The red pillers will have all moved on by then.

Do we just passively watch them scatter, some into other open right-wings, some into apathy and non-participation and then just hope some drift into the big tent, or do we try and peel off some of their numbers?

Election wins require votes.

There are so many other MAGA types (mainly Christian Nationalist) that could set up a shop.

It falls apart once the personality is gone--unless they can find a replacement. JD isn't that. Neither is anyone else.

The core will never accept her.

so they can follow a woman if she is one of them and does the other bullshit well (hopefully not, but she may have been behind some of his success so who knows?)

But Jimmy Kimmel is back on!

It's just a lot of clickbait type crap . But everyone knows that's what it is and nothing more.

Kirk and some others did the same with politics.

That's why the audience was mostly young guys and other right wing fools.

I grew up with Krasnov.
His daily abominations re-awake every time I hear the vile bile in his voice.
I Hate Him.
To hear him declare: "All you're good for is to Fuck and fry meat!" was a defining moment in my growth.
They will certainly sit together in Hell. Don't Go There.

To hear her regurgitate his drivel is a stain on all humanity. Women are better than this.

…because I don’t believe she is one of them. Religious, no doubt, but I zeroed in on a couple of things in her New York Times interview that indicate to me that she has stuck with her Catholic roots, and the evangelicals won’t stand for her being in charge.

First, the interview mentions that she was wearing a St. Michael medal that her husband was wearing when he was shot. I’ve had lots of religious discussions with lots of evangelicals and even mainstream Protestants in my life, and I’ve never heard any of them that care about or in any way look to the saints from a religious perspective.


Second, she said she was leaving punishment for the shooter up to the government because she didn’t want his blood on her ledger, that when she died she didn’t want Jesus saying huh, an eye for an eye, is that how we do it, and that it might keep her from heaven and being with her husband. That is most decidedly NOT an evangelical perspective; evangelicals believe once saved, always saved, whereas Catholics believe faith plus works are required, and that salvation can be lost by actions.

Anyway, I don't believe that the evangelical base of TP will support in the mid to long term.

‘Once saved, always saved’ Does that mean that evangelicals are ‘saved’ at birth, simply by being born into the religion? That seems awfully convenient. BTW, I appreciate your insights into a world that is completely unfamiliar to me.

...but when they're born again, i.e, they accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. That's why evangelicals require a "profession of faith", after the age of reason, before they are baptized; it's so that the person is aware of what they are doing, what salvation means in their church, and what the commitments are, whereas Catholics baptize infants to protect them until they are of the age of reason. Of course evangelicals are still called to live according to the teachings of Christ, but the "rebirth" saves them even if they don't.

In the Catholic Church, yes, we accept Christ as savior, but we're also called to do good works - acts of faith, hope, and charity, (short version, LOL) and we're taught that our salvation can be lost if we don't die in a state of grace...that would be committing mortal sins and dying before confession, etc. We're also taught that even venial sins, although they don't cost us salvation, lead us to more time in purgatory before making it to heaven.

All of the above is obviously over-simplified, but it gives you the gist of why I gleaned what I did from her interview.

When I read Erika Kirk say that she didn't want the shooter's blood on her ledger, that's very much a Catholic teaching re: the death penalty, and very much a Catholic notion of being able to "lose" salvation.

Sorry to be so wordy.

As soon as I heard “the widow” was taking over, I thought that she could not retain the young males with their misogyny. Amanda Marcotte is the best and always eloquent

Over the last thirteen years TPUSA has grown and branched out into all kinds of right wing campus outreach and conservative political and religious organizing efforts. Kirk was the public face and driving force of TPUSA, now that he's gone it will probably splinter into competing conservative organizations. TPUSA's history makes interesting reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_Point_USA

a sort of enemy professors list, would dox them and call for their firing. It started a long cycle of threats, abuse and fear for educators.

Anti-intellectualism is so self-defeating for a civilization. Civilization is enriched when knowledge and truth are freely shared and kept safe for posterity.

When I hear that another museum is closed down I wonder, will the knowledge be lost along with the objects?

Erika gets a spot in the Trump Misadministration, or a spot on Fox Noise?

He can take over.

He included it was his incel followers.

South Park absolutely nailed him. They pointed out his tricks and tactics which often was to speak in BS generalities and personally attack people when he got boxed in.

He was made to look like a fool at Oxford and by Mehdi Hasan. The one with Hasan, I’ve read, never appeared in any of Kirk’s platforms in any way.

The kids in these videos are often cogent and persuasive, but their words don’t matter to the viewers. The bitter, misogynist audience is there for the provocative visual of the older Kirk looking down on and verbally “owning” supposedly “ruined” women. His empire was built on videos promising sexualized humiliation of liberal women — really, girls — for MAGA men. Reasoned discourse had nothing to do with it.

was in having no conscience, using deceptive debate trickery and chopping up videos of his opponents in a way that twisted and misconstrued what was said.

He was a charlatan and a con artist who got high by "owning" and humiliating others. Certainly NOT christlike!

He will be the new Charlie Kirk

A smug little man full of spite,
Mocked a girl for her cami too tight.
Though her points rang out clear,
He sold rage, not good cheer —
Now his widow must carry that blight.

A preacher of rage dressed as truth,
Built his fame on humiliating youth.
He sneered at their pain,
For clicks and for gain —
Now his widow must mimic the uncouth.

He crowed while young women were shamed,
Called it “debate,” but it’s rage he proclaimed.
Now he’s gone in a flash,
And his wife sells the trash —
Still dolled up while preaching the blamed.

Charlie Kirk built his name on abuse,
Sneering lies he would gleefully juice.
He mocked nervous teens,
Sold misogynist scenes —
Now his widow repackages Zeus.

The phony bastard, with his jaw clenched in hate,
Filmed girls just to humiliate.
Now he's dead, and his wife
Tries to monetize strife —
But she can't play the patriarch's fate.

Charlie Kirk mocked a girl for her chest,
Then framed her as loose and unblessed.
Now he lies cold and still,
While his widow must fill
The old role: make hate look like the rest.

He made his fortune on shame,
Filming girls, then distorting their name.
Now he's rotting in dirt,
While his wife hawks his hurt—
Still selling slut-hate for acclaim.

The prick built an empire on lies,
Where cruelty passed as “being wise.”
Now he’s gone in a flash,
Just a martyr for cash —
And his wife keeps the grift in disguise.

She preaches that women submit,
While cashing in every last bit.
Not tending the hearth,
But inflating his worth—
In heels, with a Bible, and grit.

Erika weeps in soft light,
Sells housewifely virtue by night.
But behind the sweet pose,
Are spreadsheets and clothes —
A brand built on patriarch spite.

They cry that a woman's place stays
In the home, out of power or praise.
Yet the “helpmeets” they tout
Run empires of clout —
While scorning the feminists’ ways.

In florals, she plays the pure wife,
Preaching homebound, subservient life.
But her empire’s vast,
Built on grifting the past —
A soft dress concealing the knife.

She gazes up, sweet and demure,
While selling the Christian-cute cure.
But behind all the lace,
Is a cold marketplace —
Where submission is branding, not pure.

With ruffles and Bibles in tow,
She stages a God-fearing show.
But the gospel she preaches
Lines pockets, not reaches —
It’s couture for the patriarchy’s glow.