Charlie Kirk

[lurker]

The forum will not let me quote Ty right now so I’ll just go with this.


Quoting Charlie Kirk, Ty wrote: “I can't stand empathy. I think empathy is a made-up, New Age term"

I found one of the links I was looking for. This is one example of what I’m talking about —--- full context Vs. a cherry picked partial quote.

Fact Check: Charlie Kirk once said empathy was 'made-up, new age term' - https://ca.news.yahoo.com/fact-check-charlie-kirk-once-001900786.html

So the new communications strategy for Democrats, now that their polling advantage is collapsing in every single state… collapsing in Ohio. It's collapsing even in Arizona. It is now a race where Blake Masters is in striking distance. Kari Lake is doing very, very well. The new communications strategy is not to do what Bill Clinton used to do, where he would say, "I feel your pain." Instead, it is to say, "You're actually not in pain." So let's just, little, very short clip. Bill Clinton in the 1990s. It was all about empathy and sympathy.

I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage. But, it is very effective when it comes to politics. Sympathy, I prefer more than empathy. That's a separate topic for a different time.

Point being, Ty —--- even your quote is not in full, thus out of context IMHO

[Tyy7777]

Ty,


Like I told you the other day —-- I’m not a good wordsmith like you or Morgs, and I probably do a poor job at times expressing my sentiments when posting. Thus, I think you and others might misunderstand what I’m trying to convey or communicate. That my friend is totally on me, and I know it. I’ll try this and see how it goes.


Like with both Bush’s, Obama, Trump and so forth in Political figures wise and what they SAY or DO, I see the good in all of them, and I see the bad. I’ll compliment them on the good, and I’ll disagree with them on the bad. Publicly or here on the forum, I'm the same.


In this case, Charlie Kirk, I agree with a lot of his points, and disagree with some of his points. It’s his approach or delivery on what I tend to disagree with what he is trying to say or convince people —- that is where I form my opinion, generally. I don’t form my opinion like you do. We differ on this. I don't necessarily form my opinion based on facts alone. Charlie Kirk is very often misconstrued because of short cherry picked sound bites, and sound bites only —- as is just partial cherry picked quotes, not the full speech or debate. This is where I’ve said “it’s out of context”. I surely don’t expect you to watch or vet everything Charlie Kirk has said, but I always give him the benefit of doubt, then vet his comment the best I can. Then form my opinion on the facts in hand. It’s just the way I am, and I hope you respect that. So “Yes”, I admit some of what you quoted from Charlie Kirk is just wrong.


You and I live in very different worlds, and very different realities. Yours is much more Liberal fact based, mine is more centered, Right leaning, face value based with fact included. You’re not always right, and I certainly am not always right. I like your communication here on 4m, and truly respect your valued voice and the points you bring to the table. Please note that. That is sincere. You stand your ground and don’t waver on your beliefs and I respect that. I know we always are “at each other” in spirit filled challenges trying to change each other's minds, but we both should respect each other's opinion, and let the chips fall where they may. I think that is fair. Realistically, neither one of us are going to change anything in politics and we need to recognize that. It’s good to vent about politics, but we’re not changing a darn thing. If we wanted to change things in Politics, we’d run for some local office in our respective towns.

Charlie Kirk said it best —- "When people stop talking, really bad stuff starts.”

I find quoting on this site a pain in the a55 so I'll just do it here.

"I’m not a good wordsmith like you or Morgs, and I probably do a poor job at times expressing my sentiments when posting. Thus, I think you and others might misunderstand what I’m trying to convey or communicate"

You don't have to be. It's the substance that matters. You either agree or disagree to varying levels.

"I don't necessarily form my opinion based on facts alone." ... "Then form my opinion on the facts in hand."

Forgive me but I'm quite confused. On the first statement, why do you not want to look at the facts? It is something I genuinely do not understand. Conservatives by-and-large are emotions based which is ironic on a number of levels. Feelings do not change facts.

Personally I look to see what works. If someone suggests a policy idea, I might look to see if it was done elsewhere and see what results were. If I'm analyzing a former president, I'll look at the facts. This isn't to say facts must always be quantitative. How people feel is very important and that itself is a fact.

Deng Xiaoping famously said "It doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice."

"You and I live in very different worlds, and very different realities"

There is one reality and we are all living it. Our interpretations are different and that can be based on our own traits but things like the media play a very big part in making people think things are happening when in fact they are not.

"face value based with fact included"

What does this mean? You prefer surface-level solutions?

"but we both should respect each other's opinion, and let the chips fall where they may"

My issue with this, is that a good chunk of conservatives (primarily MAGA), will turn matters of fact into opinion. When shown that something is objectively true or false they will find a way to convince themselves it is not the case. That is my frustration. If something is then it is not isn't.

[Tyy7777]

The forum will not let me quote Ty right now so I’ll just go with this.


Quoting Charlie Kirk, Ty wrote: “I can't stand empathy. I think empathy is a made-up, New Age term"

I found one of the links I was looking for. This is one example of what I’m talking about —--- full context Vs. a cherry picked partial quote.

Fact Check: Charlie Kirk once said empathy was 'made-up, new age term' - https://ca.news.yahoo.com/fact-check-charlie-kirk-once-001900786.html






Point being, Ty —--- even your quote is not in full, thus out of context IMHO

That doesn't change anything.

He still said the word empathy doesn't exist. That's a very polarizing thing to think and believing that sympathy exists (to what extent, we don't know) doesn't change that.

It means his entire world view is formed on the basis that he cannot put himself in the shoes of others and that is a very big reason why I, and many others, fundamentally disagree with the his views and the broader MAGA movement.

[Tyy7777]

https://x.com/DailyMail/status/1969160305742577759

A church playing an AI video of Charlie Kirk saying words he never said is a little weird....

[Tyy7777]

Trump is back with another ridiculous statement.

“When 97 percent of the stories are bad about a person, it's no longer free speech.” - Trump

He seems to think free speech means equal speech? Should Hitler be given the same treatment?

[Tyy7777]

Donald Trump working to lower the rhetoric at Charlie Kirk’s Memorial today.

Trump: He did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them. That's where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent and I don't want the best for them. I'm sorry

[Tyy7777]

https://youtu.be/aoWH4I_YGLo

[ss12]

Anonymous: Trump Just Exposed Himself — Worse Than Watergate

[lurker]

RIP Charlie Kirk - https://www.youtube.com/shorts/bkbYnuGFOZg

[Tyy7777]

RIP Charlie Kirk - https://www.youtube.com/shorts/bkbYnuGFOZg

You're missing the point.

I can point out people on both sides with extreme takes. Naturally more polarizing takes get pushed to the forefront of social media.

These people are not in office. It's irrelevant to point them out. What you need to do is analyze the behavior of actual party members.

Democrats widely condemned the acts and called for an end to violence. Republicans used it to score points and incite more violence.


Let me give an example.

Here is Biden's speech after Trump was shot - https://youtu.be/5MkgPY3C6j8

Here is Trump's speech after Kirk was shot - https://youtu.be/-q1N6Akpz9c

See a difference?

[lurker]

But, but, but —-- https://www.youtube.com/shorts/o0aEeBhpbio

[Tyy7777]

But, but, but —-- https://www.youtube.com/shorts/o0aEeBhpbio

If you're going to criticize Biden for being incorrect, can you do the same for Trump?

Biden was out of it and so is Trump. Biden was, in his day, far more coherent than Trump ever was.

[Buford.Justice]

Absolutely terrible to see. I feel for his wife and kids.

Political violence is terrible and it should be condemned. I worry the reaction to this will be very substantial though. When two Minnesota Lawmakers got murdered, it got swept under pretty quick. Nobody really played blame games. It was condemned. We see a similar thing here and the right has already started with ridiculous conspiracies. Violence drives more violence.

In a surprise to no one, I despised Charlie. This is still awful to see and the people celebrating it are disgusting, although few and far between.

Charlie's platform was built on hate and resentment. He supported a president who brought inflammatory rhetoric to the table back in 2016. The MAGA movement has incited violence. That isn't to justify said violence, but it needs to be said.

Charlie once said that some gun deaths every year are a good trade-off for our second amendment rights. You have to wonder if he ever really come to terms with the fact that it could be him?

Charlie also once said that empathy was a made-up term.

Charlie was everything you are not, a human being!!!! hahahahahaha SIr what did Charlie do wrong? Besides exspose himself to radicalized brainwashed lost souls? Who have no sense of value to life and the truth.

[Buford.Justice]

If you're going to criticize Biden for being incorrect, can you do the same for Trump?

Biden was out of it and so is Trump? Biden was, in his day, far more coherent than Trump ever was.

i

SIr you have a way os saying the most rediculous and untrue statements of opinion. To rate that loser Biden who committed massive treason. Who never had a real job in his life other than being a leftist political hack, and never said anything intelligent in his life, and you have to compare him to Trump? Who has accompished more in business and the white house than any politician ever!!! You sad sack!!

[Buford.Justice]

Trump is back with another ridiculous statement.

“When 97 percent of the stories are bad about a person, it's no longer free speech.” - Trump

He seems to think free speech means equal speech? Should Hitler be given the same treatment?

Trump is the complete opposite of Hitler. You fail to see who is parroting Hitler in reality. The DEM/Communist party and it's media tools. Just the same way they operated in Germany under Hitler. Accuse the enemy (America as founded patriots} of what you are actually doing yourself. Dem party, guilty!!

BTW Charlie Kirk was a great man with presidential potential, for righteous and good reasons!!!