151
I don't know who this man is, but his face is too small for his head.
Have I got the website for you
Huh. His face is ~7% too small. 107 and 108% look reasonable for that head.
Strongly disagree, 42% is the sweet spot.
P.S. Turn the sound on for that site if you didn't already.
I think the pic is photoshopped. His real way is waaaaaay snaller
I believe this is where I first saw him
A right wing grifter. That's all you need to know about him.
It doesn't help the fact that there was a meme where someone photoshopped his face to be slightly smaller. Then as it became popular and he started appearing in news more, a whole group of people became dedicated to altering every photo of him. It's possible that those images ended up in the top results of google.
"It's about time the masculine energy in this country is ascendant," he proclaimed. "I'm not defending what this kid allegedly did. I am defending young men holding up old glory, getting out there in the streets, and saying, we're not going to take this anymore."
So, what the hell is he defending then? What exactly about the incident exudes "masculine energy"?
The masculine energy of a rather hung dick called "old glory" that cannot be taken except by the most masculine of men who are out in the streets.
Gay butt stuff, obvs.
Rofl not going to take what anymore? Thinking? Feeling? Being a mature and functional adult in a democracy?
Exactly. Republicans won't stand for any of that.
Not that they stood for any of that in the past few decades.
He's insecure and threatened by everything.
But when men go out there and defend Palestinians they aren't doing this? It's not masculine to stand up for what you believe there?
Eh, depends on who you ask. Personally, no, this isn't masculine. People are standing up for what they believe, and more importantly, their resolve come a place of empathy. Merely standing up for what you believe doesn't warrant much praise, imho, especially if your beliefs are demonstrably false.
Oh Charlie. My woodchipper aches for your hot body.
Dickheads like this pitiful excuse for a human thrive on attention. Why give it to him? He's irrelevant.
He's not, which is entirely the problem. His kind gets stronger on the outrage attention cycle but that isn't the same thing as being ignorable.
Not anymore, at least, he doesn't need free press anymore.
Can you explain? I'm not following.
TPUSA became famous in large part due the free advertising generated from liberal and leftist outrage over their messaging, but in 2024 they no longer need that outrage to grow. They are now large enough a brand for their own community to generate that press for them.
You can ignore their shit stirring, but it won't cripple them, it will just mean you don't know what their enemy of the week is.
it will just mean you don’t know what their enemy of the week is.
That doesn't exactly sound like a negative to me.
I say they're irrelevant because they have no experience in anything other than spreading propaganda to keep right wing idiots in a permanent state of fear and outrage. They argue in bad faith. They're neither interesting nor insightful. They have no accomplishments. As people, they're remarkably dull and uninteresting.
So again, why give them the attention they seek?
Exactly, he's either a complete idiot or morally bankrupt (or both). He spreads false info sourced from 8chan. Never would've thought that kinda rampant idiocy would find a target, but it does. The less attention he gets the better.
Why know what your enemy is doing?
So you can prepare.
I already know what they're doing. Hell, I could write a ChatGPT prompt that would spit out the exactly same drivel as these clowns and save myself the time.
Ha, not a bad point, but now you know they're outright, irrefutably, no dogwhistles endorsing racism and can even point to a specific example if you need to.
The far right has been doing that for as long as the far right has existed. Strom Thurmond, Barry Goldwater, David Duke, etc etc.
I've only heard of this Charlie Kirk. First time seeing and hearing him. Who in the fuck raised this guy?
Charles and David Koch.
A Talking Watermelon
and was fathered by a sentient half used roll of toilet paper.
Billionaires convinced him to drop out of college and run propaganda for them at college campuses.
Somehow YouTube algorithm showed me this dumbass’s video that was something like “Charlie Kirk destroys a college student with a great comeback”. I think I lost brain cells by watching it even halfway. His argument for being smart, even though he didn’t finish college, was naming couple of guys that the student might not know and saying how he got rich.
“But to the left... he's a young white man, so it's worth destroying his life."
I had to scroll back up, because I thought he’d been kicked out of the university. Nope, he was just kicked out of the frat. Oh no, he might have to stay in a dorm or apartment, it’s the end of the world!
"And they're trying to destroy the rise of the frat boys," he added.
Um… good? Why would I care about frat boys? My university didn’t even have frats, and I somehow managed to graduate anyway.
But did you get handed a job from a rich guy?
What century is it?
Product of immigrants. He treats immigrants the way his grandparents got treated
This is not news
Correct, this is the politics community. That’s why I didn’t post it in the news community.
Classy
Why is his face so small?
Why are paywalled articles allowed still?
Because they’re so easy to get around?
Very ignorant of Charlie.
Hands up if you thought this was about Shane Vaughn for a minute.
this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
151 points (87.6% liked)
politics
17776 readers
2355 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS