You are reading off the ledger of the true believers. I don't think they have the last word. The system may be rigged in most ways, but voting is still important. Otherwise, the choice is as Malcom X put it.

The electorate who brought in Trump were seduced. Now that they have tied the knot and headed down Highway 61 with the guy, they are learning stuff. The agricultural support for him is getting hit hard by ICE and starting trade wars with everybody. People are learning the hard way what destruction of government services and regulation involves.

If all that has no effect, I will consider restoring the crossbow.

Yours is a sensible perspective.

My view is that the way to deal with people like Kirk is to engage them reasonably. Try to figure out what they are actually angry about etc. I had a Russian student once who hated gays virulently. Puzzled by this, I asked him what he would do if his own son turned out to be gay. His first answer was "kill him". He later rowed back on that a bit, but to call him anti-gay was, let's say, an understatement. Still, he was generally speaking a nice guy and because I knew him and liked him before he revealed himself to be a homophobe, I didn't stop liking him and trying to convince him he was misguided. I met him two years after that incident when I no longer taught him and he had dropped the homophobia. Don't know why. But whatever happened, it was better than someone shooting him in the head.

At the same time, let's not downplay the fact that homophobic, racist etc propaganda, by people who are actually listened to (unlike my student) has real world consequences for those who are the victims of it. Anti-gay rhetoric in Uganda led eventually to a law that punishes homosexuality by life imprisonment and, in some cases, death. So, this is not a hypothetical. We don't have to condone essentially self-defeating acts of violence to realize that hateful rhetoric is dangerous and, over time, can instigate political changes that threaten lives.

My view is that the way to deal with people like Kirk is to engage them reasonably. — Baden

But of course, and while I appreciate you have other things you'd like to do, you might want to listen to Kirk a bit (if you haven't) to really see where he stood. He was not a firebrand and he really didn't spew hatred in the sense that I think some on the left think he did. He represented, to be sure, a distateful element for the left, but he was pretty much a rank and file devout Christian who spoke the tenants of his faith. He did not suggest anyone should kill or hate. That was not his message. And this isn't me defending his Christian views because I don't hold them.

The secular "religious" view holds the protection of homosexual and transsexual rights in very high regard and it also places a very high priority on things like climate change. I can respect these views, as I can of any other highly prioritized view among a group, but those holding these secular views have to reflect upon the fact that a war for their cause is no different than any other holy war one might want to declare. What also has to be remembered is that the views I've itemized are not the views of your grandparents and maybe not your parents, meaning they are extremely new in terms of what we typically accept as societal norms. Villifying someone who hasn't adopted the morality du jour, even if it should one day prove itself worthy of eternal acceptance, is not a realistic response to someone not being as receptive to change as you might be.

My point here is just that I see nothing but unmitigated tragedy in Kirk's death, unreduced an iota that he might have held views conflicting with my own. The world is a worse place for his death. Period. This view is a largely held one, and it's why those who hold otherwise are being cast aside daily as unfit for civil discourse. Whether that is the proper response or not might be a question, but condemning them is not.

He was not a firebrand and he really didn't spew hatred in the sense that I think some on the left think he did. — Hanover

He was like: 'I love Jews, but they hate white people, they want to destroy them by importing non-whites.'

I think we probably disagree on which direction his boat was eventually going to tip.

..In October 2023, Kirk said on The Charlie Kirk Show that "Jewish donors have been the Number 1 funding mechanism of radical, open border, neoliberal, quasi‑Marxist policies ... This is a beast created by secular Jews, and now it's coming for Jews", and also suggested that these Jews control "not just the colleges; it's the nonprofits, it's the movies, it's Hollywood, it's all of it". Soon after, he said that "Jews have been some of the largest funders of cultural Marxist ideas and supporters of those ideas over the last 30 or 40 years."[211] Kirk called on American Jews to stop "subsidizing your own demise by supporting institutions that breed Anti-Semites and endorse genocidal killers".[144]

In November 2023, Kirk said that "Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them."[212] He went on to claim "the philosophical foundation of anti-whiteness has been largely financed by Jewish donors", but said he was glad that some donors were reconsidering.[213] Some Jewish public figures have defended Kirk against accusations of antisemitism, citing his pro-Israel stance. Kirk was funded by some Jewish donors, including Bernard Marcus.[214]

In July 2025, Kirk warned his followers against hatred of Jews, calling it "evil" and "demonic".[215] He was quoted as saying that "no non-Jewish person my age has a longer or clearer record of support for Israel, sympathy with the Jewish people, or opposition to antisemitism than I do".[144] However, Kirk was also accused of antisemitism by multiple people and organizations;[144][212][216] the Anti-Defamation League accused Kirk of creating a "vast platform for extremists and far-right conspiracy theorists".[144] — Wikipedia, NYT

I don't live under any illusions. Anti-semitism, racism, bigotry, various brands of phobias exist all too frequently, and we remain suspicious of those unlike us. This isn't to offer an excuse, but it's just the reality that one has to accept to get along in the world. Everyone is Archie Bunker. Lovable and not so lovable given the right day.

But Jews are a diverse group. There are a thousand miles of difference between Hannah Einbinder (look her up), Netanhyahu, and Menachem Schneerson (look him up) and many others. There were in fact many openly communist Jews and many are very liberal, but many like Hanover (look him up), not so much.

If your objective it to make me remove Kirk from the Saint list, I never put him there, but if it's to have some understanding for those who felt a fleeting sense of joy at his having been shot in the neck, you'll be wasting your time. Sympathy for the devil is one of the highest sins.

There do seem to be some influential Jews who hate Israel and the West more generally. Soros would be among them. As mentioned, there are wonderful and not-so-wonderful Jews. I think it's clear at this point that influential NGOs, some funded by Jews like Soros, have been financing the pro-Palestine movement and facilitating the flow of mass migration to the West. There seems to be a long history of contributions to left-wing causes.

If your objective it to make me remove Kirk from the Saint list, I never put him there, but if it's to have some understanding for those who felt a fleeting sense of joy at his having been shot in the neck, you'll be wasting your time. — Hanover

You said he represented views that might be distasteful to the left. I think it was a little worse than that. He openly disagreed with the principle of separation of church and state, he advocated Christian nationalism, and he embraced the replacement conspiracy theory.

I agree his assassination was a terrible thing, for a variety of reasons. And I'm sure there are evil Jews in the world, but when a person is found to have rambled on about that from a stage in front of crowds of people, a little blip ought to appear on your Neo-Nazi radar. I'm just saying, stop saying he was just a regular devout Christian. That's not true.

I mean, he was a devout evangelical Christian, and it's not like he was talking about Soros all the time.

Regular Christians don't think Jews are trying to destroy white people. Kirk did believe that.

It's not "the Jews." It's Soros and maybe a handful of others. He's like Magneto.

It's not "the Jews." It's Soros and maybe a handful of others. He's like Magneto. — BitconnectCarlos

That's incorrect. It's "Jews.". But Soros is legendary among day traders. More like Hell Boy.