carterfelder

No thanks, I'll pray for Trump to be as healthy as possible while he finishes repairing all the nonsense and depravity that happened during Biden's presidency, then I'll vote for JD Vance or whoever will hopefully do just as good of a job and be completely anti-Woke.

Interesting, coming from someone with a Buddha image as their profile photo. I wish Letitia James, Adam Schiff, and John Bolton good health. I wish them a long life with very good health. I wish the same for Trump, obviously, along with JD Vance, Biden, AOC and Kamala Harris.

Grok Addresses Claims Being Made About Charlie Kirk 1. Racism, including claims he painted Black people as violent and supported the Great Replacement theory. Some statements were taken out of context, like critiquing specific groups, not generalizing races; evidence shows he debated ideas, not promoted hate, but his wording often fueled perceptions of bias. 2. Misogyny, such as questioning women's intellectual capabilities. He made comments on gender roles in debates, but these were tied to conservative views on family, not outright denial of intellect; critics amplify isolated quotes without full context. 3. Homophobia and anti-trans rhetoric. Kirk opposed transgender policies in schools and sports, based on biological arguments, not calls for harm; claims like advocating stoning were proven false. 4. Antisemitism, including preaching hatred against Jews. He critiqued specific organizations like ADL for political stances, not Jews broadly; Netanyahu praised him as a friend of Israel, contradicting the claims. 5. Islamophobia. Criticisms stem from his views on radical Islam and immigration; no direct evidence of blanket hate, but selective quotes ignore his focus on security issues. 6. Spreading false COVID-19 claims and skepticism. He questioned mandates and vaccines based on early data debates; some claims aged poorly, but others aligned with later findings on origins and efficacy. 7. Promoting false voter fraud claims after 2020 election. Kirk echoed unproven allegations, which courts rejected; however, he highlighted real irregularities, like mail-in voting issues, that fueled valid discussions on election integrity. 8. Defending gun violence and lacking empathy, like mocking attack victims. He supported 2A rights and said some deaths are inevitable, but condemned school shootings and pushed for armed security; mocking claims often lack full quotes. 9. Divisive and hateful rhetoric overall, provoking violence. His style was confrontational to challenge left views, but he debated peacefully; blaming him for his own murder ignores the shooter's responsibility. 10. White Christian Nationalism, spreading hatred and division. Kirk promoted Christian values in politics, but claims of nationalism overstate it; he focused on faith as unifying, not exclusive, though critics see it as exclusionary. Sources and References: Web Search Results: to from query "top criticisms of Charlie Kirk after his assassination September 2025" X Keyword Search Posts: [post:20] to [post:65] from query ("Charlie Kirk" OR @charliekirk11) (criticism OR hate OR racist OR misogynist OR homophobic OR antisemitic OR islamophobic OR COVID OR "voter fraud" OR "gun violence" OR "white nationalism") since:2025-09-10 X Semantic Search Posts: [post:66] to [post:84] from query "negative claims and criticisms about Charlie Kirk since his murder"

I’m gonna get him on a vegan diet, no more meat, eggs and ice cream, only beans, tofu and nice cream (frozen banana ice cream). Also gonna make sure he’s not salt-sensitive.

What is an example of his “violent” and “bigoted rhetoric?”

What is one good thing or more that Charlie did, putting aside his personal life?

Don’t ban me.

I wasn't directing judgment of people expressing no remorse or celebrating Charlie's death toward you. Sorry if it came out that way. I wouldn't consider any of his consistent viewpoints "insane rhetoric." Most of his beliefs and viewpoints are shared by many, not that I'm saying what most or many believe makes something correct or morally good. Where I agree with you is that Charlie did take a risk by saying what many conservatives or free thinkers are afraid to say. He knew he was taking a risk. That's one big reason I admire Charlie, or anyone who isn't afraid to say whatever the heck they want to say.

Yes, Christianity has got some problems, and a whole lot of people do take most of what the Bible says quite literally. Should we celebrate them being killed? Should we show no remorse for them, their family members, friends and loved ones if they're killed? Should we get all emotional when they're killed and say, "they had this awful belief! They had it coming!" I think not.

It sounds like the problem you have might be coming from within instead of out there, my friend.

I think not being able to condemn Hamas is just as disgusting, but I'm not going to celebrate or express no remorse for someone who died and never caused physical harm to anyone else, and who had a family and loved ones.

How immature and pathetic is it to be okay with someone being shot and killed just because they had beliefs you disagreed with? Everyone has the right to think for themselves, and everyone should be encouraged to share their honest beliefs and opinions without having their life threatened or taken away for it. If you want others to believe in what you believe, you need to communicate with those who disagree with you, not celebrate or say "I don't care about" the death of an influencer who shared beliefs you disagree with.

I'm looking up some of the more extreme views and I'm not finding any direct quotes. A lot of these other supposed quotes/beliefs aren't "vile" in any way. You know what's vile? Not letting people have any opinion they'd like to have, as long as it doesn't involve threats, because if we limit people's viewpoints and honest opinions, we don't give them a chance to realize if or when they're wrong in order to learn from it.

What "vile" things do you speak of? Valuing objective reality is not "vile." No, I'm not talking about his Christian beliefs or pro-life stance, which were innocent enough anyways.

"It's worth to have the cost of, unfortunately, some guns deaths each year so we can have the 2nd Amendment." This logic makes perfect sense. Think about auto accidents, for example. As long as we have cars being operated by humans, we will have many deaths. There's always a price to pay for the complex tools we use. Self-driving cars will soon end our car-driving privileges, because it will eventually become safe enough to drastically reduce auto accidents and deaths.

Charlie was most likely talking about Hyper-Empathy. "Hyper-Empathy is when your empathy for others makes you lose yourself by prioritizing the needs of others over yours. This can take the form of abandoning your personal boundaries, perceiving reality in a less objective or non-objective way, or losing energy in the form of pain and exhaustion. The DSM-V labels Hyper-Empathy as a characteristic of personality disorders." Paul Bloom wrote a whole book about this called "Against Empathy."

The man in the video I mentioned isn't the shooter but being investigated. The shooter is still at large.

There's a video of the man who supposedly shot Charlie circling around on X right now. He's being arrested on his knees while saying "I have the right to remain silent." He looks around 70 years old.

Who wouldn't? It's better than sharing an article from a media outlet that doesn't care about objective reality. Grok makes a wide search through the Internet. A single person writing an article doesn't do that, unless they're using AI, or have a lot of time on their hands. You're avoiding the vegan elephant in the room and criticizing my wonderful and helpful use of AI to contribute objective facts to this forum.

I've never heard that claim. That's a wild one.

Grok on today's strike in Qatar: Netanyahu's stated reasoning for Israel's strike on Hamas leaders in Doha, Qatar, on September 9, 2025, centers on retaliation for a deadly terror attack in Jerusalem the previous day, as well as a broader policy shift ending immunity for terrorist figures regardless of their location. The Jerusalem incident involved Palestinian gunmen from Hamas's Izzadin al-Qassam brigade opening fire on a bus at Ramot Junction, killing six Israeli civilians and wounding over 20 others; Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack as a "successful operation." In statements following the strike, Netanyahu described it as "entirely justified," emphasizing that it was ordered directly in response to the Jerusalem attack. He further argued that there is "no more immunity for terror leaders in particular places," signaling Israel's intent to target Hamas operatives even in host countries like Qatar, which has sheltered them while mediating cease-fire talks. Netanyahu also suggested the action "can open the door to an end of the war in Gaza," framing it as a strategic move to pressure Hamas into concessions. Israel took full responsibility for the "precise strike," which targeted senior Hamas leadership but reportedly did not kill key figures, according to Hamas claims. The operation drew international condemnation, including from the White House and Qatar, for violating Qatari sovereignty.

"Musk tho."