hypochondriac

I'm not sure he was intending to shock. I think he genuinely believed what he said.

Who said otherwise? I literally said that the killings were completely different. Some were arguing that the actions of Charlie Kirk increased his risk of being killed. The same is true of other people who have been killed including George Floyd. I don't hold either of them responsible for their murders.

He had some views that could be described as extreme. Still doesn't deserve to be shot though.

I think you're arguing with yourself. There's also deranged people in the police too.

The deaths are very different. My point is that if you're going to say-as some on here have-that Charlie Kirk increased his risk of death due to his views and associations with controversial people, then you can say similar about Floyd. To be clear I think both were murdered and I don't agree with either view about Charlie and George

I don't think he'll be in charge for the next election -something that was inconceivable when they got in.

Clearly the more crimes you commit and the more you associate yourself with a world of criminality then I'm sure you bring the odds down. Associating with criminals and drugs is dangerous. I'm not sure why that's a controversial view.

Tyler Robinson apparently.

Agreed. You can bet your life if it had been a figure on the left gunned down you'd be getting the same twattish responses from some on the other side. It's wrong and it doesn't matter what the politics of the person is. We can all agree that shit like this should be condemmed.

More than anyone, if Bazunu fucks up then the fans won't forget it. I agree, McCarthy in may be smarter.

Is this confirmed ?

A red and white storm sweeping out the fishy few.

His career choices and associations increased the risk.

Some speculation it's this guy

In general none of them are all that different. The problem for labour is that they made a big thing about how different they were and have now showed that they very much aren't.

What's your thoughts on the fact that aligning yourself with a controversial high profile figure puts you at genuine risk in America of being shot and killed?

So he brought it on himself?

That sounds a bit like you're blaming him for his assassination I assume you don't mean that.

Not really. He was a very prominent Conservative figure. Some people believe that speech they view as controversial is violence and needs to be combatted- violently if necessary. He was an ally of Trump and some people believe he is the equivalent of Hitler. From their perspective why would you not want to kill an acolyte of the next Hitler?

In context that makes complete sense.

Unless the gunman didn't care if their motives were known or even wanted them to be known. All speculation at present I grant you.

It pisses me off when he adds a laughing emoji on one I've put. It's like some horrible endorsement.

Anti fascist symbols alongside transgender rhetoric is often something seen from an adherent of the far left. If nothing else, if this does turn out to be true then the type of person who thinks that killing the likes of Charlie Kirk is in some way fighting fascism is undoubtedly a far left extremist. No sane person thinks Charlie Kirk is a fascist. Yes I had considered the possibility it was planted and was a false flag operation, hence my reply to whelk a bit lower down. I didn't say it was definitely someone on the far left, simply that the evidence was currently pointing in that direction but that can obviously change once more facts are known.

I really don't understand why people keep trying to equate the two things. They aren't really the same thing at all.

Should have sprayed it red.