@MentORPHEUS

I don't see this sentiment in those reacting to Kirk's shooting.

You’re talking to me. You engaged me. I’ll repeat myself:

I've no interest in having to answer for the chancers because I made a sympathetic post to Charlie, as I don't expect you to have to answer for every cackling demon that laughed at the assassination.

Though if you continue to insist on widening the scope to debate bro my original post I’ll assume you were giddy to get on here and challenge people on the details of his murder, instead of taking a sobering moment of contemplation at where things are at and where they’re going.

So, what basis do you have for "knowing" what you wrote above?

I’ve seen no contention of the details released by the FBI investigation, though if you have I wouldn’t mind looking at them.

@Stigma Trump as President has violated the bill of Rights, the Constitution, the Geneva Convention, the separation of powers to name a few specifics. He demonizes and scapegoats what he considers powerless minorities and tells his followers that attacking and driving them out will restore our country to greatness. He builds concentration camps around the country, and created and lavishly funded a special militarized force of thugs under his command to fill these camps without due process. He sends military into cities of political rivals against their own will.

At this point, Trump has broken Godwin's Law, for discussing Nazis and Hitler Is no longer absurd hyperbole that demeanor reasonable discussion, it now accurately describes his behavior in the context of a once mighty empire whose hubris brought about its own downfall.

Cartoons like this therefore serve as denial and rationalization crutches for those unwilling or unable to face this unfortunate reality.

@Stigma

What's the use in trying to differentiate political motives be it left, or right?

I don't see this sentiment in those reacting to Kirk's shooting. But this sudden onset disinterest apathy and weariness, I get all the time when asking pointed questions that people prove unwilling to answer.

Charlie Kirk's assassination was a very personal act of violence, based on a warped reality that Charlie was some ontological evil that any action, no matter how drastic, was justified against him.

What is your basis for "knowing" this and presenting it as fact?

It's not the alleged shooter's own words, as of an hour ago he has not confessed and is "not cooperating" with investigators.

It's not forensic evidence conclusively tying him to the shooting.

So, what basis do you have for "knowing" what you wrote above?

It's perfectly honorable to admit that yeah, I don't actually hold any supporting evidence and for now this is only conjecture.