A former leader in the FBI said Wednesday night the agency was "back to square one" after authorities released a "subject" who had been taken into custody in connection with the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Kirk, 31, was the CEO and co-founder of Turning Point USA, a conservative s...
Meaning they don’t think the person who shot him was black, trans or had mental health issues.
Well according to the community forum for my crazy neighborhood it’s definitely a minority trans person who did this.
Also all mass shootings were done by trans people. Not even joking.
Trans people are like sub 1% of the us population. These guys are busy.
I really don’t understand how you can actually believe something like that. Because of my wild 20’s i happen to know a lot of trans or gay or LGBTQ people in general, or more than the average person. If they were that violent, i would know so many murderers. In reality they are just the nicest people imaginable. I get that they obviously don’t know trans people, probably have never seen one, or if they did, they didn’t even know. But even that fact should make you wonder, no? I was at work and some random guy complained about how many jews live here and why that’s a problem, and i just thought that i don’t even know any jew. I worked for one once, and every now and then i see three or four walking around, but only recognise them because they are orthodox and dress like amish people. I actually had to look it up and in and around the next city, there are only 2000 jews, like what are you on about?
That’s funny because he was literally answering a question about trans mass shooters when his neck exploded.
WSJ is claiming that the rounds recovered from the weapon used had pro trans / “antifascist” things engraved on the bullets - make of that what you will. Generally WSJ’s reporting is factually accurate but incredibly biased, so there’s that? Fuckin’ hell though this is already such a fucking clusterfuck.
“Sources say” makes this highly dubious.
That’s completely standard in journalism - and the WSJ, despite being an aggressively horrible publication politically and morally, is quite respected for the strict veracity of it’s reporting. I don’t doubt they were told that, by a reputable source. I have no idea if it’s true beyond that however, since the trump admin isn’t exactly overflowing with decent quality human beings.
Absolutely. I am not doubting the WSJ’s reporting, but the “sources” part. The claim seems as convenient and absurd as a Deanna Raybourn novel.
Oh, then I quite apologize for misunderstanding & I totally agree.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/selina-cheng-wall-street-journal-1.7269561
Like I said, truly awful morally. Not about to argue against that. But your link doesn’t speak to their adherence to reporting strictly true (if heavily manipulated as to the apparent context and implications) information, which is all I’ve claimed. They fuckin’ suck, but they know that, and they delight in being able to pull a charlie kirk smug face and pull out the recipts when challenged on it.
but they were sources, and they said, and they only said it to the WSJ.
If that’s actually the case
then I think it’s just as likely
that this was done by fascists
to justify a “war” against “leftists”.
I can’t say I would be surprised for that to be the case.
I think it’s far more likely for it to have been one decent person who couldn’t take the constant hatred spewed by Kirk. Everyone knows this has been brewing, for it to finally pop on Mr 'Puts His Punchable Face Right Out There And Taunts You For Not Hitting Him" himself isn’t much of a surprise.
deleted by creator