It's all going to be a bit presumptuous unless someone who genuinely identifies as a conservative and it's steeped specifically in the subcultures and particular varieties of conservatism Kirk was in to chimes in, but I'm not sure that they have that feeling in the way you're describing in response to this incident because I guess you kind of can't really feel that way more so when you're already at that point that you feel like things are unsalvageable. Reaching that point, or being at that point already seems to be sort of the essence of the MAGA movement and why it was so successful even as people pointed out hypocrisies amongst it's proponents or how the tenets of conservatism seemed so changeable so long as it's Trump changing them at any given moment. Their movement basically encapsulated this with phrases like "drain the swamp". They already long since considered the establishment order a quagmire.
Despite the irony that their saviour is still running for office within that system and contesting in elections within the supposedly beyond-fixing electoral system, they feel, I think, that Trump and his malleable brand of conservatism represents the final "burn everything down" revolution that will eventually result in the phoenix of the "great" America rising from the ashes. In this way it's fine for Trump to forgo or undermine elections in future, to destroy institutions, even act in apparent defiance of supposedly core conservative ideals at times, because it's part of the master plan to get rid of all the undesirables and defang opposition to the great new order that will eventually emerge.
To my mind within that framework, the maximal point fatigue and the end of patience and tolerance for the status quo was long since reached and support for Trump isn't like traditional support for a candidate in the past, it's more like outsourcing the revolution they'd otherwise take part in themselves, minimising the risk to themselves in the process. Events like the Kirk shooting do seen dangerous though in as much as many of those supporters likely think of themselves as revolutionaries in waiting until either the official word is given or some transcendent event lights the fuse in some way that becomes clear once it happens. This shooting might be viewed in that light. So rather than reacting to it like "that's it! I'm now fed up with this system, time to burn it down" it could be more like "that's the signal, I've already packed my go-bag and the gun under my pillow was already loaded anyway".
At least at one point that worked because there was a new article about the sudden surge of popularity from a YouTube video from like 2011 of a middle aged woman looking left then right whichb had successfully fooled the system. Guessing they fixed it since.
EDIT: I didn't have a lot of time to flesh this out at time of reply and I think the 10 upvotes for the person I replied to and single downvote for me might be an indication that my comment has been interpreted as disparaging preferential voting systems. For my comment to be understood correctly I should clarify that that is definitely not my intended meaning.
I was careful to say "resulting" because although perhaps theoretically you could say there isn't a need for parties in preferential voting systems (though I think you could technically do the same in first past the post systems as well), the way it works in practice, and I speak from experience as a voting citizen in Australia where we have preferential voting, political parties are the dominant and indeed only viable political forces capable of weilding significant power and influence. There are a handful of state and federal independents but governments are formed today as they pretty much have done from our earliest days, by political parties. I'm not sure I can think of examples of representative democracies with preferential voting systems that don't also exhibit this dynamic. I also strongly suspect if this state of affairs was reset tomorrow and we decided to run things closer to the way our Westminster system was initially conceived where the emphasis was upon individual parliamentarians representing constituentcies rather than parties; that voting blocks, factions and inevitably parties would rapidly form.
Parties emerge because of their branding and political machinery, they're well financed and they're organised with internal mechanisms to enforce member votes along party lines in Parliament making them more effective at forcing an agenda than loosely or temporarily coalesced independent representatives.
I might not like them and I feel like they undermine the whole point of having a representative supposedly chosen to represent me and my local area, given they first and foremost represent this other organisation instead but it's naive to think that our voting system, while technically not mandating the existence of parties, would somehow eliminate them. They are also favoured by the public themselves as well, as a shorthand for a candidate's platform and ideology which is more efficient and effective at messaging and communicating to the public than campaigns by multiple individual candidates with far smaller warchests and recognition.
Just don't fidget while you're counting your scoops. "Wait was that really 3 scoops or did I just get bored and start clicking for fun? Nah surely I couldn't have been THAT ADHD. No. I'd remember if I did that right? Maybe I'd better try to remember how many scoops to be sure, now, how many scoops was that?"
Much of what you describe sounds bad, and reflects poorly upon your parents and especially your mother, in particular the very strange act of texting the coach WTF? But for the sake of a complete perspective I'll offer you the most charitable defence I can of why she's acting this way.
One lens through which these years of discouraging behaviour can be viewed is that early on as you say, you came in to running with a lot of excitement and confidence that perhaps may have been premature at the time and maybe at the time she was concerned that you were setting yourself up for a fall and in a fairly misguided way was trying to protect you by trying to pull you back a little and keep expectations realistic so if the reality didn't reach giddying heights you wouldn't be too devastated. If that is why she's been acting this way, it seems she went all in on this notion and didn't realise it was doing a lot more harm than good. I think that this probably then accidentally became a sticking point between the two of you and she lost sight of her original intention and became more focussed on "bursting you're bubble" and began to take all evidence that there wasn't really any such bubble and that indeed you really did have realistic ambitions, as a need to be even more critical than ever because your bubble was seemingly bigger than ever and so the goalposts have moved and moved.
This interpretation doesn't exactly make her look saintly either but without knowing too much about her outside of your story it's at least plausible and at least started with arguably good intentions. I'm not saying this is definitely what's happening but you'll probably have plenty of responses already covering how bad this looks so an extra perspective might be helpful to you. Up to you with your proximity to the issue to assess how realistic this interpretation is.
That sounds awesome! You only have to order a pizza whenever you want some weed and then you have weed AND PIZZA and if he's not a weirdo then hanging out with the guy when he comes could be pretty fun too. Like a kind of a friend on demand service with weed and pizza but little to no obligation beyond that.
It's all going to be a bit presumptuous unless someone who genuinely identifies as a conservative and it's steeped specifically in the subcultures and particular varieties of conservatism Kirk was in to chimes in, but I'm not sure that they have that feeling in the way you're describing in response to this incident because I guess you kind of can't really feel that way more so when you're already at that point that you feel like things are unsalvageable. Reaching that point, or being at that point already seems to be sort of the essence of the MAGA movement and why it was so successful even as people pointed out hypocrisies amongst it's proponents or how the tenets of conservatism seemed so changeable so long as it's Trump changing them at any given moment. Their movement basically encapsulated this with phrases like "drain the swamp". They already long since considered the establishment order a quagmire.
Despite the irony that their saviour is still running for office within that system and contesting in elections within the supposedly beyond-fixing electoral system, they feel, I think, that Trump and his malleable brand of conservatism represents the final "burn everything down" revolution that will eventually result in the phoenix of the "great" America rising from the ashes. In this way it's fine for Trump to forgo or undermine elections in future, to destroy institutions, even act in apparent defiance of supposedly core conservative ideals at times, because it's part of the master plan to get rid of all the undesirables and defang opposition to the great new order that will eventually emerge.
To my mind within that framework, the maximal point fatigue and the end of patience and tolerance for the status quo was long since reached and support for Trump isn't like traditional support for a candidate in the past, it's more like outsourcing the revolution they'd otherwise take part in themselves, minimising the risk to themselves in the process. Events like the Kirk shooting do seen dangerous though in as much as many of those supporters likely think of themselves as revolutionaries in waiting until either the official word is given or some transcendent event lights the fuse in some way that becomes clear once it happens. This shooting might be viewed in that light. So rather than reacting to it like "that's it! I'm now fed up with this system, time to burn it down" it could be more like "that's the signal, I've already packed my go-bag and the gun under my pillow was already loaded anyway".