Let's have a conversation

[Nostra]

Trump vows to nominate a woman for US supreme court vacancy within a week

President says he has ‘obligation’ to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

www.theguardian.com

Trump’s pick is smart enough to know what a woman is.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Back to a point where it didn't assassinate people for their political views.

When was that?

List of assassinated American politicians - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Presidency: Abraham Lincoln, 1865. We haven't had a US president assassinated successfully since 1963.

Congress, the first was in 1861, the last was in 1980

Governors, 1847 was the first, 1905 the last

1815 was the first state legislator. 2025 was the last (not in this article though).

So, we're looking at 1776 to 1815 where no politicians were assassinated in the US. That was 40 years. At least recorded.

 

[Nostra]

The problem with what he was doing, as far as I can tell, was that he was going to these events super prepared, and he was debating with people who weren't.

Then he was pushing his view point.

He was very good at controlling the narrative running through his "debates"

For example, 3:21 in he starts talking to a girl.

She asks a question about "democracy", he says "where is democracy in the US Constitution".

He's not being honest with his debating on this one. He's pushing certain points he thinks he can win with. And he keeps pushing until the girl backs down because she doesn't have the answers. If he were debating with me it'd be a different story, though I do know, from talking to my Mississippian colleague, that it'd still be similar.

For example I brought up a comment that in Mississippi the way education is funded leads to problems. He said "a lot of funding for education comes from the federal govt".

What could I say? I didn't have that information to hand. I had to go look it up days later, turns out it's 16%. Not much at all. So, he said something that wasn't true. I couldn't counter that at that point.

Kirk was pushing things, he was trying to befuddle this girl, rather than pushing for actual debate.

This is where I think people have a problem.

"facts" don't make an argument, just pushing this fact or that fact, doesn't mean someone is right.

How does one prepare for calling people up randomly from a crowd of thousands and let the talk about whatever they want, Simp?

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Back to a point where it didn't assassinate people for their political views.

How are you going to do that?

 

[ChristisKing]

I don't understand...

You act as if you're afraid of him.

They are. That's why they constantly mock him and his death. Read this.

Post in thread 'What Charlie Kirk Said About The Second Amendment'

Sep 16, 2025

The fact it's been over a half an hour and I haven't gotten any snarky comments from the radical left speaks volumes.

• ChristisKing

• 
• 

 

[BackAgain]

The problem with what he was doing, as far as I can tell, was that he was going to these events super prepared, and he was debating with people who weren't.

Then he was pushing his view point.

He was very good at controlling the narrative running through his "debates"

For example, 3:21 in he starts talking to a girl.

She asks a question about "democracy", he says "where is democracy in the US Constitution".

He's not being honest with his debating on this one. He's pushing certain points he thinks he can win with. And he keeps pushing until the girl backs down because she doesn't have the answers. If he were debating with me it'd be a different story, though I do know, from talking to my Mississippian colleague, that it'd still be similar.

For example I brought up a comment that in Mississippi the way education is funded leads to problems. He said "a lot of funding for education comes from the federal govt".

What could I say? I didn't have that information to hand. I had to go look it up days later, turns out it's 16%. Not much at all. So, he said something that wasn't true. I couldn't counter that at that point.

Kirk was pushing things, he was trying to befuddle this girl, rather than pushing for actual debate.

This is where I think people have a problem.

"facts" don't make an argument, just pushing this fact or that fact, doesn't mean someone is right.

What you conveniently choose to ignore that we are not a “democracy” at all. And that’s why it is NOT mentioned in the Constitution.

Like it or not, he helped educate that young woman. Maybe it can now serve to educate you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What a concept!

Yes indeed.

 

[frigidweirdo]

How does one prepare for calling people up randomly from a crowd of thousands and let the talk about whatever they want, Simp?

Pretty simple, you do your homework. It's like going to college and having a test.

You sit with other people and you practice and you practice and you practice.

You memorize loads of the information you need to push your point, you look at other arguments that you know people are going to make (how many college kids are going to come up with unique questions? Not many, if any) and you decide your strategy for dealing with that.

Having been talking about politics on the internet since the Columbine High School shooting, I've learned a lot, and I'm prepared for a lot.

However I wouldn't prepare to "win" an argument at any cost, I do this for myself, not for others. But Kirk was prepared, pretty obvious, he had his talking points and knew what to say.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What you conveniently choose to ignore that we are not a “democracy” at all. And that’s why it is NOT mentioned in the Constitution.

Like it or not, he helped educate that young woman. Maybe it can now serve to educate you.

I agree. That wasn't my point.

At the end the girl made a comment about "we're not a democracy, we're a Republic", which was a silly comment. She doesn't know what these words mean, and he didn't say why the US wasn't a democracy, he just said it's not in the Constitution. Doesn't matter if it's in the Constitution or not, it could still be a democracy, and is a "semi-democracy".

But he also didn't attack those who benefit from the US not being a proper democracy.

It was about shutting her up, rather than having that "conversation".

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Your opinion. You're more than welcome to have one. Powerful people using their influence to abolish institutions of learning due their particular ideologies, traditional norms and 'activism', is authoritarianism, IE, fascism.

I don't know, you've been spouting about the right trying to abolish institutions but you actually haven't given any examples or evidence of this. Sounds like your opinion.

But even if true, indoctrinating young people in liberal ideologies is also a form of fascism (I hate that word. You people have overused that one just like you did with "racism"). One of those is the idea that a college education makes them better somehow.

Kirk was confronted many times by students who would arrogantly criticize his lack of college education, that he wasn't a trained biologist and so couldn't understand transgenderism. Problem was, though these students were in college, none of them were studying biology and only knew what they were told about it, the sum of which boiled down to; try not to misgender anyone.

It all started with: Sex is biological but gender is an identity. That's a good start. But then at some point the two became interchangeable. On top of that we ended up with fifty plus genders with their own pronouns and they're still screaming at us and even murdering people over it. It will never end and is why I, personally, don't give a shit anymore.

That's my little screed about transgenderism but the point is, colleges are churning out foaming-at-the-mouth social justice warriors who know virtually nothing about the real world and scream "racist!" if you look at them crosseyed.

 

[TemplarKormac]

When was that?

List of assassinated American politicians - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Presidency: Abraham Lincoln, 1865. We haven't had a US president assassinated successfully since 1963.

Congress, the first was in 1861, the last was in 1980

Governors, 1847 was the first, 1905 the last

1815 was the first state legislator. 2025 was the last (not in this article though).

So, we're looking at 1776 to 1815 where no politicians were assassinated in the US. That was 40 years. At least recorded.

Pretty short list.

But Kirk was not a member of the US government. He was just a public speaker.

However,

45 years since a member of Congress
110 years since a State Governor
210 until a state legislator was this year.
62 years since a president has been assassinated

The common theme?

There has been a period of 45 years where nobody was assassinated for their political views.

All of the most recent assassinations have occurred this year. I fail to see the flaw in my argument.

 

[BackAgain]

I agree. That wasn't my point.

At the end the girl made a comment about "we're not a democracy, we're a Republic", which was a silly comment. She doesn't know what these words mean, and he didn't say why the US wasn't a democracy, he just said it's not in the Constitution. Doesn't matter if it's in the Constitution or not, it could still be a democracy, and is a "semi-democracy".

But he also didn't attack those who benefit from the US not being a proper democracy.

It was about shutting her up, rather than having that "conversation".

You are remarkably unclear. We are not a democracy at all. We are a Constiturional republic, so her revised statement was generally true.

So it’s ok to ask her to take note of the fact that the word democracy isn’t even in our Constitution. For good reason. The Founders and Framers were very intent on avoiding such a thing.

 

[Dr.Destructo]

The problem with what he was doing, as far as I can tell, was that he was going to these events super prepared, and he was debating with people who weren't.

Then he was pushing his view point.

He was very good at controlling the narrative running through his "debates"

For example, 3:21 in he starts talking to a girl.

She asks a question about "democracy", he says "where is democracy in the US Constitution".

He's not being honest with his debating on this one. He's pushing certain points he thinks he can win with. And he keeps pushing until the girl backs down because she doesn't have the answers. If he were debating with me it'd be a different story, though I do know, from talking to my Mississippian colleague, that it'd still be similar.

For example I brought up a comment that in Mississippi the way education is funded leads to problems. He said "a lot of funding for education comes from the federal govt".

What could I say? I didn't have that information to hand. I had to go look it up days later, turns out it's 16%. Not much at all. So, he said something that wasn't true. I couldn't counter that at that point.

Kirk was pushing things, he was trying to befuddle this girl, rather than pushing for actual debate.

This is where I think people have a problem.

"facts" don't make an argument, just pushing this fact or that fact, doesn't mean someone is right.

Like a lot of people who teach, pushing the main point is key factor in debating.

It's not Charlies fault if these people didn't come prepared. Most of them just wanted to be on camera.
Plus, there were a lot of people wanting to ask a question or debate him, and he had to make his answers short and sweet and to the point, so as many people as possible were able to get up to the mic.

 

[leftwinger]

I find it very hard to accept that older people can’t see the scam being perpetrated on us by the elite. We’ve seen the patterns repeated over and over. It’s so obvious to us but they’re still influenced by media propaganda and the myths ingrained in school, and unable to overcome it.

Maybe true? But does not change the fact only one "elite" had plans to fix the broken country and is trying every day to get it done.

You ungrateful children be under 4 more Obiden regime years to fully kill the country if left on your own. You're welcome are the words you "elite" middlers are seeking.

 

[whoisit]

Ahh, very perceptive. Stick around this thread today, you may find it's worth the popcorn.

Thanks for reminding me to have some popcorn.

 

[whoisit]

I think he was a good man, not perfect but tried to help bring back some reality.

 

[whoisit]

Can someone say why they think he was hurting anyone?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Thanks for reminding me to have some popcorn.

You're very welcome!

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

I don't know, you've been spouting about the right trying to abolish institutions but you actually haven't given any examples or evidence of this. Sounds like your opinion.

Valid, but see, my opinions come with receipts.

https://www.nytimes.com/article/trump-university-college.html

President Trump signs executive order to dismantle the Department of Education: What it means for campus safety & the Clery Act

President Trump signed an executive order to dismantle the Department of Education, raising questions about federal education programs, student aid, and civil rights enforcement. This blog explores the implications for the Clery Act, campus safety, and the broader education landscape. Clery...

www.clerycenter.org

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2025/03/23/maga-is-already-rewiring-american-education

But even if true, indoctrinating young people in liberal ideologies is also a form of fascism.

Explain.

(I hate that word. You people have overused that one just like you did with "racism").

You can't seem to converse without making your arguments personal to me, with the 'you people' horseshit. Grow up, you don't ******* know me.

One of those is the idea that a college education makes them better somehow.

Getting an education to improve oneself, thus improving the odds of a better career, life, etc. is perfectly valid.

Kirk was confronted many times by students who would arrogantly criticize his lack of college education, that he wasn't a trained biologist and so couldn't understand transgenderism.

Seems perfectly valid.

Problem was, though these students were in college, none of them were studying biology and only knew what they were told about it, the sum of which boiled down to; try not to misgender anyone.

Opinion.

It all started with: Sex is biological but gender is an identity. That's a good start. But then at some point the two became interchangeable. On top of that we ended up with fifty plus genders with their own pronouns and they're still screaming at us and even murdering people over it. It will never end and is why I, personally, don't give a shit anymore.

I never gave any ***** about that.

That's my little screed about transgenderism but the point is, colleges are churning out foaming-at-the-mouth social justice warriors who know virtually nothing about the real world and scream "racist!" if you look at them crosseyed.

So, it's a mere annoyance that doesn't affect you personally, but you feel it threatens your ideologies, traditional norms, and 'activism'.

 

[ChristisKing]

Can someone say why they think he was hurting anyone?