hypochondriac

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.

I'm pretty sure whelk would consider the murder unacceptable.

Charlie Kirk is a more interesting case than most because as far as I'm aware all he ever did was talk to people. He had some views that people disagreed with or don't like but nothing that ever deserved violence or any sort of physical confrontation in response.

Maybe the evidence will eventually point that way but it seems less plausible imo.

In general I don't believe anyone should be held responsible for someone else committing violence even if they've used inflammatory language. The likes of Hassan Piker on the far left have said some abhorrent things but he's not responsible for whoever has killed Charlie Kirk. If you are in the business of ascribing blame to others though then in this case the evidence suggests you should be looking at speech on the other side of the spectrum.

I find it difficult to believe that the fbi don't know the suspect they are looking for. I expect they will release a name at some point if he isn't found.

Writing about transgenders and anti-fascist on bullets does rather suggest it is from someone who subscribes to far left ideology. That could turn out to be wrong of course but it seems the most likely conclusion given the available evidence so far.

I'd say that on the face of it it was the dangerous rhetoric on the other side of the political spectrum that has had some impact on this shooting given that it appears to have been carried out by someone on the far left.