My pleasure, I appreciate your interest in such matters.

It's impressive how much attention they devote to him. It's truly an honor, and an authoritative affirmation that he's on the right track.

Have you ever seen one of those Middle East war movies? Those places are so much tidier. Somalia had concrete roads at least. Google "Argentina Villa 31", "Argentina la Matanza", "Argentina Crimes", "Argentina Villa Miseria", etc. What you will see is how the vast majority of the country's landscape and day-to-day life looks like for most people. I'm one of the fortunate ones, and even I have always felt like walking over the ruins of what was once a country. I still have the vivid memory of sleepless nights as a child, as my neighborhood was scourged by a crime wave for it was "liberated", which is the term the police uses to designate the zones where crime will be legal for a period of time (I'm not joking). Some zones remain like that forever. Yet in my years of helping Milei's political effort I traveled more throughout my city and province and saw absolute perdition.

As bad as my city is, everything pales in comparison to Santa Fe province, which before Milei was under strict control of drug cartels, razed by murder and crime. When he came into power the province had to be intervened by force. It improved dramatically. That in itself was already an historical change. However, that's what was under his control for it was a decision he could take. The rest of the provinces remain under control of the soviet landlords, and remain as terrible. The infamous "Conurbano", known as "Mordor" for good reason, remains hell on earth, as its current landlord imposes ever higher taxes.

What Milei was able to achieve with what little he has is a miracle that shouldn't have been possible. Since the monetary system was something under his effective control, his plan was to shut it down to end the infinite source of money that allowed the ever growing state expansion of the landlords, a tool that has always allowed them to hold people hostage amidst poverty (if you complain at anything, no more subsidies or state position), shutting down complaints on crime and state wrongdoings out of fear, making of crime a de-facto parastatal intimidating force, keeping the self feeding cycle of ever increasing power going on for decades.

Great work!! Thank you for sharing this :)

If Trump keeps the utterly retarded tariffs abomination thing for too long, I can assure you that.

You got it backwards. Everywhere is a shithole by default. You're living in one of the few places that might be not one, albeith superficially.

That's what the left boils down to. Here in Argentina the left leadership is composed of actual ex-members of terrorist groups. It's a pretty grim story.

I saw it! That's actually a fortunate coincidence in such a divisive context. Should alleviate things a bit.

Exactly right Sr.

I would say the same, but not being able to follow a single thread of logic and get lost on the external noise and the own inability to sweep variables in sequential order is a pretty ubiquitous inability.

Trust me, you are safe in the US. God forbid you ever get the Argentinean experience of living in fear every single day. The fear of not knowing if you're going to make it back home from work, or if you are even going to find your home as you left it. Getting back to a fully empty house is normal. And hoppeles: you will never recover what's stolen. Stealing is practically legal. Trying to get your stuff back is practically illegal, and god forbid you find the one who did it, because you're going to have to move to another city, which is the norm, and what the police itself will kindly advise you to do. I'm not exaggerating in the least. When Iran started to bomb Israel some months ago, hundreds of videos went viral here of Argentinians who emigrated to Israel who where calming down their relatives saying that they felt pretty secure and actually feared more for their relatives back in Argentina. I would go to live in the US right now, just like it is right now.

That said, the way to keep the standard high is to worry whenever it's felt it's getting lower, so keep it that way. Just don't lose the reference of where you're at.

This was effectively an act of fanaticism-driven folly. In politics the worst thing you could ever do is to physically attack your opponent, and the absolute worst is to kill him, for you can not but make a martyr of him and thus a much greater and influential figure than he could have ever been while alive. The only true death of a politician is to reduce him to insignificance while alive. And this psychopath took out the one guy that was a dialogist moderate. Kirk will be revered from now own. And the rest of what's coming... is not good...

You too Sr.

Fair enough.

The entire media and leftist on social media jumped instantly to justify his murder as "called for" before anyone else. But people reacting to that are the "reactionaries" ones. I understand Robert's honest intentions but he's being way too naive on what's going on.

Exactly right. Those interactions are only worth in public, not to convince them but to leave them exposed.

I left that clear here.

But what proofs do you need? He was killed on the spot in one of his events. Do you have proof that a person killed in an assault was killed just to steal his money? And when the murderer confesses would you still say "we will never truly know"? It doesn't matter at all what your inner intentions are, your actions speak for you. If you kill the guy in the middle of an event, you're attacking free speech. Regardless of all the reserves you may have on what the inner intentions were, this will effectively affect how people express in public from now on. And you will see that.

No but that's the quote repeated on media, that leftists repeat on social media too. However, when you do get them to show you the clip, which is taken from the video I shared in the comments, they show only the part where he says "I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights", conveniently cutting out the example he gives previously to frame those words. Still a terrible choice of words, but what they try to establish is clearly not what he meant.

That's completely out of scope here. I'm stating the guy shouldn't have been killed simply for speaking his mind. The post seeks to set the record straight on the argument the left uses to justify his murder.

You're bringing what of his other tenets were, which I'm not even discussing. Disagree with them freely. Just don't kill the guy for it.

Because they're tampering the evidence too. As I mentioned, if yo ask for evidence they will show you the clip out of context, without the previous example Kirk used to frame what he said second. In all honesty he could have chosen his words much, much better, but the first example he gives makes his point clear and far from what the left tries to establish.

Exactly my friend.