WDSmart

according to you and a few others like you, nobody else is it not possible to omit the word "extreme"? might make you sound a little less deranged I say "extreme" because of his openly racist, misogynistic, anti-trans, etc. rhetoric. Not all right-wingers agree with all of those positions, at least that's what I hope.

Again, you are not understanding the meanings of words and terms. Being a criminal doesn't mean you're not intelligent or an 'idiot." And being an "idiot" doesn't mean you are, or will be, a criminal.

Yes, I think that should be changed. I believe that to ensure the survival of the Earth and all other plants and animals, humans may need to go extinct, or at least our population needs to be reduced to approximately 10% of its current size. I've written a book about this.

I say "anti-trans" because Kirk was against allowing trans children from getting the gender-affirming transition they want, and their parents and their doctor have agreed to. "Anti-gay" (Did I say that? I should have said anti-LGBTQ+) means someone who believes LGBTQ+ people are deranged and should not be allowed to live their life the way they want. I've seen and even posted on this forum statements from Kirk that show he's anti-Black and demeaning of women. And, yes, I heard and copied these quotes on CNN and online, sites that you would probably believe are leftist. I'm a far-left liberal, so these are the news and sites I watch and visit. I don't think they "doctor" their news, but, really, who knows? I assume you are right-wing and watch and read mostly right-wing sources. How do you know they aren't doctoring what they feed you? I've provided quotes on this and other forums. I've also seen video of clips of his online program in which he says racist and misogynistic things. In any event, Kirk was an extreme right-wing activist. I vehemently disagreed with everything I've heard he believed in. IMO, Robinson thought Kirk's rhetoric was a danger to his trans partner, and he probably also hated other things he said. That, IMO, is Robinson's motive for killing allegedly killing Kirk. And, no, if my "IMOs" are correct, I don't think the killing was justified.

I've numbered your remarks above and will respond to them in them below: 1. Would you feel differently about this incident if Kirk was single and had no children? Or if Robinson was married and a father of kids? 2. Yes, Robinson is accused of actually killing Kirk. IMO, Robinson believed Kirk was a danger to his trans partner and other trans and LGBTQ people. Robinson's statement about this is clear, and he believed Kirk had to be stopped, "I had had enough of his hatred,” Robinson allegedly responded. “Some hate can’t be negotiated out.” 3. I didn't understand this one. IMO, there is no difference between "being a killer" and "killing a family man who committed no crime." I guess a "killer" is a more generic term and could apply to anyone who kills anyone else. I guess you could call that "homicide." Killing someone who has committed no crime" would be called "murder." Again, whether or not the victim was married and had children is, IMO, irrelevant. 4. Kirk's actions that Robinson allegedly thought endangered his trans partner was Kirk's threatening rhetoric to trans people in general. It would be like someone whose wife was Hispanic would be angry at Kirk if he spoke out against all Hispanics. 5. I am stretching, and the equivalence is not an exact equivalence. I have never said that Kirk broke the law when he promoted his racist, misogynistic, anti-trans, anti-LBGTQ, etc., rhetoric. I consider that Free Speech, and he's allowed to do that. Also, I have never said that I thought Robinson was justified in allegedly killing Kirk. He was not. I'm only suggesting what I believe Robinson's motive was. 6. Yes, Robinson is allegedly a killer. Kirk is known to be the father of two, but again, I don't see where that is pertinent to this incident.

No, I'm not sick. I'm a far-left, woke liberal. You, I think, don't choose your words correctly. Robinson's no "dumbo." Everything I've seen and heard about him, including some of his brief written statements, has shown that he's an intelligent individual. And by saying that, I'm not excusing him for the terrible thing he allegedly did. After all, I believe Stalin and Hitler were intelligent men, too. They, like Robinson, used their intelligence in a way that we now consider evil.

I never watched ABC or the Jimmy Kimmel Show, but I frequently saw clips of it on CNN. I am appalled at the Trump government's threat to ABC, and shocked that ABC caved in and complied. All of this is very frightening to me. I seem to see my home country being destroyed every day. I hope we can last until the mid-term elections, in which we will at least have a chance to change the majority in Congress. However, that will only make it more difficult for Trump to do everything he wants to do, or at least slow him down. And, of course, I hope we will elect a Democrat president in the end-of-year 2026 elections. All that hope is, of course, dependent on whether we actually still have the right to vote by then. 🥹

"Wierd" or "woke"? Make up your mind!! 😁

The hate came from the killer dumbo If Robinson's hate came from him being a "killer dumbo," then that's a good defense for him when he goes to trial - insane, so he cannot be found guility of all these charges. 😁

4 demonstrably false accusations in just 2 sentences. Wokie of the day award goes to you😅 All my statements above are true, as far as I can tell from what I've read about Kirk over the past three days. Before that, I had never heard of him. But, I will take your award of Wokie of the Day! I do consider myself "woke," and have been for over 40 years now. ❤️

Yes! But where did that hate come from? In this case, I think the hate came primarily from Kirk's stances on issues regarding trans and gays.

As far as your first comment, good for you! As far as your second question, you, as an employer, should not put up any politically oriented material at your workplace. Your employers should not be allowed to do that either, such as wearing shirts with politically oriented messages. They, and you, should be allowed to put up posters in your yard and even on your car, or march down the street holding signs in support of political figures or causes. This is my opinion, and it may not be the law.

I'm not excusing Robinson's alleged actions, but I'm saying I understand what now appears to have been his motive.

Kirk was vehemently anti-trans and anti-gay. He was also a misogynist and a racist.

Even I, who is not celebrating Kirk's death, can understand why Robinson would rightfully think Kirk was a danger to his trans partner - his family.

Would you allow an employee who publicly supported the Democrat Party to remain in your employ? How about one who stated they were a socialist or communist? When does using your ability to hire and fire interfere with the free speech rights of the workers? Where is the line they dare not cross? I do think employers have free speech rights and can even use their business to support different political issues, but I don't think the business itself has any free speech rights. But that's just my opinion on this, and, as you know, I'm a far-left liberal and fully endorse free speech. I know the right does not, and wants to limit the free speech and actions of everyone with whom they disagree.

It's the same thing if you think the person who was killed/executed was a danger to you and your family.

First of all, I don't think Kirk's marriage and fatherhood of two children have any relevance here. Secondly, above you say, " In the case of real, despicable criminals, :I think some relief is allowed..." That's exactly the excuse Robinson is alleged to have made in his alleged assassination of Kirk. He is alleged to have written, "I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out." And lastly, you could say Robinson allegedly did the same thing to Kirk in an effort to protect his trans partner that Kirk would have done to Robinson if he had endangered his two boys.

I would not fire an employee for posts I didn't like on their social media accounts, or if they were marching in the streets waving signs over their head. I would warn and, if necessary, eventually fire an employee if they continually discussed topics with other employees that disturbed them and interfered with their work. Free speech is publicly expressing your opinion on something, as long as you're not advocating violence. Punishing people for posting their opinions on their social media accounts is, IMO, an attempt to dampen free speech you don't agree with.

Thank you for acknowledging the way I express myself here on the forums, but I'm sure not everyone agrees with you. 🤭 Above, you say you think "There is something unusually repellent about a human being celebrating another human being's death. And I think it is legitimate for those people to face employment consequences." Let's see if you change your mind about that if Robinson is convicted, sentenced to death, and the day comes when he faces a firing squad (the method of execution in Utah). I expect that there will be many right-wingers "dancing in the streets" then. 😞 Will you?

I said I don't think Kirk's assassination should be celebrated. Vehemently disagreeing with someone who is killed is not the same as celebrating their death. If the people who were fired or expelled from school were publicly celebrating Kirk's death, I'll reluctantly accept that, but I think it's way too much of a punishment. People who do things like this in political circumstances are extreme right- or left-wing, but I am concerned that actions like this will dampen free speech in our country.

I certainly don't think Kirk's assassination should be celebrated, but I don't believe those who let everyone know they vehemently disagreed with most of what Kirk stood for should be fired. There have been people who have celebrated many murders before, and I don't think any of them were fired from their jobs.

Just like humans, right?

Consider this... On June 14, 2025, Melissa Hortman, the 61st speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives, was assassinated in her home. The politician's husband, Mark Hortman, was also shot and killed at the scene.

The color of someone's skin is not more important than the content of their character. The problem, historically, in the USA, is that most employers believed the color of someone's skin reveals the content of their character. The color of someone's skin, under DEI, may be important in determining which applicant is selected, but that is because the color of someone's skin has been highly relevant historically in the USA. White's were not only given preference, but in many instances were the only ones even considered. DEI ensures that applicants of all races who meet the requirements for the position are considered. Chalie Kirk was a far-right racist, as has been shown in multiple previous posts on this forum.