Don't like IPO now for SpaceX

It's probably premature to hold an IPO for SpaceX.

If he had a mature Starship launch system, then yes. Otherwise, no.

You don't have to have a profitable company to go public, so even though SpaceX may be bleeding cash to fund Starship development wouldn't be a barrier normally; the hostility towards Elon Musk may cause trouble down the line.

Lot harder to monkey-wrench his Starship if he keeps it private for now. I say wait until it's proven itself more.

New York’s 1.47 Million Voter Roll Fraud Unmasks The ‘Safe Blue State’ Myth

American Thinker:

A damning discovery in New York has flown under the national radar.

Comment:

This comment adds my own thoughts to what is being said in the article. The main idea is that the solid blue state may well be a myth. Frankly, I think it is more than myth. It is a syndrome of criminality. There is more than just outright fraud. It could well involve violence or threats of violence. Gaslighting figures in the mix as well.

One other example: Bongino referred to how "jungle primaries" can result in the elimination of Republicans from the ballot. That and other fradulent means of "voter suppression" are the only reasons the Democrats have any power at all. Voter suppression is what Dems routinely accuse Republicans of doing. Ten to one that this is just another case of projection. I'll call it political projection, because this is not psychological. It is intentional lying and fraud.

Ultimately, you need to get people to get their backs up against this kind of thing. It's this or there will be subjugation.

Quick update:

I've got a really bad feeling about election integrity. It may be very, very difficult to get rid of it. I have a very definite reason to suspect ALL politicians for this. It has to be extremely tempting for a politician or group of politicians to rig elections. There may be only limited ways in which an election can have integrity. One way is with paper ballots counted in public. The votes must be cast in private. The use of purple dye should be required in order to prevent double voting. Anything short of this should be considered suspect.

The Democrats' Insanity Defense

 

Update on 6/04/26:

The easiest thing in the world to do is to give up. That appears to be one of the leftist's strategies: to make you want to give up. Don't let this win.

Updated on 2/9/26:

  Tempting thing to say: "Life is nuts."

  And: "Try to make any sense of it will make you nuts, too."

  To counter those thoughts, I'd say: "If you didn't try to make sense of it, then you'll just join the rest of the looney tunes."

  One philosophy that I've held for a long time, and it doesn't seem to have helped me much:  "I try to be rational.  It doesn't seem to work too well in this crazy world."

  Maybe it is my own brand of crazy to keep insisting upon it.

  Whatever.

  I return you to your regularly scheduled nuttiness.

11/2/24:

The Democrats are so crazy, that GOP activists have to tone it down, or they won't be believed.

Tabletmag dot com

If the Democrats are crazy, and people are in denial about that, then does that make a lot of people crazy? It's got to be some type of dysfunction of a massive scale. If Kamala Harris somehow ends up in the White House, this may be a big reason why.

It is a scary thing to consider that there may not be enough sane people around to do what is clearly indicated. This group of people need to go, but will that happen?

Turn a page indeed. These people are nuts, and this isn't the first time I've written that. Here's a campaign slogan --- Make America Sane Again.

Dan Bongino on "suicidal empathy"

Suicidal empathy is defined as "Empathy with no ownership". Search text: "Suicidal Empathy: author Gaad Saad". Looked up this on search engine and found the Amazon link to the book.

Quote from Amazon page:

What happens when a society elevates victimhood to a virtue and decides that punishment is cruel? You get the disease Dr. Gad Saad calls suicidal empathy. And the West may be terminally infected.

Comment:

My own reaction is that the Bernie Sanders types are like the apparatchicks in the former Soviet Union. They talk a good game of equality under communism or (socialism or what have you in the modern West), but they live the high life. The apparatchicks in the Soviet Union got the goodies that the West produced, and these same goodies were denied to their subjects under the tyrannical and totalitarian control of the commies.

I simplify it ( as does Bongino in this clip) to plain old dishonesty.

Quick Update:

Keep in mind that the Soviet Union didn't coddle criminals. Neither does Red China. The hard line commies KNOW that this is societal poison, and they do NOT practice "suicidal empathy". This has got to be a psy-op on gullible Westerners who fall for this nonsense. It's a total and complete scam.

The pertinent section of the video where Bongino mentions the book:

Getting out of the comfort zone

6/3/26:

With respect to the most recent post as of this update, could it be that Democrats allow unsavory types into their coalition because their comfort zone would prefer the unsavory types over losing power?

But they're losing power anyway. What the Democrats are doing doesn't make sense...

Jan 11, 2026:

   It's a little difficult to come up with a topic today.  Something I saw just recently gave me an idea.  What is it about people these days that makes them different than before?

  Some may argue that they are not any different than before.  Well, something is certainly different.  No, it isn't exactly Trump.  But Trump has something to do with it.  Not in the man himself, but in the fact that it may be the time in which a man like Trump could succeed in getting elected to office.

  Trump didn't just fall out of the sky.  He's been well-known for decades.  Why now?

  Trump gets into somebody's comfort zone.  He's a threat to a lot of folks in DC. Probably not so much in the heartland.  Otherwise, he couldn't have been elected. The people wanted him for a reason.  Just speaking for myself, I was sick and damned tired of the GOP refusing to do anything about the outrages of the political left.  I recall vividly the way the left took down George W. Bush, and Bush didn't do a damned thing about it.

  But this sentiment of mine is nothing new. I've written of it long before Trump came down the escalator.

  The reaction of the left to Trump also pushes some buttons.

  Yet I am amazed by the polls.  Nothing that Trump does comes remotely close to what the political left does.  I won't argue about this, but there will be a denial of the truth of this.  The political "right" is way, way too passive.  The political left does not share that trait.  Would you see "moderates" blocking streets because they didn't agree with a certain policy?  Of course not.  Moderates don't behave badly.

  Can you see "conservatives" storming the Capitol Building on January 6th, 2021? Not really.  Conservatives wouldn't do that.  But MAGA people can be socially conservative, in my opinion.

  I didn't go to DC on January 6th, 2021.  There are multiple reasons why. I don't think that even if I did go, would I have gotten myself in the middle of a crowd of people who went inside the Capitol Building.  But if ANYONE gets in that situation, events could draw you in.

  One reason for not going to DC then was the attitude of the people there--the best example was in the video of Maxine Waters saying that those that she didn't agree with weren't welcomed there.  It is 90% Democrat, perhaps more than that.  You won't be treated fairly there.  You are stepping on hostile ground.

  Many people didn't believe that. Many people went there to express their opinions, and found themselves in the middle of something that they didn't think would happen.  If cops allow you into the Capitol Building, you don't expect to be treated as if you committed a heinous offense.

  The reaction to that event was just more outrage from the left, and it continues to this day.

  Sometimes the reaction to outrageous behavior is to give in to it.  Like the outburst from Jasmine Crockett.  The emotionalism is meant to make you feel sorry for making her feel bad enough to cry in public like she did.  I am inclined to think the whole exhibition was a big act, but there could be some genuine emotion there.  Yet it is still manipulative.

  Sometimes a person has to accept responsibility for their own behavior.  If they are going to engage in unlawful behavior, and even behavior that could be considered dangerous, they should accept the fact that something bad could happen in consequence of that.  Don't go around boo-hooing about it afterward.

  Same thing for the people who got caught up in the January 6th riot.  Many people just got caught up in the moment.  But they certainly didn't deserve to be called insurrectionists if they believed that the election of 2020 was a fraud.  There is a line to draw.  Where do you draw that line?

  There is such a thing as the First Amendment.  But what sort of behavior is appropriate?  When does the line get crossed?  But the folks who want to cause trouble will blur the lines.  The lines should be very, very clear.

  You don't get to endanger anybody's life.  You don't have the right to block traffic. If an officer tells you to do something, you should comply, and if you do not, then take your punishment, because you deserve it.

  Getting all emotional about it may go with the territory, but it doesn't get my sympathy.

  Indeed.  There are many examples in history that could be cited here.  Just because someone gets into your comfort zone doesn't give you the right to shoot anyone either.  It's a fine line.  But law enforcement requires a firm response to those who would challenge it.  If you challenge it, be prepared for bad stuff.  You had to know what you were doing, and if you didn't, all the more reason for not even being there to begin with.

  Why mention Trump. Because for some folks, Trump is the reason for this.  Nope. Not buying that. The reason for it is that certain people make it their business to get into your comfort zone for the sole purpose of being provocative. If the provocation is taken, there is an opportunity to exploit it.

  There has to be a certain amount of ill will involved in order to provoke people for the purposes of exploiting their reactions.  But you don't have to take the bait.

  So what is this essay all about? NOTHING.  Ignore it, if you please. I think of it as a WARNING.  Things are getting out of hand.  But there are people who like that shit. Just saying.

No common ground with Democrats?

Yours truly cannot believe that most Democrats favor a guy associated with Al-Qaeda as their representative in Congress...

Either I am wrong and they do, or Democrats are making a bad judgment call in allying themselves with a group of folks like this.

However, they did vote to send Barak Hussein Obama to the White House. Obama was elected because he is black; and the Dems decided to overlook his prior associations with a communist.

Prior associations DO matter. They mattered with Obama because Obama's election DID NOT IMPROVE RACIAL RELATIONS. The presumption was that by electing a black man to the White House would improve racial relations. That presumption failed.

What's the excuse for ignoring this Al Qaeda sympathizer to Congress? I refuse to believe that most Democrats agree with Al Qaeda.

But maybe I'm wrong...

This is the House Democrat leader congratulating a guy who defended the World Trade Center bomber and volunteered for an Al Qaeda organization.

The level of cooked we are can’t be quantified. pic.twitter.com/97Gi9ZgU6G

— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) June 3, 2026

This Red State content producer says "we are cooked". Who's "we"? By all rights, the Democrats should be cooked if they put up with this guy... The GOP should hammer this home again and again. Instead this Red State guy can only wring his hands and say "woe is me!"

Could Oikophobia explain why solutions aren't wanted?

6/3/26:

It seems that I get into these modes of thinking with regards to what seems to be intractable problems. One of these is this negative attitude referred to as oikophobia--which to me is a hatred of the elite for one's own people. Or those who prefer to use hatred of others as justification for their own behavior.

Christianity teaches as a commandment to "love one another". That may be a problem for some folks who think that Christianity is the problem. Well, you can hate something, say Christianity for instance, and still use its ideas if those ideas are good. If you think hatred is a bad thing, why not try this Christian thing?

Ah! But people may not always agree on what "love" is.... Therefore, they could justify horrors by claiming it IS love that drives them to doing what they do.

Or you could just try to find a solution for the problem, whatever it is.

But you cannot please all the people all the time. Some folks are just going to be what they are. You cannot tell them anything...

1/25/13:

First, the term "oikophobia" has to be defined, which can be found here and here.

Basically, that's what I've been writing about.  Oikophobia is the hatred of the familiar which, in the case of the nation, it is the hatred of one's own people.

So, why wouldn't an "oik" try to sabotage any effort at truly improving a situation?  Why not do the opposite and try to destabilize and destroy the current order since you hate it?

By "current order", I mean the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  By "current order", I mean capitalism.  By "current order", I mean the very things that have brought us our wealth and prosperity.  By "current order", I mean Western Civilization.  The right to self-defense and so on and so forth.

To the left side of the political spectrum, America is bad, and must be changed.  But changed how and in what manner?  To destroy those things described above as the "current order"?

To the right side, the left is only misguided and not evil.  Therefore, at least some on the right will not engage the left and fight them.  If you prefer not to fight, might you try some other way?

I've offered my thoughts on the subject of Oikophobia.  I suggested finding common ground on which an environment could be fostered so that solutions to problems could be found.  But what if the common ground is studiously being avoided?  What if the common ground is being avoided for the purposes of furthering the attitude of Oikophobia itself?  Perhaps the clang and discord is what is desired and not the clang of hammers which are the sounds of building the new ways and means that will solve our problems.

How far does this phenomenon of Oikophobia go?  Some of those on the right presume that it is only the left that has this problem.  But if you don't actually seek solutions to problems that your adversary claims to exist, perhaps you would prefer the noise that accompanies the opposition?  The noise that confirms you in your disgust with your own people?

Let's not hate people, let's hate bad thinking.