>>11432>By "right" I mean anyone that's conservative. Like you nibba.Incoherent for multiple reasons:
1. The government narrative is that the shooting was motivated by opposition to Charlie Kirk's political statements.
2. I'm not right-wing.
>Because he was No, because the texts don't read like something an actual human being would write. The dialog is unnatural. It reads like it was written specifically to incriminate someone, and written by someone who is not particularly familiar with how young people in the US actually talk. It's only slightly more realistic than if the texts simply said "Hello, my trans lover. I am going to go shoot Charlie Kirk today with my rifle because he opposes my neopronoun-based gender ideology. Wish me good tidings, trans-wench!"
Like, it's incredibly fake sounding dialog.
>He shot himWrong. The bullet doesn't match. I already posted a video going into this. You're either deeply confused or you aren't actually arguing in good faith.
Also, in addition to the bullet not matching,
there was no blood splatter behind him, an anomaly which has been explained by the state simply by claiming that Kirk's neck was "miraculously thick," which is just an absurd claim.
The alleged shot would also have been difficult to make, particularly for an amateur.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.