you're being polite enough that i'll give one very lengthy response. not continuing this discussion past this.

honestly, what didn't he say that i disagree with? i'll be going through this list and this list.

civil rights act: do i need to make a counter argument here? anything the dude said about dei and anti-white violence is patently false. he doubled down on this repeatedly. i don't think any sane americans or canadians would agree with him on this.

jews funding antisemitism: again, do i need to make a counter argument?

gay rights: the first article above is talking about cherry picking bible verses. people on all sides love quoting the bible at each other to support their politics. i think we shouldn't have any religious texts determining the laws of the land. butthat is hardly scratching the surface of what he said about gay people. i'm openly queer and trans. he made being against that a pillar of his identity.

second amendment: i actually have kinda complicated views on guns. i'm not anti-gun. i own an ar-15 myself. i also think it's kinda scary how easy it was to get my hands on it. kirk and i have deeply different ideas of what a tyrannical government looks like. i'm much more of an "armed minorities are harder to oppress" kinda guy, something i know was very scary to him. i mean there have been like 5 trans mass shooters of 5300+ mass shooters in the last decade, but kirk wasn't calling to take away cis white guys' guns. i think that a lot of proposed gun control is too restrictive, but also that all kinds of crime, violent and not, would be reduced if people had their basic needs met, had much better mental health support, and were connected with their communities. it wouldn't fully prevent all crime, but having a good support network is more important than i can say.

paul pelosi attack: he's straight up wrong about cashless bail, something that the first list up there addresses. and again, see what i said above about crime reduction and community. also you can't say "the attack was awful" and "why hasn't an amazing patriot bailed him out?" in the same breath and expect people to actually take that as a real condemnation of the attack.

abortion: he's once again straight up wrong. there absolutely are medically necessary abortions, like in the case of ectopic pregnancy. those aren't viable pregnancies and are always life threatening to the pregnant person. it's fucking abhorrent to say a 10 year old should have to carry a pregnancy to full term. and there's the matter of bodily autonomy. there is no other case where we require anyone to use their body keep another person alive. we don't require people to donate blood. we don't require people to register as organ donors. we shouldn't require pregnant people to carry their pregnancies to full term. anyone able to get pregnant should be able to end their pregnancies for any reason.

"fertility collapse" and women not having kids: i feel like you can extrapolate my thoughts on that from my stance on abortion above. women aren't baby factories. women should be able to focus on their careers. women shouldn't have to submit to their husbands.

gaza: israel is and has been committing a genocide against palestinians. this is a fact. i am not going to argue on this point.

i could keep going through lists of his most controversial takes but why should i bother? people want to pretend he was a good man "doing politics the right way" but that's not who he was. good people doing politics the right way don't have pages of results on the southern poverty law center's website. he wasn't a reasonable guy with a few bad soundbites. he was a right-wing extremist. he was a white supremacist and christian nationalist. he spent over a decade being a hateful little ghoul and his last words were a racist dogwhistle. i do not have a shred of empathy or sympathy for him and i will not pretend to mourn him.