By Matt Underwood Nancy Mace says the Charlie Kirk shooter was “a tr***y” & makes shooting all about herself.
It’s hard to know where to start, but let’s just dive right in. The initial reaction to the shooting of Charlie Kirk was, frankly, predictable. Nancy Mace, in what has become a recurring pattern, seemed more focused on scoring political points and pushing her agenda than on offering genuine concern or seeking the truth. The comments and observations about her actions are, to be blunt, overwhelmingly critical, and with good reason. The claim that the shooter was transgender, a slur in itself, was immediately and unequivocally proven wrong. And yet, she said it. It’s not just that she was wrong; it’s the motive behind it that raises eyebrows. It’s pretty clear the intention was to quickly deflect responsibility and cast blame on a marginalized group.
This wasn’t an isolated incident of misspoken words; it was a deliberate attempt to exploit a tragic event for political gain. As it turned out, the shooter was, as many had predicted, a white male, with ties to right-wing ideology and a history of supporting Donald Trump. The stereotype fit, and it’s something that seems to have caused even more frustration. It’s like the comments say, “Sometimes stereotypes exist for a good reason.” But instead of acknowledging this reality, Mace doubled down, seemingly more interested in promoting her own narrative than in understanding the root causes of violence.
The accusations of attention-seeking and the criticisms that everything becomes about her are consistent. The phrase, “she is famous for her attention seeking lies,” comes up. It paints a picture of someone constantly seeking the spotlight, regardless of the cost. The timing, as many have pointed out, is also suspect. It seems as though she was more concerned with quickly assigning blame rather than showing any sort of empathy. The question of why this obsession with the transgender community is so prominent is a valid one. There’s a sense of bewilderment as to why this group is targeted so often.
The reactions have gone further. The idea that someone who is seemingly espousing Christian values could also be so vitriolic and divisive is also not overlooked. There is a stark contrast between the rhetoric used and any semblance of Christian principles. It is an uncomfortable truth to acknowledge the irony of her words and actions.
The comments are also filled with a healthy dose of frustration about the general state of politics and the media. The feeling that politicians are not held accountable for their misdeeds and that lies are acceptable is not new. It is worth noting that many people find themselves shaking their heads, because they recognize that the pattern of scapegoating is not new. The comments that call out the hypocrisy are understandable.
The calls for the release of the Epstein files, alongside the comments about rising grocery prices, show the larger frustration of some people. It’s about the issues that matter to them and they are tired of political games.
Finally, the raw emotion in many of the comments is palpable. The insults and the direct language reflect a deep anger and frustration with the situation. This is not just about one politician; it’s about a system and a society that seems increasingly divided, where facts don’t seem to matter. It’s a sentiment that has to be considered in the context of this entire discussion.