More on cray right response to Kirk killing

5 views
Skip to first unread message

kan...@aol.com

unread,
Sep 12, 2025, 6:56:09 PM (10 days ago) Sep 12
to Kansas City Diversity Coalition
https://www.vox.com/politics/461254/charlie-kirk-shooting-trump-radical-left-violence


These two  posts go a long way to explaining how unhinged crazy rightists can be. When a distinguished member of your own party trashes the MAGA response, it's time to listen. 
Bravo to Thom Tillis for speaking out on this. 
He sounds like a Democrat. 

Brian Kegerreis

unread,
Sep 13, 2025, 11:30:19 AM (10 days ago) Sep 13
to kansas-city-div...@googlegroups.com
It isnt the killing of Kirk thats inciting wat, its the celebration of his death on the left that is. The message is now clear. The left loves political violence when it suits them. This isnt new to the democrats. Its been their modus operandi since 1856. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kansas City Diversity Coalition" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kansas-city-diversity...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/1724d7b2-246f-432e-8653-706220b8d25an%40googlegroups.com.
Message has been deleted

CL

unread,
Sep 13, 2025, 9:53:34 PM (9 days ago) Sep 13
to kansas-city-div...@googlegroups.com
(From a Facebook post I can't share directly)
I saw this comment and thought it illustrates beautifully how one person can know some things about a person like Charlie Kirk and another can be missing that information completely. We live in a world where different media access cuts us off from information.
"This post reinforced something I believe to be true of T supporters as well - so many of them havent seen or heard his bizarre stuff It doesnt excuse anything but it certainly explains much
From Kelly Mohr
One thing that has become really clear since yesterday is that we live in at least two different realities. Talking to a friend who only knew Charlie as a Christian motivational speaker because that's all that ever came across her feed. Showed me videos I've never seen before of him saying perfectly reasonable and empowering things.
I showed her videos she'd never seen before of his racism, misogyny, homophobia, advocating for violence against specific groups of people. She was horrified by his remarks about Pelosi's husband's attacker being bailed out and celebrated for his violent act. She was horrified by a number of things that he said, but she had never seen or heard them before, the same as I had never seen or heard the generalized clips of him sounding like a perfectly nice loving man and father.
Neither of us had a whole picture of this man. I mentioned he was a known white supremacist and she thought I was joking. She talked about him giving a speech about finding your purpose and doing good in the world and I thought she was joking.
I saw why this friend was mourning the loss of a person she thought was a good person. My friend, bless her, saw why I feel the way I do about him. We understood each other better. In spite of a multi-billion dollar internet machine specifically focused on keeping us apart. Because we talked to each other with the desire to listen and to learn rather than the desire to change someone else's mind or to be "right".
None of those motivational things he said change my opinion about him because they don't erase the negativity, the subtle calls for violence, the belittling and denigrating of other races religions genders etc. His negative and blaming comments about homeless people, the poor, and victims of domestic violence. His comments about rounding up people who didn't think like him and putting them in camps where their behavior could be corrected. That time he said empathy was a made-up word he didn't believe in. That other time he said the Civil Rights Act was a mistake. The time he said most people are afraid when they get on a plane and see that there's a black pilot. His anti-vaccination rhetoric and his active campaigning against people being allowed to wear masks for their own health. His open support of fascism and white supremacy. To me, all of those are fully unchristian sentiments. Those are undeniable and just one of them would be a deal-breaker for me. All of them together are a picture of a man who was polarizing, enraged a lot of people and rightly so, but even with all of that I would never wish upon him or especially his children the end that he got.
Oh, and my friend had never heard, and God help me I don't know how she escaped the news, but she had never heard of the Minnesota legislators who were shot in June. The husband and wife and dog who were killed, one after throwing themselves over their child to protect the child. The other couple who somehow survived. Politically motivated attacks specifically because they were democrats. She learned about those shootings that happened months ago because I showed her Charlie Kirk's comments about them. The kidnapping plot against a female Midwestern Democratic governor. The assassination attempt against Pennsylvania's democratic governor. All things Charlie had plenty to say about while supporting the Second Amendment and bashing the Democratic party. She didn't know about any of it because we're all living in two different worlds and none of us have the whole story."


kan...@aol.com

unread,
Sep 13, 2025, 10:20:27 PM (9 days ago) Sep 13
to Kansas City Diversity Coalition
Nice post, CL. Keep putting stuff on this site. 
The rightists, to a GREAT extent, live in an echo chamber. Here information is distilled, filtered and edited to fit a certain pre-determined narrative. It is then put on social media platforms where it gets amplified and widely disseminated. Your friend is a victim of this perverted version of reality. Maybe you'll be able to open her eyes to an extent. It's worth the effort. 

CL

unread,
Sep 13, 2025, 10:47:05 PM (9 days ago) Sep 13
to 'kan...@aol.com' via Kansas City Diversity Coalition
People who don’t know better are praising Charlie Kirk for his willingness to engage in honest “debate.” It was exactly the opposite, a show, a scam.
Kirk’s style of debate was characterized by a mix of rapid-fire talking, strategic manipulation of discussion settings, and the use of various logical fallacies to create the illusion of winning arguments. His debates were structured to favor his success, especially in campus settings where he debated unprepared students. Here are key points about his debate style, strategies, and fallacies.
Debate Strategies:
Kirk frequently debated younger, less experienced individuals, often students who were unprepared, which gave him an upper hand since he came well-prepared with talking points and fast delivery.
He talked rapidly, overwhelming opponents with multiple points at once, making it impossible to respond to every claim. This allowed Kirk to claim victory if only one of his assertions was challenged, implying agreement with the rest.
His debates were curated or edited for social media to highlight moments that made him appear more successful.
He picked easy targets rather than equally skilled or expert debaters.
He interrupted opponents and used attention-grabbing statements aimed more at going viral than fostering meaningful dialogue.
His focus was more on “beating” opponents rather than engaging in genuine, insightful discussion.
His public debates were part of a media strategy to cultivate a viral audience through sensationalized conflict.
Logical Fallacies and Debate Tactics:
He used “moving the goalposts” by shifting criteria to avoid conceding points.
Employed “appeal to consequences,” arguing something must be false because of alleged negative outcomes.
Used “argument from incredulity,” rejecting evidence simply because he personally found it hard to believe.
Demonstrated “red herrings” and distraction techniques, steering arguments away from the original point.
Displayed “argument from ignorance,” asserting claims as true because they haven’t been proven false.
His reasoning involved circular logic or misrepresenting opponent’s ideas to make them easier to attack.
He used selective quoting of debunked or inaccurate studies as facts without allowing time for verification.
Resorted to dismissing opponents’ points by focusing on feelings or personal incredulity rather than evidence.
His debating style included provoking emotional reactions and then portraying his opponents as unreasonable or unhinged.
He also relied on confident tone and self-promotion to dominate conversations even when arguments lacked substantive depth.
Manipulation of the Debate Environment:
He chose issues that are politically and ethically charged (e.g., abortion, immigration) to heighten emotional responses.
His events were staged in a way that disadvantaged his opponents, such as open mic formats targeting unprepared passersby.
Content was heavily curated to emphasize moments that support his narrative and portrayal as a winning debater.
He exerted control over which parts of debates got shared, influencing public perception.
His approach was argumentative performance rather than genuine discourse.
Charlie Kirk’s debate style was aggressive, theatrical, and focused on winning by dominating the pace and framing of the discussion. He employed several logical fallacies and tactics that manipulated
the debate environment to create an appearance of intellectual superiority and victory, rather than fostering open, respectful, and evidence-based conversation.

===========================================================
"Turning Point USA (TPUSA) is an Illinois-based right-wing student organization founded by Charlie Kirk in 2012. The organization's stated mission is to "identify educate, train, and organize students to promote the principles of freedom, free markets, and limited government." From 2016 through 2019, TPUSA was connected to many controversial incidents including problematic comments by TPUSA spokespeople or activists, TPUSA spokespeople appearing alongside extremists at events or on their shows, TPUSA activists making racist or bigoted social media posts, texts or statements, and connections between TPUSA members or activists and known extremists or extremist groups."
https://extremismterms.adl.org/.../turning-point-usa-tpusa "Several weeks after the 2024 presidential election, Charlie Kirk, founder and president of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), proudly embraced a white nationalist conspiracy theory while celebrating then-President-elect Donald Trump’s plans for mass deportation.
Kirk accused Democrats of embracing immigration as part of their plot to secure voters, permit crime and enact the “great replacement.” He warned his hundreds of thousands of listeners, “We native born Americans are being replaced by foreigners.” He then promised Trump will “liberate” the country from “the enemy occupation of the foreigner hordes.”
Charlie Kirk’s TPUSA is a well-funded, hard-right organization with links to Southern Poverty Law Center-identified hard-right extremists and a tremendous amount of influence in conservative politics. While the group was previously dismissed by key figures within the Republican National Committee (RNC), Trump attended several TPUSA events across the country throughout 2024, and several of his nominees have ties to the organization. Turning Point Action, the group’s sister 501(c)(4) organization, led Trump’s 2024 campaign efforts in key battleground states and played a vital role in the election of far-right candidates in Arizona, while TPUSA participated on the advisory board of Project 2025, a blueprint to radically reshape the federal government."
"Charlie Kirk built himself into the face of a conservative youth movement through Turning Point USA (TPUSA). Behind the branding of “patriotism” and “freedom,” the record shows a pattern of rhetoric, organizational culture, and alliances that echoed white supremacist and Christian nationalist ideologies. The Southern Poverty Law Center documented how TPUSA repeatedly framed immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, and racial justice advocates as existential threats to “white Christian America,” warning followers that their families, religion, and entire way of life were under attack. In later years, Kirk openly embraced Christian nationalist language, claiming that liberty was only possible with a Christian population—a narrative tying freedom to demographic dominance, a cornerstone of supremacist logic (SPLC).
On race, Kirk was blunt and dismissive. He denied the existence of systemic racism, called white privilege a “racist idea,” and vilified critical race theory as dangerous indoctrination. In one speech, he called George Floyd a “scumbag,” showing open contempt for a man whose death triggered a national reckoning on race and policing (WHYY). These rhetorical choices were not accidental—they functioned as a political strategy to delegitimize Black pain and deny the realities of structural racism in America.
Inside TPUSA, the culture reflected the same hostility. A New Yorker investigation described the workplace as “difficult … and rife with tension, some of it racial.” One African American staffer reported being the only person of color when hired in 2014, only to be fired on Martin Luther King Jr. Day. The organization’s then–national field director, Crystal Clanton, was exposed for texting, “I hate black people. … End of story.” TPUSA claimed it acted after the texts surfaced, but the damage was undeniable—the rot reached the top (New Yorker).
Kirk’s movement also courted or tolerated figures openly tied to the far right. Political Research Associates documented cases where TPUSA chapters hosted or aligned with Nick Fuentes and his white nationalist followers. Kirk’s allies relied on antisemitic tropes, praising authoritarianism in Israel while denouncing “liberal Jews” in the United States (PRA). TPUSA severed ties when public exposure threatened its reputation, but the repeated associations revealed how far Kirk was willing to go in pursuit of influence.
The mainstream press tracked this trajectory. The Guardian reported that Kirk’s rhetoric increasingly mirrored white supremacist and authoritarian themes, while campus watchdog groups chronicled repeated incidents of racist, homophobic, and transphobic speech at TPUSA events (Guardian; AAUP). This was not about “a few bad apples.” It was a culture, nurtured by leadership, that normalized bigotry and dressed it up as “truth-telling.”
The evidence remains overwhelming: Kirk and TPUSA did not need to wear hoods or wave Confederate flags to advance the logic of white supremacy. By denying systemic racism, vilifying movements for justice, and legitimizing extremists, Kirk and his organization reinforced the architecture of racial dominance in America. That was the through line of his political project. He positioned himself as a defender of liberty, but the liberty he envisioned was conditional—anchored in whiteness, Christianity, and exclusion. His legacy is not simply conservatism. It is a record of advancing ideas and practices that aligned with white supremacy, even if he never wore the label himself.
The deepest irony of Kirk’s legacy came in the manner of his death. In 2023, he declared that “it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights,” framing gun deaths as a tragic but acceptable price for liberty (Wikipedia). Two years later, he was killed by gunfire at one of his own public events (AP News). His own words came back in the most devastating way, embodying the very cost he had justified. For critics, this was not just irony but a brutal illustration of how the normalization of preventable violence eventually consumes even its defenders. For supporters, his death was framed as tragic but consistent with the risks of freedom. Yet the broader truth remains: when a society accepts death as the “price” of a constitutional right, it abandons any serious effort to build policies that protect life alongside liberty. Kirk’s fate exposed the hollowness of his argument. He did not just preach the acceptance of gun deaths as a cost of freedom—he became that cost.
Kirk’s death by gunfire was not just a personal tragedy; it was a symbolic collision of the two pillars of his politics: a defense of white supremacy and an unflinching devotion to unfettered gun rights. He spent his career denying systemic racism while building a movement that normalized bigotry and courted extremists. At the same time, he insisted that preventable deaths were an acceptable cost of preserving the Second Amendment. In the end, the violence he rationalized and the racial fear he amplified converged in his own fate. That is the legacy he leaves behind—a stark reminder that when a nation tolerates racism and violence as the “price of liberty,” both become self-perpetuating forces that consume even their champions."
"There are so many words and cliches condemning the killing of Charles James Kirk, and none of the refrains are unique.
“We need to dial back our discourse”, “we need to be tolerant of different opinions,” and “there is no room in American politics for political violence.”
Are people blind to the realities that have been swirling all around us? The language has been violent. The discord has been great. There has been a consistent invitation to dine at the table of heated racist discussion posing as legitimate political speech.
The killing of Charlie Kirk fits within this arena of speech that is racist and hate-filled, but is designed to pose as rational and logical political speech.
In his rhetoric and so-called debate style this 31-year-old evangelical firebrand of the right has stated that Black pilots were incompetent, Gays should be stoned, ironically he was opposed to gun control, abortion, LGBTQ rights, criticized the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Martin Luther King Jr., promoted Christian nationalism, advanced COVID-19 misinformation, made false claims of electoral fraud in 2020, and was a proponent of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory.
Born in Chicago’s northwest suburbs, Kirk infused politics with racial innuendo and rhetorically violated the safety and security of Black people and other people of color, and the LGBTQIA community. He perverted the history of race and racism in America, attempted to legitimize the nation as a white bastion of civilization and Christianity, and, in general, perfected the use of racial and hateful language — molding it into a form of acceptable and legitimate political debate and viewpoint.
But the legitimate debate aspect was far from legitimate historical benign speech, nor was it nonviolent in character. In fact, it touched all of the refrains of the vile language of the past that resulted far too many times in lynchings and other forms of racial violence and upheaval.
Don’t get me wrong, I am sorry for the death and killing of Charlie Kirk. I have stood over many coffins of people I did not agree with and said words of comfort to the families during my 40-plus years of ministry. In doing so, I have looked at a person’s life to find something to say about their character, worthiness, and contributions they have made in their lifetime. Sometimes the task is easier than at other times.
As I look at the life of Kirk, he was a husband, a father, and what else I do not know. He had friends, I am sure. He played a significant role in his connection with his community that was personal and also collective.
But the problem I would have in affirming this life at an end-of-life ceremony is that he evidently did not care in his living about the security and comfort of others. He did not show empathy. Whether he believed what he espoused, or it was simply a marketing ploy for influence and money, I don’t know, and no one will ever know for sure. But Charlie Kirk expanded hatred, marketed the vile speech of old racism in new wineskins, and further jeopardized the lives and security of others.
The right wing is working hard to make a political martyr of him. The President has ordered flags to be flown at half-mast ahead of any remembrance of 9-11. Donald Trump talked about lowering the temperature of the political language that is used, but in the next breath criticized “the radical left” for castigating the hate language of Kirk.
If we are going to be truthful in this moment, the hate that Kirk put out came back on him, and the violent political language that continues to fly in this country will continue to manifest itself in ways where we will continually be praying for victims and their families."
"Charlie Kirk initially made his name by being the most obnoxious of the “debate me” bros. As far as titles go, it’s like winning “Most Stinky” at the Litter Box Olympics, but Republicans love men who are the worst, so it turned him into an overnight MAGA star. Kirk, who wanted to seem like a young and “hip” Republican when he started out, claimed in 2016 to have a “secular worldview.” Two years later, he criticized older Republicans for ignoring the “separation of church and state.” His organization, Turning Point USA, cited their values as “fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government.”
More recently, however, Kirk and TPUSA have undergone a dramatic Christian right makeover. As NBC News reported, he has “become one of the nation’s most prominent voices calling on Christians to view conservative political activism as central to Jesus’ calling for their lives.” By 2022, he was falsely claiming the separation of church and state is “a fabrication” made up by “secular humanists.” (In fact, it was “made up” by Thomas Jefferson.)
Kirk’s commitment to theocracy isn’t half-baked. He believes in the Christian nationalist concept of the Seven Mountains Mandate, which calls on far-right Christians to control not just all government, but media, business and education. This idea drove many of the rioters to the Capitol on Jan. 6, where some displayed Appeal to Heaven flags to demonstrate their belief in total Christian right domination."
There are many reasons that Kirk underwent this change. Religious fanaticism is central to Donald Trump’s base of support; the Capitol insurrection was evidence of this. And while the religious right has steered Republicans for decades, the situation grew worse during Joe Biden’s presidency, as right-wing media churned out ever-more-radical content denouncing LGBTQ rights and women’s equality. By starting Turning Point Faith in 2021, Kirk was hopping on the “trad” trend. He denounced the “LGBTQ agenda,” and equated homosexuality with “grooming” children for sexual abuse. (He said this while partnering with a pastor who did time in federal prison for attempted “coercion and enticement” of a minor for sex.) He has called on women to forgo education and careers so they can instead focus on being submissive housewives.
But another reason is deeply rooted in the history of white evangelicalism: Racism. Kirk, like decades of Christian right leaders before him, has found that loudly proclaiming your faith is an effective way to whitewash overt bigotry against people of color. And he has much to answer for when it comes to race-baiting. As Ali Breland of Mother Jones reported in 2024, Kirk has “hosted far-right and white supremacist figures on his podcast and has tweeted in support of whiteness, earning praise from white supremacists.”
This isn’t by accident, either. Kirk routinely expresses his own racist views. He suggested Black pilots are unqualified. He blamed a Black fire chief in Austin, Texas, for flooding deaths that occurred a three-hour drive away from the city. He denounced the passage of the 1965 Civil Rights Act and tried to discredit the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as “awful” and “not a good person.”
Last month, Kirk devoted a chunk of his podcast to honoring the influential evangelical pastor John MacArthur, who passed away on July 14 at the age of 86. Kirk called him “one of the most influential Protestant minds since the Reformation,” and a “legend” who “never bowed to the gods of this age” and “never apologized for Scripture.” Soaring language — but it’s a euphemism. One of MacArthur’s most famous old-fashioned beliefs was that slavery was godly."






Craig Lubow



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kansas City Diversity Coalition" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kansas-city-diversity...@googlegroups.com.

CL

unread,
Sep 13, 2025, 11:33:39 PM (9 days ago) Sep 13
to 'CL' via Kansas City Diversity Coalition
MAGA world flies into panic mode as the grandmother of Charlie Kirk's suspected assassin Tyler Robinson reveals that his entire family is hardcore MAGA.
The Republican narrative has collapsed in record time...
“My son, his dad, is a Republican for Trump. Most of my family members are Republican. I don’t know any single one who’s a Democrat," the suspect's grandmother Debbie Robinson told The Daily Mail.
“I’m just so confused. [Tyler] is the shyest person. He has never, ever spoke politics to me at all," she added.
The Daily Beast reported that both of Robinson's parents are registered Republicans who hold hunting licenses. They appear to be run-of-the-mill conservative gun nuts.
In the immediate aftermath of Kirk's assassination, Republicans rushed to blame Democrats. Donald Trump pointed a finger at the "radical left" and MAGA influencers, including Donald Trump Jr., gleefully embraced the false narrative that the shooter was transgender.
We now know that the alleged shooter was a 22-year-old white Mormon man from Utah. It seems increasingly likely that he was a far-right supporter of the white nationalist Nick Fuentes. The engravings on the bullets found appear to be references to memes popular within Fuentes's "groyper" movement. Groypers despised Charlie Kirk because he wasn't right-wing enough for their taste and they believe that he sold out the "America First" movement.
One bullet was engraved with the phrase “Hey fascist! Catch!" but it does not appear to be a left-wing "antifa" message as Republicans originally claimed. Instead, it seems to be a reference to a satirical slogan in the popular video game Helldivers 2. Video games are a crucial cornerstone of the bizarre groyper worldview, along with misogyny and racism.
In the coming days we will no doubt learn more about this twisted shooter and his hateful beliefs but we cannot allow Republicans to slink away without taking responsibility for their lies. Yesterday, they were promising now civil war. Now that it appears the shooter was one of their own, they want to move on.
We must hold them accountable. The shooter is not transgender, is not a Democrat, and is not an immigrant. He's an unstable homegrown white man with access to firearms. America's gun violence problem is a Republican problem.


Craig Lubow



Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
Message has been deleted
0 new messages