I think this is going to matter a lot politically. Kirk wasn’t in power like Trump, he wasn’t even in office, so it’s not like someone could blame him for the state of the country or their ills. He went around talking to college students and debating political issues in a polite, mainstream conservative way and he was reasonably good at it. And for this, someone killed him in a clearly well planned and political attack.
And Reddit and Bluesky and MSNBC celebrated his death, although the latter fired one overzealous commentator out of embarrassment later.
Here’s the message to mainstream America and certainly to every aspiring political influencer who’s farther right than Antifa
“If leftists wanted Charlie Kirk dead, they want you dead, too, they just don’t know your name yet.”
“Assassination culture is spreading on the left,” [Kirk] tweeted two months ago. “Forty-eight percent of liberals say it would be at least somewhat justified to murder Elon Musk. Fifty-five percent said the same about Donald Trump.
Revolution, Nepalese style. This is what happens when you take away the internet from the whole young adult crowd - big protests, government shoots a bunch, the protests get worse and the government falls. The country’s new leader was elected on Discord when they got the internet back.
I was unaware of this. Looks like bad news for them
Lokesh Tiwari, a 25-year-old second-generation Nepali American and member of Gen Z, born in Maryland, expressed his dismay at the turn of events. “What began as a peaceful protest quickly turned tragic with the killing of innocent students and young adults,” he said. While he holds no sympathy for the corrupt politicians and leaders, he found the destruction of public property, such as the Singha Durbar and Parliament Building, “deeply disheartening.” He believes this damage has “set Nepal back by more than two decades.”
Tiwari highlighted the economic toll, stating, “Nepal’s two primary sources of income are remittances and tourism.” He noted that tourism had just begun to recover after the COVID-19 pandemic, with signs of growth and optimism. “Investors like myself were starting to view Nepal as a stable and developing nation with tremendous potential for progress,” he said.
Yet, within 24 hours, he feels that progress has unraveled. “Tourists are now hesitant to visit, and will likely remain so in the near future. Investors, myself included, are reluctant to commit capital or send funds for development, knowing that such unrest could erupt again at any time.”
But why the subsequent commentary? Shouldnt they follow procedure and report the threat, then keep quiet about it? Their reactions only make it clear they are intentionally interpreting it in a negative light to score political points.
My takeaway is, how the hell does California think they can mandate Federal Law Enforcement Agency policies? Let alone pass any legislation to “protect illegals”, there is no such thing as an “illegal Californian” for California to legislate. Immigration is entirely Federal law which is beyond the reach of the California legislature.
I think the logic follows many of the executive branch’s decisions – do something out of the norm first, let the courts decide whether it’s illegal later.
If Mamdani wins, it will be another example of a ranked choice voting disaster
Overview of Ranked Choice Voting in New York City
Yes, New York City uses ranked choice voting (RCV) for certain elections. This system allows voters to rank up to five candidates in order of preference instead of selecting just one.
Elections Using Ranked Choice Voting
Ranked choice voting is applied in the following local elections:
To play devil’s advocate, that primary in NYC had higher than usual non-voting. Portland, Oregon also reported higher than usual non-voting –even with vote by mail– when they used RCV as many people reported it was too confusing.
The Space Force on October 10, 2025 announced it has now finalized and approved the environmental assessment that will permit SpaceX’s to increase its launch rate at Vandenberg to as much as 100 times per year.
The DAF [Air Force] has decided to increase the annual Falcon launch cadence at VSFB [Vandenberg] through launch and landing operations at SLC-4 and SLC-6 [the two SpaceX launchpads], including modification of SLC-6 for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicles to support future U.S. Government and commercial launch service needs. The overall launch cadence will increase from 50 Falcon 9 launches per year at SLC-4 to up to 100 launches per year for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy at both SLCs combined. Falcon Heavy, which has not previously launched from VSFB, would launch and land up to five times per year from and at SLC-6. The DAF will authorize SpaceX to construct a new hangar south of the HIF [SpaceX’s horizontal integration facility] and north of SLC-6 to support Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy integration and processing.
The radical California coastal commission and assorted California leftists strongly oppose this. In related news, SpaceX just completed the successful test launch 11 of their starship super rocket.
So now it’s a “disaster” when three candidates allow the voters to decide which of them to consolidate support behind, instead of making a backroom deal for two of them to drop out and endorse the third before any votes are cast?
Come on, man. You are way off the deep end on this subject. And as you know, I usually agree with you on these political matters.
I am also surprised that you are such a strong supporter of RCV. It is a tool for the left to steal elections. As an example, in the 2024 Alaska election, the main funding for the ranked choice voting ballot proposition that squeaked through by a few hundred votes was from the Democrats and the rino Lisa Murkowski Senate campaign. Murk uses RCV to get elected with Democrats vote in this otherwise conservative state.
Fortunately, RCV is banned in many conservative states.
As of June 2025, ranked-choice voting has also been banned in seventeen states.[8][9][10]
And this is patently wrong. You keep saying it, but have offered nothing to justify it besides “it makes my candidate not win”.
All RCV does is allow the voters decide who support consolidates behind, instead of using backroom deals to limit the options voters can choose from. Your candidate doesnt win because they werent going to win regardless - unless there are multiple opposing candidates who split the opposiing vote. And most of the time those two opposing candidates end up agreeing that one will withdraw and endorse the other, to prevent the split vote - taking that choice out of the hands of the voters.
You dont complain about Georgia’s election process? They require a majority to win, and if there is no majority have a second election between the top two vote-getters. That is RCV, with the additional hassels of requiring voters cast multiple ballots in multiple elections. If “who is your second choice” confuses voters, so will suddenly announcing a special second election and telling them they need to vote again.
