That is clearly not the assertion/part I am talking about, though I certainly have an opinion on that too.

He literally said the above quote I mentioned. It was sexist/racist. It was wrong. You can weigh in on it or not that’s your choice. But this man was not the saint the right is making him out to be. It’s flagrant revisionist history

Edit: I also forgot to respond to your Hortman comment. That does not matter. She and her husband were brutally murdered in their home for the crime of being democrats and holding office. How is that not worthy of national attention? How is that not the kind of political violence that the right allegedly cares about right now, despite the fact that right wingers are disproportionately the perpetrators of political violence over the last decade? If they had been Republicans we would still be hearing about it and you know it.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2025/09/12/is-radic...

And since this is a paywalled source, here’s the graph that illustrates the issue: https://www.economist.com/content-assets/images/20250920_WOC...

With every update the WSJ’s original article, which largely informs people right now, has fallen apart. It’s so riddled with errors at this point that it should be retracted. I’d go so far as to say it’s deliberate misinformation at this stage.

Any attempts to neatly slot this into “he was left” or “he was right” are a waste of time. He doesn’t fit into that paradigm: https://www.garbageday.email/p/charlie-kirk-was-killed-by-a-...

There isn’t a liberal in the country who follows Nick Fuentes. Dude is clearly a blackpilled 4chaner as described above.

[dead]