The White House Hunger Games: ThErE aRe No EpStEiN fILeS

[Soukuw]

For the record I appreciate the back and forth we had about I/P. I at this point am much less heavy headed for Israel than I was but still highly support them of course, I do though think there's lots of room for improvement. I realize though beyond that level of stuff I'd have to do a hell of a lot of research into modern politics to dissect exactly what to do currently so idk.

But again, I really do appreciate the conversation.

Edit: also remember everyone, anyone ripping from the site has to use the word filter unless they are a member. You can narrow down who's who from this possibly.

[Ad Bot]

[Swholli]

This has been posted here before and already discussed elsewhere at length but I think it bears repeating:

I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.

You either agree with this ideology or you don't, there's no middle ground. Either his death is one of the "some gun deaths" we just need to endure as a nation, or it was a tragic event that should never happen to anyone.

You can't say you value life and freedom while accepting preventable death as the "price" of liberty. That's not freedom, that's moral bankruptcy dressed up as patriotism. Every time someone like Charlie Kirk says this out loud, they're admitting the bloodshed isn't a flaw in their ideology, it's a feature.

If you can look at a child, a teacher, a grocery clerk, and say "that's worth it," then you've already chosen what kind of country you want to live in.

No one is celebrating his death, they're laughing at his hypocrisy

[Ladios]

[Master Matthew²]

This has been posted here before and already discussed elsewhere at length but I think it bears repeating:

You either agree with this ideology or you don't, there's no middle ground. Either his death is one of the "some gun deaths" we just need to endure as a nation, or it was a tragic event that should never happen to anyone.

You can't say you value life and freedom while accepting preventable death as the "price" of liberty. That's not freedom, that's moral bankruptcy dressed up as patriotism. Every time someone like Charlie Kirk says this out loud, they're admitting the bloodshed isn't a flaw in their ideology, it's a feature.

If you can look at a child, a teacher, a grocery clerk, and say "that's worth it," then you've already chosen what kind of country you want to live in.

This is exactly it.

No one is celebrating his death, they're laughing at his hypocrisy

Well, to be fair we don't know if we wouldn't have considered his own death worth it by the function of it being his own death.
I would be surprised if he did.

This is more about the hypocrisy of those around him now, more than himself.

His wife mourned him by going on an "everyone will suffer the consequences" super villain monologue

How sweet

For the right, that is a cash grab.
Anger, rage, fear, panic and vengeance are what sells in those circles.

You need to keep the angry mob momentum going to live under a red hat.

[Swholli]

For the right, that is a cash grab.
Anger, rage, fear, panic and vengeance are what sells in those circles.

That's the kicker, too. They've eroded the culture so much they don't even need to be subtle about it anymore. You can go on stage and fundraise off your husband's death, despite inheriting his $10mil.

It's all a grift. Humble Water Filter Merchant will spout off in one sentence how the Democrats are child enthusiasts which is why it's ok to send in the national guard on citizens, then the next breath go into an ad read about methylene blue.

Walsh sells books, Crowder does speaking tours, Kirk debated college kids. They're doing it for money, not because they care about you or a cause, but because idiots on the right will give hard earned money to the cult cause your handlers told you to be angry. It'd be laughable if it weren't so sad.

[Kore]

His wife doesn't even love him. She went straight for the cash grab.
Annoying Orange cares more about his ball room than Charlie Kirk.

My apologies, if YOU don't want Charlie Kirk to be made fun of in death, maybe YOU shouldn't like and defend a person who was such a piece of stuff in life.

There's no way you guys really sat down, wrote this stuff out and think, "Yeah, I cooked with this one, this is the gotcha of all time."

1. Nothing wrong with a fundraiser. They get put up all the time for literally any kind of disaster or crazy situation, hurricanes, morgue/funeral services in general, medical bills for children much less someones forgetin cat. So lets not nitpick here, it's a moot point and a lazy arguement.

2. What I WANT, in the grand SCHEME of THINGS is IRRELEVENT, to the GREATER CAUSE. blah blah womp womp wah wah. You can still be human and admit someone being a, in this case; mildy and allegedly terrible person, does not warrant behavior like this. Besides, this kind of talking is emotional manipulation and gaslighting and I'm not falling for it. Try again.

This "he had a family" stuff is rich.
So do the countless children who have died in school shootings.
The children and parents murdered in Gaza had families.
The people ICE are disappearing, they have families.

Not to mention those who are being murdered in Charlie Kirk's name after his death.

Every vulnerable group and person that Turning Point USA and Charlie Kirk have ever targeted or put on a list have all had families.
The primary difference being that their families actually loved them and cared about them. dumb!

Why bring those up? It should be obvious that of course its unfortunate for them. Everything about all everything sucks, for everyone. No family deserves to be seperated, no child deserves to be without a parent, nor should a parent ever experience the loss of their child. But context matters in some of these cases. You bring this up as if I'm some unfeeling monster and I don't sympathize. No one loving deserves being shot up in schools. The war in Gaza is unfortunate, it sucks for the IDF to battle Hamas while they use civilians as hostage and manipulation, all of it sucks. Blanket value separating families is terrible, but the people ICE are targeting are illegal immigrants, sorry. But they broke the law and came here illegally, gamed the system, that's not how the American Dream works, you work your ass off to become a citizen and make something of yourself. You forfeit those rights if you cheat in the first place. I wish there was an easier way to solve it all, but its above my paygrade.

Show me some of this evidence of yours.

If the guy had been a leftist, the FBI would've already published all of the evidence for it, because Kash Patel will not keep the details of the investigation secret if they can be used to blame the left.

What I think will happen is, even regardless if I present you any evidence you'll just deflect any say its right wing propaganda and the sources are paid and influenced to have a certain opinion. But if that's case surely media gets propagandized by the left too, so then anything either of us send to refute becomes illegitimate because the internet and legacy media are all controlling our mind and telling us what to think everything is black and white quick get your guns and shoot more people lets do it guys yeah anarchy forget discussion!

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kirk-shooting-suspect-republican/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-suspect-Annoying Orange-donor/
https://www.kbtx.com/2025/09/12/hey-fascist-catch-authorities-reveal-engravings-bullet-casings-allegedly-tied-charlie-kirk-shooting/

TBH it's been weeks and you should've been self informed about it by now, being ill informed and asking for facts and evidence at this point is embarrassing, because they were always already there.

you cant go "good riddance" at loud obnoxious leftists that get hurt or die, and also get to complain liberals do the same when a right wing pundit dies. reject all use of violence regardless of the political leaning, or accept that its ok for someone to ridicule others who die holding views that go against their ethics/values.

Once again, as with the other two; You cannot seriously have sat there and thought you cooked with this one? Where did I ever act and claim "good riddance at loud obnoxious leftists that get hurt or die". Stop making stuff up to get a gotcha, you're smarter than that. And I already loving do reject violence? How did you read anything I've said till now and thought I meant any other way. In case I have to spell it out for future reference: KILLING IS WRONG, DUH. Any kind of left wing violence is wrong, any right wing violence is wrong too.

But what is also wrong? Rejoicing it. The problem is this shouldn't even have to be told, but here we are.

This has been posted here before and already discussed elsewhere at length but I think it bears repeating:

You either agree with this ideology or you don't, there's no middle ground. Either his death is one of the "some gun deaths" we just need to endure as a nation, or it was a tragic event that should never happen to anyone.

I'm tired of seeing this talking point be abused, especially without the context. People need to really google and watch the full thing. He was asked about how violence and gun deaths can be handled - and if radicalization of how the 2A is handled is necessary. What he explains is that the 2A in essence, is not truthfully about self protection from citizens, or hunting and recreational; it is to protect ourselves from a potential tyrannical government. There is a cost for everything our society has and uses. Automobile deaths average 50k a year, we would have 50k lives saved a year if we banned automobiles, but we've found them necessary for our society. This kind of thinking can be even further elaborated because what if we did ban guns? We'd just have knife deaths instead. And so on and you know the rest from the 20 second clip.

Now I am not saying he's right for saying it like that. But at least me personally, I am a big fan of the 2A, everyone who is well fit in mind and body should have the right unto themselves to have firearms. It's the bad apples that sour the batch and make it hell for regular citizens like you and me.

[Swholli]

I'm tired of seeing this talking point be abused, especially without the context. People need to really google and watch the full thing. He was asked about how violence and gun deaths can be handled - and if radicalization of how the 2A is handled is necessary. What he explains is that the 2A in essence, is not truthfully about self protection from citizens, or hunting and recreational; it is to protect ourselves from a potential tyrannical government. There is a cost for everything our society has and uses. Automobile deaths average 50k a year, we would have 50k lives saved a year if we banned automobiles, but we've found them necessary for our society. This kind of thinking can be even further elaborated because what if we did ban guns? We'd just have knife deaths instead. And so on and you know the rest from the 20 second clip.

Now I am not saying he's right for saying it like that. But at least me personally, I am a big fan of the 2A, everyone who is well fit in mind and body should have the right unto themselves to have firearms. It's the bad apples that sour the batch and make it hell for regular citizens like you and me.

I didn't take Charlie out of context. That is the context.

He was very clear that he believes gun deaths are a "necessary cost" of protecting the Second Amendment. That is not a misquote, it is the entire point he was making. He compared gun deaths to car accidents and said that even though both lead to loss of life, they are acceptable prices for the conveniences or freedoms they provide. In his view, the right to bear arms is worth the recurring loss of innocent lives.

That line of reasoning completely ignores that the goal of any civilized society should be to minimize preventable deaths, not rationalize them. Cars kill people, yes, but we constantly improve safety standards, enforce traffic laws, and redesign roads to make driving safer. We do not shrug and say "50,000 dead a year is the price of transportation." We work to lower that number because human life has value.

Charlie's logic treats death as a maintenance fee for liberty. But freedom that depends on bloodshed is not freedom; it is moral laziness dressed up as patriotism. If your vision of liberty requires regular mass funerals, then what you value is not rights, it is your comfort at everyone else's expense.

The point is not whether he "worded it wrong." The point is that he said exactly what he meant, and what he meant is horrifying.

[Kore]

I didn't take Charlie out of context. That is the context.

He was very clear that he believes gun deaths are a "necessary cost" of protecting the Second Amendment. That is not a misquote, it is the entire point he was making. He compared gun deaths to car accidents and said that even though both lead to loss of life, they are acceptable prices for the conveniences or freedoms they provide. In his view, the right to bear arms is worth the recurring loss of innocent lives.

That line of reasoning completely ignores that the goal of any civilized society should be to minimize preventable deaths, not rationalize them. Cars kill people, yes, but we constantly improve safety standards, enforce traffic laws, and redesign roads to make driving safer. We do not shrug and say "50,000 dead a year is the price of transportation." We work to lower that number because human life has value.

Charlie's logic treats death as a maintenance fee for liberty. But freedom that depends on bloodshed is not freedom; it is moral laziness dressed up as patriotism. If your vision of liberty requires regular mass funerals, then what you value is not rights, it is your comfort at everyone else's expense.

The point is not whether he "worded it wrong." The point is that he said exactly what he meant, and what he meant is horrifying.

I get how you can interpret it that way. And face value it does sound wrong, As I said I don't think how he worded it was correct - but the premise is we need the 2A. We can argue that day and night but it will never go away. 249 years and counting going strong the 2A still stands. It is necessary to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, we need it for the people by the loving people. His wording was wrong but the message was not. But if it seems you are incapable of seeing the bigger picture to my point. Let's respectfully agree to disagree?

[Master Matthew²]

There's no way you guys really sat down, wrote this stuff out and think, "Yeah, I cooked with this one, this is the gotcha of all time."

1. Nothing wrong with a fundraiser. They get put up all the time for literally any kind of disaster or crazy situation, hurricanes, morgue/funeral services in general, medical bills for children much less someones forgetin cat. So lets not nitpick here, it's a moot point and a lazy arguement.

They're incredibly rich already, they do not need a fundraiser.

The fundraiser was about vengeance calls for bloodshed, not about preventing this from ever happening again. They not only do not care if it happens again, they would love for it to happen again. If it happens to their side they get a fresh new martyr, if it happens to whoever they say are their enemies then they get what they ultimately want.

This was about pushing their narrative and getting a few fast bucks along the way.

2. What I WANT, in the grand SCHEME of THINGS is IRRELEVENT, to the GREATER CAUSE. blah blah womp womp wah wah. You can still be human and admit someone being a, in this case; mildy and allegedly terrible person, does not warrant behavior like this. Besides, this kind of talking is emotional manipulation and gaslighting and I'm not falling for it. Try again.

Uh no. Them being an incredibly stuffty person doesn't warrant them being shot dead in the middle of a college campus. It DOES warrant being called an incredibly stuffty person and being made fun of post death.

Charlie Kirk was a god awful terrible person. We can and must disavow the means and cause of his death, even though we damn well know he would not have done the same if it were anyone across the aisle from him.

But it is incredibly rich to see the fascist crackdown on so much as a mild smirk in the direction of Charlie Kirk and the stuffty life he lived. So much for the "Humorous Right".

Why bring those up? It should be obvious that of course its unfortunate for them. Everything about all everything sucks, for everyone. No family deserves to be seperated, no child deserves to be without a parent, nor should a parent ever experience the loss of their child. But context matters in some of these cases. You bring this up as if I'm some unfeeling monster and I don't sympathize. No one loving deserves being shot up in schools. The war in Gaza is unfortunate, it sucks for the IDF to battle Hamas while they use civilians as hostage and manipulation, all of it sucks. Blanket value separating families is terrible,

Glad we can agree this was and is all horrible. It is more than Charlie Kirk would have agreed to.
There can be no if, ands or but-

but

Oh, no.

the people ICE are targeting are illegal immigrants, sorry.

Nah bud, you blew this stuffty little veil.
They're ending visas, and arresting people for looking Latino and speaking Spanish. It got so bad Dear Leader's Supreme Court had to come and validate that behavior.
The overwhelming majority of the people they've arrested have NEVER committed a crime.

Speak against dear precious Israel? Visa Revoked.
Speak against dear leader? Visa Revoked.

And let's not forget Annoying Orange's intention to Revoke Citizenship of natural born US citizens and deporting them.

But they broke the law and came here illegally, gamed the system, that's not how the American Dream works, you work your ass off to become a citizen and make something of yourself.

Literally none of that is true. 71% of them broke no law. There is no American Dream, only the Annoying Orange Nightmare. You work your ass off to maybe one day be allowed out of the second class citizen visa to a real citizen only to be deported by Dear Leader because you're brown and spoke a language other than english in public.

You forfeit those rights if you cheat in the first place. I wish there was an easier way to solve it all, but its above my paygrade.

No. Those rights either apply to everyone or they apply to no one. If you start making exceptions on who the rights apply to, then they are not rights.

One day, and one day soon. In your so perfect world you have created. Even you will say something that pisses off the state. You likely do not hold 1:1 views with the psychopaths in control.

And all it will take is an anonymous report or an email saying you're a migrant, a leftist, an undesirable. And you too will be labeled an "Illegal" and sent to one of their camps.

[Kore]

you're incoherent and overtly biased. A fair conversation isn't possible because you want me to be some sort of evil right winger who hates everything you stand for. If you can't see it clearly there's no point here.

[Masterlegodude]

I get how you can interpret it that way. And face value it does sound wrong, As I said I don't think how he worded it was correct - but the premise is we need the 2A. We can argue that day and night but it will never go away. 249 years and counting going strong the 2A still stands. It is necessary to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, we need it for the people by the loving people. His wording was wrong but the message was not. But if it seems you are incapable of seeing the bigger picture to my point. Let's respectfully agree to disagree?

There's no other way to take what he said except at face value because none of us knew what was going on in his head or what his thought process was when he said that, and to speculate otherwise because you "think his wording was wrong" is potentially twisting his words in a way that he didn't intend for them to be twisted

What if he did mean that we need gun violence as to protect our second amendment? What if he didn't? We'll never truly know, so all we can do is go by the exact words that came out of his mouth, in which he told us that we need "some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights"

[Kore]

There's no other way to take what he said except at face value because none of us knew what was going on in his head or what his thought process was when he said that, and to speculate otherwise because you "think his wording was wrong" is potentially twisting his words in a way that he didn't intend for them to be twisted

What if he did mean that we need gun violence as to protect our second amendment? What if he didn't? We'll never truly know, so all we can do is go by the exact words that came out of his mouth, in which he told us that we need "some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights"

Perchance. But you just magically forgot about philosophizing and finding the deeper meaning in what's given for your retort. A literal age old human tradition is trying to think outside the box and here you are closing the box for the sake of making your point sound sane. What if he did mean it that way? What if he meant it a different way? I'm am optimist, I'd rather prefer and hope the deeper meaning is the realest one. Could I be wrong? Possibly. But I'd prefer my result than your simple, dull, and macabre pessimism is all.

[Conan]

....i wasn't addressing you with that post kore, but im glad we agree violence in general is bad. i didn't intend it as a gotcha regardless.

[Kore]

....i wasn't addressing you with that post kore, but im glad we agree violence in general is bad. i didn't intend it as a gotcha regardless.

Well.. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, I hope at least you get how I got it wrong. I'm sorry.

[Masterlegodude]

Perchance. But you just magically forgot about philosophizing and finding the deeper meaning in what's given for your retort. A literal age old human tradition is trying to think outside the box and here you are closing the box for the sake of making your point sound sane. What if he did mean it that way? What if he meant it a different way? I'm am optimist, I'd rather prefer and hope the deeper meaning is the realest one. Could I be wrong? Possibly. But I'd prefer my result than your simple, dull, and macabre pessimism is all.

"preferring and hoping" that he meant something different than what he actually said sounds more like you're coping because you want a better outcome than what you got, which sounds more like denial than optimism

It's honestly more optimistic to take his words at face value as it's 'true' in a sense that he definitely said those words that he said, those are the words he said and they came right from his mouth, therefor i am acknowledging that fact and basing my thoughts and opinions on it

It's like if i said that the sky is green, sure i would be wrong, but those are definitely some words that i just said, and you acknowledging that would be more optimistic than coming up with some supposed "deeper meaning" to what i said

Maybe "optimistic" isn't the right word here, maybe "realistic" is more appropriate? Either way, my point still stands