkey.

I was specifically talking about an audience listening to a debate. Anything outside of that is taking what I said off on a non-sequitur tangent.