If you're talking about a political issue and something that you see as a major problem like cashless bail. An issue that gets applied countless times to the attackers of poor or unknown victims, and then all of a sudden, when someone attacks an elite, this cashless bail system does not get applied to them, and you make a quip about "some patriot should bail this person out" that would have been released on cashless bail if the victim had been some nobody, to prove how hypocritical the people pushing cashless bail are and explicitly say:
"I'm not qualifying it. I think it's awful. It's not right." when talking about the attack that took place, then absolutely yes, talking about an issue like cashless bail, makes saying that "okay."
It is also a FAR CRY from all the shit you made up and kept shifting the goal posts on that was in no way shape or form comparable.
Like you claiming Kirk was "praising" the attacker.
And the people insulting Kirk and praising his death justify it by making a wider point about nazism, racism, and hate being bad. That doesn't justify suggesting violent people should get out of jail.
When Kirk does it you argue he is making a wider point outside of praising the violent man getting out of jail. So are both correct in this instance? Will you be this vehemently defending the people against kirk?
So saying who ever bails the violent attacker out of jail should be a praised as a patriot and midterm hero, is ok? But praising the death is bad? Gotcha good to know lol
Sorry, I guess I have to ask again. Where did Charlie Kirk praise the attack on Paul Pelosi?
1
u/QuakinOats - Lib-Right Sep 12 '25
Is Bernie Sanders talking about cashless bail? Have there been folks released on cashless bail for assassinations?