I'm open to suggestion!

What evidence? So far, none of it says he is a left winger. Everything we do know points to a MAGA family and village of similar idiots with violent tendencies and a gun-loving way of life.

They are fascists.

Period.

They fit the definition.

They are fascists.

They might be stupid fascists that don't even know it, but that doesn't change that they're fascists.

I will point out one thing that should be obvious, the shooter was only 22. So it's possible he doesn't have a very baked and stable political ideology. I knew a hard core outwardly homophobic conservative at 17 who came out as gay and did theater by 20. I knew a fairly liberal person when she was about 18 that over the years got to a place where she publicly praised Trump and called COVID a hoax and the vaccine a conspiracy. No idea how that happened, even as I saw it first hand.

Given the situation, it is at least clear he was unhinged if he would get to this point, either way. I would have hoped this would be a lesson for people that people get dangerously moved by angry rhetoric, but a lot of folks are ramping up rhetoric instead.

We don't have confirmation on all of his motives yet; however what we do know about the shooter, his upbringing, lifestyle, etc. is that the poster responding to OP in the image above is largely correct.

There are indeed conflicting accounts that his roommate was trans, or his partner was, or similar. None of that's been verified yet, and even if so, it doesn't explain the shooter's motivations.

What we do know about the shooter is that he largely fits the model of a deeply conservative republican, and that fits with how he was raised, his family, and as his grandmother puts it: "Their family was all MAGA".

Going off that, and a lot of other circumstantial details/evidence, it's clear that he was at one point a deeply MAGA character.

Beyond that or what his current motivations are? We can only extrapolate. Those extrapolations largely lead in the direction that he shot Kirk because Kirk didn't back some of the same extremist beliefs he held. Those beliefs are similar to what Nick Fuentes believes in, which is also why he's currently being labeled a Gyroper.

Earlier in the briefing, Gray said investigators had spoken to Robinson’s mother, who said her son had, over the last year “become more political and had started to lean more to the left, becoming more pro-gay and trans rights-oriented”.

He disclosed that the exchange with the roommate then began to explore a motive.

“Roommate: ‘Why?’ Robinson: ‘Why did I do it?’ Roommate: ‘Yeah."’ Robinson: ‘I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out. If I am able to grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence. Going to attempt to retrieve it again, hopefully they have moved on. I haven’t seen anything about them finding it,’” Gray said.

I think the motivation is pretty clear at this point. Not sure how this post got 1k+ likes and no one seem to give credible source.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/16/charlie-kirk-shooting-prosecutor-utah

I wouldn't trust anyone describing his political leanings or motives until court. It's being twisted around and rumors are spreading like wildfire in a vacuum of actual leadership.

The number of similarities between modern America and 1930s Germany is shocking.

I believe the assassination of Kirk is highly analogous to the killing of Horst Wessel. Both Wessel and Kirk were far right nationalists who were killed and subsequently hailed as martyrs by their fascist movements.

Hitler brought up Wessel in all of his early speeches. The Nazis wrote songs and bullt statues of Wessel. And today we can already hear the songs about Kirk. Congressmen are passing around a bill to erect a statue of Kirk in the Capitol.

If we continue to follow this timeline closely, we are about 2 years away from our own Reichstag fire moment.

This is one of the biggest problems with our current state of polarization: we’re quick to box people into a binary; either “red” or “blue,” “left” or “right.”

Real people rarely fit neatly into those categories. When you take the time to actually map out someone’s beliefs, experiences, and values, what you find almost never looks like a solid block of one color. Instead, it’s more like a mosaic: someone might lean conservative on economic issues, progressive on social ones, independent when it comes to foreign policy, and undecided on others.

Reducing all of that complexity down to a single partisan label is not only misleading, it also fuels division. It makes it harder to have real conversations, because instead of engaging with the full person (their reasoning, contradictions, and growth), we engage with a caricature. Recognizing that most people carry a mix of beliefs forces us to slow down, listen, and resist the urge to collapse identities into overly simple categories.

The challenge is that this feels counterintuitive, especially for people who haven’t examined why they hold the views they do. It’s easier, and often more comforting, to inherit an identity or adopt a team than it is to wrestle with contradictions and gray areas. But when we refuse that deeper work, we not only misunderstand others, we also misunderstand ourselves.

In other words, the messiness is the point. People are complicated, and when we acknowledge that, we create more space for dialogue, empathy, and genuine understanding; the very things that binary polarization squeezes out.

Edit:

If you’re interested in seeing how this plays out in practice, the New York Times put together a quiz a few years back that illustrates the point really well:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/09/08/opinion/republicans-democrats-parties.html

From what I've heard, he was from a right wing family but there are conflicting reports on whether he himself was right wing

From what I've pieced together, it's a guy from a MAGA family that was recently radicalized, possibly in college towards left-wingism (possibly via exposure and humanization of trans room mate?). There's not that much evidence to suggest he was a far-righter himself (the groyper claims are literally just "yeah the engravings are a dogwhistle trust me bro" but many libs here are buying it), and now it's just turning into a war of push from both sides being like "no it's not OUR guy it's YOUR guy!".

In other words, it's impossible to tell for certain due to how deliberately muddied the waters are by everyone.