Why do they still want to hear from Kirk? I can understand the novelty and state mandated grieving or whatever
. But Charlie’s been dead for a minute. If a Chapo died and it was free to go to an event the next week and I could take a <15 min train ride I’d show up. But any later, more expensive, or annoying to get to and I’d need to have to entertain a significant other for it to be worth.In theory the median vice president is doing shit, might slip government secrets, and is at their station via charisma/corporate-safe equivalent to emulate.
Because she was a right-wing grifter before she got together with the perforee. She’s not going to give up a perfectly good angle so easily.
I totally understand her angle. Attention = money after all. I just find it hard to believe she’s pulling in a bunch of attention still.
You’re right, they have to crop shots of most of the GOP events to avoid showing how poorly-attended they are, and she’s no different. Part of me wonders whether people show up to see if the person on stage gets iced, but if they do have that level of self-awareness, I wonder if they’re actually buying into the narrative that “the other side” is so violent that they’d take pot shots at media figures. Threat modeling between the ends of the political spectrum aside, the trend indicates that it’s people who don’t think the right wing goes far-enough who tend to take the shots.
Anyone who cares about grieving for charlie kirk just wants to be the next charlie kirk but not dead
Oblige them
Even more to the point: if even the first wave of watching was artificial, why bother still watching?
Isn’t that guy supposedly negotiating a peace treaty?
bringing in Vance so they can abuse his tax-funded Secret Service protection?Do you think the Secret Service is actually still good at their jobs, or have they been gutted too?
I can’t imagine Vance gets the cream of the crop either way
The implication here is that Vance was the threat.
