Eric Trump on Charlie Kirk’s Legacy and the Radical Left – “This Could Have Been the Greatest Mistake These People Have Ever Made” (VIDEO)

[Tropical Wilds]

It's not for anyone else to prove your strawman.

Not my strawman. His assertion.

I already know the answer, by the way. So I’m filing it under “things anti-LGBTQA+ people rant about because they don’t like LGBTQA+ people for reasons even they know make no sense.”

 

[Aldebaran]

Not my strawman. His assertion.

I already know the answer, by the way. So I’m filing it under “things anti-LGBTQA+ people rant about because they don’t like LGBTQA+ people for reasons even they know make no sense.”

Nope. Your strawman.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Someone here claimed to be interested in it: Eric Trump on Charlie Kirk’s Legacy and the Radical Left – “This Could Have Been the Greatest Mistake These People Have Ever Made” (VIDEO)

Yep, that would be me, clearly discussing where in the CNN article discussions about the shooters sexual activities were discussed.

Please keep that to yourself.

Keep to myself that I don’t seek out videos of people dying for entertainment, and prefer to spend my time doing other things? Uh… Ok… I guess I could keep that to myself. Most people don’t find that to be an embarrassing admission but, hey… You do you.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Nope. Your strawman.

You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means. Questions you don’t want to answer, can’t answer, or prove my point (which bothers you) so you won’t answer are not strawmen. You two drop that every time you get backed into a corner you can’t get out of, like a “get out of jail free” card. It’s lazy debating and your reasons for doing it are wholly transparent.

So, as I said, filed under “things anti-LGBTQA+ people rant about because they don’t like LGBTQA+ people for reasons even they know make no sense.”

 

[Aldebaran]

Yep, that would be me, clearly discussing where in the CNN article discussions about the shooters sexual activities were discussed.

Ok, so now you admit to being the one interested in his sex life after accusing me of that.

Keep to myself that I don’t seek out videos of people dying for entertainment, and prefer to spend my time doing other things? Uh… Ok… I guess I could keep that to myself. Most people don’t find that to be an embarrassing admission but, hey… You do you.

Refer to your own past postings so I don't have to.

 

[Aldebaran]

You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means. Questions you don’t want to answer, can’t answer, or prove my point (which bothers you) so you won’t answer are not strawmen. You two drop that every time you get backed into a corner you can’t get out of, like a “get out of jail free” card. It’s lazy debating and your reasons for doing it are wholly transparent.

So, as I said, filed under “things anti-LGBTQA+ people rant about because they don’t like LGBTQA+ people for reasons even they know make no sense.”

File it wherever you want to, but you are still making a losing argument.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Now I know why MAGA is going after comedians.

We are going after everyone who celebrated political violence.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

We are going after everyone who celebrated political violence.

And they were going after everyone who celebrated sexual assault and rape. And?

So then what did Kimmel say that celebrated that? What specific quote?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Nope. Your strawman.

Previous sentiment repeated.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Ok, so now you admit to being the one interested in his sex life after accusing me of that.

I was asking you to cite your sources. My interest lies in figuring out if there is any truth behind what you said, or if you are just ranting into the void with nonsense.

And, as a reminder, I’m not bothered with his sex life as long as it involves consenting, adult people. I’m not bothered by anybody’s sex life as long as it involves consenting adult people. I could know everything or nothing, I don’t care. I’m not going to seek it out unless I have a reason to.

You’re the one who’s made a big show out of how bothered by it you are, but also the lengths you’ve gone to in order to get information about it and projections about their activities. You not only have no reason to seek it out but do anyway, you go a step further by going to non-verified sources, AND elaborate on it based off of things only you have mentioned.

That, my guy… Is something else.

Refer to your own past postings so I don't have to.

So… You don’t understand that attempt at a personal insult you made, either. You just said it to say it. Got it.

I have ethical concerns about the viewing of the video, so I have elected to not see the it and avoid scenarios that may lead me to seeing it. Despite it being everywhere from legitimate, valid sources, I still don’t engage with it.

That’s the normal response when something bothers somebody or runs counter to one’s ethics. They avoid it, not run to YouTube to seek out more details.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

And they were going after everyone who celebrated sexual assault and rape. And?

So then what did Kimmel say that celebrated that? What specific quote?

Who is celebrating sexual assault and rape? That sound awful. BTW, we didnt go after Jimmy Kimmel because he was celebrating Kirk's death. His company fired him because the FCC were about to hit them with fines due to Kimmel lying about who was responsible for Kirk's death.

 

[Aldebaran]

I was asking you to cite your sources. My interest lies in figuring out if there is any truth behind what you said, or if you are just ranting into the void with nonsense.

And, as a reminder, I’m not bothered with his sex life as long as it involves consenting, adult people. I’m not bothered by anybody’s sex life as long as it involves consenting adult people. I could know everything or nothing, I don’t care. I’m not going to seek it out unless I have a reason to.

You’re the one who’s made a big show out of how bothered by it you are, but also the lengths you’ve gone to in order to get information about it and projections about their activities. You not only have no reason to seek it out but do anyway, you go a step further by going to non-verified sources, AND elaborate on it based off of things only you have mentioned.

That, my guy… Is something else.


So… You don’t understand that attempt at a personal insult you made, either. You just said it to say it. Got it.

I have ethical concerns about the viewing of the video, so I have elected to not see the it and avoid scenarios that may lead me to seeing it. Despite it being everywhere from legitimate, valid sources, I still don’t engage with it.

That’s the normal response when something bothers somebody or runs counter to one’s ethics. They avoid it, not run to YouTube to seek out more details.

Your post reminds us that you've forgotten about how we're supposed to try to find out as much about the shooter as possible to figure out why people like him do the things they do. Has the mantra of "We gotta do something!" suddenly lost importance?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I was asking you to cite your sources. My interest lies in figuring out if there is any truth behind what you said, or if you are just ranting into the void with nonsense.

And, as a reminder, I’m not bothered with his sex life as long as it involves consenting, adult people. I’m not bothered by anybody’s sex life as long as it involves consenting adult people. I could know everything or nothing, I don’t care. I’m not going to seek it out unless I have a reason to.

You’re the one who’s made a big show out of how bothered by it you are, but also the lengths you’ve gone to in order to get information about it and projections about their activities. You not only have no reason to seek it out but do anyway, you go a step further by going to non-verified sources, AND elaborate on it based off of things only you have mentioned.

That, my guy… Is something else.


So… You don’t understand that attempt at a personal insult you made, either. You just said it to say it. Got it.

I have ethical concerns about the viewing of the video, so I have elected to not see the it and avoid scenarios that may lead me to seeing it. Despite it being everywhere from legitimate, valid sources, I still don’t engage with it.

That’s the normal response when something bothers somebody or runs counter to one’s ethics. They avoid it, not run to YouTube to seek out more details.

This is a very good reason why his sex life matters to the investigation.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/what-are-the-statistics-on-hom-CXti1J4yTay0iqtzM1SPyQ

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Your post reminds us that you've forgotten about how we're supposed to try to find out as much about the shooter as possible to figure out why people like him do the things they do. Has the mantra of "We gotta do something!" suddenly lost importance?

Could you imagine how much the liberal media would be dumpster diving into Tylor's personal life if he actually was a MAGA Trump supporter?

 

[Aldebaran]

This is a very good reason why his sex life matters to the investigation.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/what-are-the-statistics-on-hom-CXti1J4yTay0iqtzM1SPyQ

People seem to want to forget about those facts. The string of recent homosexual/transsexual mass shootings haven't been enough of a wake-up call yet. Now that they do assassinations, still no interest.

 

[Vambram]

Though I cannot mourn Charlie as a close friend, I can mourn what his death represents: the collapse of the great American experiment in self-government, the return to that Hobbesian state of nature where might makes right and the strong devour the weak.

My son, age 13, knew Charlie better than I did, if it can be called knowing to watch a man through a screen. Thirteen is an age suspended between innocence and experience: old enough to see that ideas have consequences, young enough to hope those consequences need not include death.

He would watch Charlie debate, and what he learned was not any particular doctrine but something more fundamental: that it is possible to believe strongly enough to defend those beliefs in public, to submit one’s convictions to the test of argument and counterargument.

When he got out of school yesterday, I had to tell him that the man whose clarity of thought he admired had been murdered for, it seems, the crime of thinking aloud. This is the world we are making for the next generation: a place where ideas are so dangerous that men must die for having them, where the ultimate answer to every disagreement is the gun.

Because I associate Charlie with my son, and my son with Charlie, I worry about inheritance—not of money or property, but of the vast structure of beliefs and customs that makes civilized life possible. We inherit the assumption that we can disagree without killing, that ideas can be met with ideas, that the proper response to speech we dislike is more speech, not violence.

This inheritance was not given to us whole. It was built slowly, painfully, across centuries of human struggle, each generation adding its small contribution to the great work of learning to live together despite our differences.

And in a single moment, it seems gone.

Charlie’s death is a mirror in which we can see ourselves as we truly are: a people who have lost faith in our own founding bet that free people can govern themselves through reason rather than force. If we cannot reclaim the inheritance of reason over violence, of speech over silence, then his death will not be the end of one man’s story. It will be the beginning of our own undoing.

Those who did know Charlie, even those who disagreed with his politics, speak of a man who was warm and gracious. This is what we should remember. If there is any redemption in this tragedy, it lies in whether we choose to see in Charlie’s death not only what we have lost, but what we must recover.

A Tribute to Charlie Kirk (1993–2025) - FEE

Charlie Kirk is dead.

fee.org

 

[A2SG]

We are going after everyone who celebrated political violence.

"Going after" them how, exactly? What laws did they break?

Granted, you don't have to agree with the way these people have exercised their freedom of speech. Heck, you can also exercise your own freedom of speech to criticize or even condemn them for doing so all you like.

But what, exactly, are you proposing when you say you are "going after" them?

-- A2SG, unless you're talking about the government when you say "we," because the Constitution strictly forbids them doing anything at all about it.....

 

[Aldebaran]

"Going after" them how, exactly? What laws did they break?

Granted, you don't have to agree with the way these people have exercised their freedom of speech. Heck, you can also exercise your own freedom of speech to criticize or even condemn them for doing so all you like.

But what, exactly, are you proposing when you say you are "going after" them?

-- A2SG, unless you're talking about the government when you say "we," because the Constitution strictly forbids them doing anything at all about it.....

Let's not forget: https://www.coe.int/en/web/gender-matters/verbal-violence-and-hate-speech

 

[A2SG]

Let's not forget: https://www.coe.int/en/web/gender-matters/verbal-violence-and-hate-speech

What about it?

-- A2SG, unclear on what point you're trying to make with that article....

 

[Oompa Loompa]

"Going after" them how, exactly? What laws did they break?

Granted, you don't have to agree with the way these people have exercised their freedom of speech. Heck, you can also exercise your own freedom of speech to criticize or even condemn them for doing so all you like.

But what, exactly, are you proposing when you say you are "going after" them?

-- A2SG, unless you're talking about the government when you say "we," because the Constitution strictly forbids them doing anything at all about it.....

That is a silly question. You are already seeing it all over the news.