[RD] Charlie Kirk assassinated

[Sommerswerd]

Why, there's this fellow, e.g.

Post in thread 'Zohran Mamdani'

Jul 5, 2025

MAGA will echo on without Trump, but it is all Trump and its power dies with him.

Future fascists will need a new four letter acronym for their red banner. spqr

I disagree, especially if the Democrats choose folks like Mamdani and AOC to be the standard bearers. Some of the pillars of Trump's brand are anti-diversity, anti-immigrant, anti-foreigner, white-nationalist, Christian-evangelical... Having someone like Mamdani become transcendent in the Democratic party will fuel that fire, because he will represent to MAGA supporters what all those pillars are against.

More and more...

• Sommerswerd

• 

Yeah, Search only gives ten pages of results. (But Advanced search lets you specify before a particular date, so I just used before 9/9). So, apologies everyone. Now I gotta go see what we did say about him before he was shot. And whether it constituted an anti-Kirk "movement."

Well... interestingly, in that post of mine you found/quoted, I identified Kirk specifically as an example of what you and I continually disagree on, namely, whether there is someone who can take over MAGA effectively in Trump's stead.

Even puting Vance aside, the Republicans have plenty of folks who could step in to lead a MAGA resurgence if Vance were to lose, or win, then lose re-election (like Papa Bush did). Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Brett Favre, Dennis Quaid, Danica Patrick, Aaron Rodgers, Kid Rock, Mel Gibson, Dean Cain, Charlie Kirk... the Republicans have plenty of big names that could easily glom onto Trump's mantle and ride it into elected office.

On a related note, Trump himself recently stated explicitly that he regarded Kirk as someone who would have potentially succeeded him as President.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Well... interestingly, in that post of mine you found/quoted, I identified Kirk specifically as an example of what you and I continually disagree on, namely, whether there is someone who can take over MAGA effectively in Trump's stead.

Right, and it turns out you were wrong: Charlie Kirk is not someone who will be able to take over for Trump.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Nope.
That Charlie Kirk can no longer take over for Trump does not make you correct that:
1. He wasn't previously capable of assuming Trump's mantle.
2. There is no one capable of assuming Trump's mantle.

EDIT: Your above post originally said that "you were correct" that Kirk would not take over for Trump rather than saying that "I was incorrect" that Kirk was someone who would be able to take over for Trump. Either way, Kirk's death does not and cannot establish that he would not have been able to take over, but-for his death.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I know. Only time will reveal that.

But as an indicator, Rush had 15 million listeners; his replacements 9.7 million.

Your above post originally said that "you were correct" that Kirk would not take over for Trump rather than saying that "I was incorrect" that Kirk was someone who would be able to take over for Trump.

Yeah, I know. It's more fun to call you wrong than to call me correct, so I made the change in phrasing.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Rush was never elected POTUS, nor did he even run... so its an apples to oranges comparison in some ways.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Meh.

In both cases the point has to do with their popularity being connected to a particular, irreproducible charisma.

I'm not saying the next R candidate will drop off by that same ratio, since some people will just always vote R; there's a floor.

But it's an indicator.

What if whoever steps in for Charlie Kirk sees a similar dip? Then will you start to believe in this principle?

 

[EnglishEdward]

Well... interestingly, in that post of mine you found/quoted, I identified Kirk specifically as an example of what you and I continually disagree on, namely, whether there is someone who can take over MAGA effectively in Trump's stead.

On a related note, Trump himself recently stated explicitly that he regarded Kirk as someone who would have potentially succeeded him as President.

One of the Donald's better speeches.

 

[Thera32]

I'm trying to find info on his ratings.

In July, his podcast was rated fifth, mostly after some NPR programming in active weekly downloads, but with no figures given.

Turning Point itself says half a million downloads per day all of 2024.

So he does seem to have been meaningful to the right even before his death.

In the course of my investigation, I turned up this


And I bet, if they sorted it, it was almost all "misleading," rather than flat out "false."

Audible reckoning: How top political podcasters spread unsubstantiated and false claims | Brookings

This report chronicles the spread of unsubstantiated and false content by some of the U.S.’s most prominent political podcasters, with audiences often reaching into the millions.

www.brookings.edu

Lead by conservatise podcaster of course, no source if the killer had listened to any of these, likely heard of kirk from his "debates"?

 

[danjuno]

Why, there's this fellow, e.g.

Post in thread 'Zohran Mamdani'

Jul 5, 2025

MAGA will echo on without Trump, but it is all Trump and its power dies with him.

Future fascists will need a new four letter acronym for their red banner. spqr

I disagree, especially if the Democrats choose folks like Mamdani and AOC to be the standard bearers. Some of the pillars of Trump's brand are anti-diversity, anti-immigrant, anti-foreigner, white-nationalist, Christian-evangelical... Having someone like Mamdani become transcendent in the Democratic party will fuel that fire, because he will represent to MAGA supporters what all those pillars are against.

More and more...

• Sommerswerd

• 

Yeah, Search only gives ten pages of results. (But Advanced search lets you specify before a particular date, so I just used before 9/9). So, apologies everyone. Now I gotta go see what we did say about him before he was shot. And whether it constituted an anti-Kirk "movement."

Edit: Ok, in this forum (Off Topic), in the year before his being shot, Charlie Kirk was mentioned in ten posts, for statements he made on his podcasts or at his events. Each post was discrete, and simply mentioned the Kirk comment in question without commentary. No post in which he was mentioned garnered more than a single reply. So I'll stand by my initial claim that there has been no "anti-Kirk movement" on this site. He just occasionally made news (He's the one responsible, for example, for saying that Haitians were eating the pets of people in Springfield OH) and that news got reported here.

Why am I not surprised? This guy dedicated his life to inciting violence against minorities, yet people on this site fall all over themselves defending him.

 

[Kaitzilla]

The Charlie Kirk service is today.
CNN is expecting 100,000 to show up.
Trump has left the White House to join it.

Here are the live updates:

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/charlie-kirk-funeral-09-21-25

It will be purely ceremonial I think?
They won't bury him at the 50 yard line.

Security will be higher than The Super Bowl.
Maybe?
Hard to tell with USA#1 sometimes.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Why am I not surprised? This guy dedicated his life to inciting violence against minorities, yet people on this site fall all over themselves defending him.

He was doing what they wish they could

 

[Gori the Grey]

yet people on this site fall all over themselves defending him

Well, but prior to this thread, though, there was nobody defending him either. We just were barely talking about him at all, is my point.

 

[Theov]

Well, but prior to this thread, though, there was nobody defending him either. We just were barely talking about him at all, is my point.

my original point (where this whole discussion started) was that there was a movement against Charlie Kirk. A movement of hate that ultimately led to his death.

I pointed to this thread as an example - to show how people had been conditioned to hate the guy.

But of course that was mis-read as "this thread was a movement" which... do I really have to explain this?... wasn't my point.

 

[danjuno]

Well, but prior to this thread, though, there was nobody defending him either. We just were barely talking about him at all, is my point.

My initial response was to the bolded part, the latter part was referring to this thread, not about whether there was prior discussion of him on here.

 

[Gori the Grey]

my original point (where this whole discussion started) was that there was a movement against Charlie Kirk. A movement of hate that ultimately led to his death.

I pointed to this thread as an example - to show how people had been conditioned to hate the guy.

But of course that was mis-read as "this thread was a movement" which... do I really have to explain this?... wasn't my point.

I think I would contest this even on these terms. I don't know of any anti-Kirk "movement."

Certainly the shooter was not part of any movement. He was a single guy who didn't like one part of Kirk's message because of his own life situation. The person closest to him, and who might have had the greatest personal grounds for disliking Kirk, was never informed of his intentions until after the event. Some "movement." Can one person be a movement?

Nobody here was "conditioned" to hate the guy. Most of the respondents here had to look up what his message was. He'd been mentioned here ten times in the preceding year with no hate expressed toward him. No prior "conditioning" about him.

Can people reject his message quickly once they learn what it is? Yes. That doesn't bespeak a "movement," though, or "conditioning" or "hate." Just rejection of a hateful message.

 

[danjuno]

I think I would contest this even on these terms. I don't know of any anti-Kirk "movement."

Certainly the shooter was not part of any movement. He was a single guy who didn't like one part of Kirk's message because of his own life situation. The person closest to him, and who might have had the greatest personal grounds for disliking Kirk, was never informed of his intentions until after the event. Some "movement." Can one person be a movement?

Nobody here was "conditioned" to hate the guy. Most of the respondents here had to look up what his message was. He'd been mentioned here ten times in the preceding year with no hate expressed toward him. No prior "conditioning" about him.

Can people reject his message quickly once they learn what it is? Yes. That doesn't bespeak a "movement," though, or "conditioning" or "hate." Just rejection of a hateful message.

I'm curious how many free speech defenders in this thread were upset by the reports of murder Kirk and co. incited?

 

[Birdjaguar]

For evangelical Christians, non evangelicals are for the most part irrelevant until they speak out against the fundamental talking points evangelicals hold dear. Their indifference quickly turns to disrespect and punishment. Christian love is only for those who adhere to and support evangelical causes. Christian Nationalism is rooted in racism and white superiority. Charlie Kirk masked his extremist views behind his slick presentations of fake caring. Remember, to him empathy was a sin.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I was not upset, but I regard the murder of Charlie Kirk as disappointingly but not entirely unpredictable bad news, primarily because it threatens to accelerate the culture war.

I will not pretend to see into the heart of the accused and state what motivated him; upon that point I await enlightenment from the progress of the trial.

 

[Akka]

my original point (where this whole discussion started) was that there was a movement against Charlie Kirk. A movement of hate that ultimately led to his death.

I don't see any "movement" about Charlie Kirk. It's not because a lot of people have a bad opinion on someone that they are part of a "movement". It's not because someone acted on his opinion about someone that people sharing his opinions become part of a "movement" either.
It takes quite a bit more than that for a "movement" to exists.

Was there a campaign with followers about how to shut him up ? (maybe there was, I didn't heard about him before he was killed, so I did hear about people against him even less, obviously)

 

[Birdjaguar]

There is a good article in the NYTs today about Kirk's wife. It is quite long. The most interesting gem from it is how Trump met Erika Kirk (before they were married).

For Erika Kirk, a Husband’s Life Cut Short by Violence He Seemed to Foresee​

In an interview, the wife of the conservative activist Charlie Kirk said she had implored him to wear a bulletproof vest. But she sees divine work in his death.

She has also received a vote of confidence from President Trump, who has called her twice since the shooting. The two have known each other since 2012, when Mr. Trump was running the Miss USA beauty pageants and she was Miss Arizona.

“Charlie was like a son to him,” Ms. Kirk said. “And when the president said, ‘Just let us know how we can support you,’ I told him, ‘My husband just loved conversing with you and using you as a sounding board for all sorts of things. Could we continue that?’ And he said, ‘Of course.’”

The president’s tone, she said, “was soft and embracing. I could tell he wanted to hug me.”

For Erika Kirk, a Husband’s Life Cut Short by Violence He Seemed to Foresee

In an interview, the wife of the conservative activist Charlie Kirk said she had implored him to wear a bulletproof vest. But she sees divine work in his death.

www.nytimes.com

Side note about the 2012 Miss USA pageant: For the first time, a question was solicited from Twitter for the final question asked of one of the five finalists. That question picked by the pageant organizers - "Would you feel it would be fair that a transgender woman wins the Miss USA title over a natural-born woman?" - was answered by the winner, Culpo