|
WarpedLichen posted:I think this would be more akin to refusing to vote for Republicans in 1860 because the party platform didn't call for the elimination of slavery where it already existed. Personally, I think it would be closer to refusing to vote for the Whigs after passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act, but at that point we are just vibes-based salami slicing. Discendo Vox posted:I am not arguing that there are never times where it is correct to point out that an action is insufficient. That is the entire point of the post. Please read the post. Discendo Vox posted:What distinguishes a valid critical approach to a given policy (real or proposed) that "doesn't go far enough" is fully describing what the alternative is, how it would work, and reckoning, honestly, with why it's not currently being proposed. Good faith argument in this context is pretty easily identifiable because it involves a lot of specific claims and doesn't involve attacking the other people in discussion or the people proposing or implementing the subject policy. Under the standard of "reckoning, honestly, with why it's not currently being proposed", is it acceptable to use fatalist arguments to invalidate criticism of "not going far enough". For example, if person A were to criticize Biden for signing legislation preventing a rail strike, preferring instead that he veto the bill, and either the veto being overridden or the rail strike allowed to happen. Can person B state that it was impossible for Biden not to sign that bill, as if it were he wouldn't have done so?
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2023 23:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 09:48 |
|
|
Haven’t read the last few pages. Got my typical “im liberal” (he’s not) friend saying the Colorado ruling is bad and opens Pandora’s box. I said it doesn’t matter since Supreme Court will just overturn it. Anybody got stronger arguments of why he’s just fear mongering or is thread in agreement it’s bad? Just curious. He won’t agree or admit that Joe Rogen is a conservative.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 00:03
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:We're teetering on the edge of fascism, it's seriously time to stop making "no true leftist" arguments and start figuring out how to get Americans to turn out for leftist politics. Maybe they just won't. Increasingly it seems the 2016 primary was a fluke based on hatred of Hillary, not eagerness for leftist policy. Maybe Americans are just too loving stupid and evil to ever want anything beyond slaughtering brown people. Maybe we deserve what Trump is going to do to us. Although having said that, I'm not sure. If the Dems were getting clobbered in elections then yeah it's the end of days, but instead everybody is apparently depressed and angry until voting actually happens and then the liberals win big. Even in Kentucky, the polling was saying the governor election was a coin-toss and then Beshear comfortably won re-election. I suspect that while in the perfectly spherical cow vacuum of a polling question, voters will go 'yeh, the gop are the Economy Guys and the economy sucks', once it actually goes to an election that's not Generic Republican but is some nutjob screaming about gay frogs or space lasers, the voters then reject that while still thinking they prefer a Generic Republican that doesn't actually exist anymore
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 00:13
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:Haven’t read the last few pages. Got my typical “im liberal” (he’s not) friend saying the Colorado ruling is bad and opens Pandora’s box. I said it doesn’t matter since Supreme Court will just overturn it. Anybody got stronger arguments of why he’s just fear mongering or is thread in agreement it’s bad? Just curious. What's bad and alarming is that a presidential candidate did an insurrection and a large fraction of the country is apparently cool and good with that. The Colorado ruling is cool and good because people who do attempt coups should not be allowed back into office, period, no matter how many people vote for them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 00:13
|
|
|
Google Jeb Bush posted:Yeah the more data i've seen on this line of argument the more worried I've gotten. I'm hoping I'm right and the Vibes Economy is just taking a while to catch up to Biden's policies and the actual metrics, but if I'm wrong, then something is terribly wrong with not just the immediate future of the Democratic Party, but the overall progressive/left conceptual model of "just do things to improve people's material conditions, dumbass".
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 00:17
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:Maybe they just won't. Increasingly it seems the 2016 primary was a fluke based on hatred of Hillary, not eagerness for leftist policy. Maybe Americans are just too loving stupid and evil to ever want anything beyond slaughtering brown people. Maybe we deserve what Trump is going to do to us. I mean, there are a lot of Americans who are brown people (And queer and etc. etc.) who probably don't deserve it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 00:21
|
|
|
I’ve cracked the nut. CPI reflects actual purchase prices and includes the substitution effect. So if prices have bifurcated ala my previous post: Bar Ran Dun posted:They lower prices by sales. What happens is just before inventory comes in an a sale starts and they’ll do like 2 for 6 dollars or things like buy two get three free. Then visible tag price on the shelf could have diverged significantly from actual prices paid measured by CPI! One goes into the store, see’s the gently caress you price on soda and chips. That feels terrible. Goods that were previously affordable and that are middle class signifiers are priced exorbitantantly and feel inaccessible. But then those same goods are mostly purchased in the deep mark down period right before restocking, thus the actual purchase price, what inflation measures is less than the regular shelf price increase! The gap as huge as whatever the discounting is! Price sensitive consumers see a 200, 300 % increase in the regular shelf price and that feels like bullshit. They lose access to those goods outside of sales periods. Inflation only increases by the actual price increase which is going to be heavily influenced by the sales discount pricing. Retailers can then use the “merchandising“ category and all the sales discounting appears as a loss. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Dec 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 01:02
|
|
|
I could definitely buy that as a contributing factor, actually.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 01:05
|
|
|
I’d need some sort of relative measures of impact and discounting over time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 01:16
|
|
|
Google Jeb Bush posted:I could definitely buy that as a contributing factor, actually. Add it to the bought at low interest rates vs seeing current renters / high rate buyers at current prices, and I’d bet that’s most of the “things are terrible” polling to the numbers don’t seem that bad gap.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 01:17
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I’d need some sort of relative measures of impact and discounting over time. I’d find it too tedious to do unless I was being paid to do it, but I know where it’ll show up! Moichandising! Merchandising costs are on quarterly and annual reports. They include sales discounting! The are grouped with the transportation theft losses. Someone can go back and look at the reports for the retailers and track merchandizing costs over time. These goods are mostly for the big brand good producers. They might show up on PepsiCo reports instead of like the Kroger reports. Will need to check both.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 01:26
|
|
|
That’s the other thing to add. I got to travel over the holiday. Prices on branded packaged goods are universally high and uniform (think PepsiCo, Nestlé, etc) across grocers and across regions. Those goods, producers probably set prices. They may have different relationships with the retailers (buying shelf space, then they handle their own inventory, and the retailers are sort of like a third party vendor that the sales pass through.) So those producers are where this might show up in reports.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 01:32
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:Haven’t read the last few pages. Got my typical “im liberal” (he’s not) friend saying the Colorado ruling is bad and opens Pandora’s box. I said it doesn’t matter since Supreme Court will just overturn it. Anybody got stronger arguments of why he’s just fear mongering or is thread in agreement it’s bad? Just curious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 03:45
|
|
|
ElegantFugue posted:He's not wrong that republicans will try to remove D candidates from ballots; he is wrong that this will be new. Conservatives have been making serious and determined efforts to strip Democratic candidates since at least Obama; the courts keep shutting them down with, "you can only do that for people who did treason; your efforts to block opponents off the ballot 'for being a (relevant slur)' are not valid." Hell where was that Florida where the Republicans ran someone with the same dam name as the Democrat, they already don't follow any rules and will gently caress anything over for power.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 05:56
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:I’ve cracked the nut. CPI reflects actual purchase prices and includes the substitution effect. This raise-the-price-and-discount nonsense is extremely annoying. It is great that capitalism has given me the gift of having to learn stocking schedules, go without things I previously bought rather casually, and get screwed when something runs out that I can’t go without. If I had excess space I could stock up during the sales, but I don’t, so it’s welcome to Screwville for me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 06:02
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:This raise-the-price-and-discount nonsense is extremely annoying. It is great that capitalism has given me the gift of having to learn stocking schedules, go without things I previously bought rather casually, and get screwed when something runs out that I can’t go without. If I had excess space I could stock up during the sales, but I don’t, so it’s welcome to Screwville for me. Punishing you for being poor is the entire point. Having more money means you get more privileges, that's what money is, and coming up with a new way for poor people to suffer is just as good as coming up with a new way for rich people to consume.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 06:12
|
|
|
Could someone explain how the inflation CPI numbers are actually calculated? Because I'm having trouble figuring it out from what I'm pulling up online. Like how to you actually calculate how much a class of good has gone up in price?Kalit posted:If someone has said they’re progressive at times and said they’re not a progressive at other times, which are you going to believe? I certainly know what I would believe…. Isn't the more reasonable read here, considering the supported legislation, that they are progressive at some times and in some ways and not progressive at other times in other ways? I consider myself a progressive most times, but there are plenty of progressives I do not personally associate with and if they asked me if I were I would say hell no because while I may be progressive I'm absolutely not that kind of progressive. Like every non-registered label, its applicability is always going to be contextual.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 07:34
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:This raise-the-price-and-discount nonsense is extremely annoying. It is great that capitalism has given me the gift of having to learn stocking schedules, go without things I previously bought rather casually, and get screwed when something runs out that I can’t go without. If I had excess space I could stock up during the sales, but I don’t, so it’s welcome to Screwville for me. I'm not arguing that it's bullshit, but it's sure not new. That's been the norm at most places for as long as I've been doing the shopping for myself, and the 2020-2022 range more stood out for how shortages and inflation put a pause to the cycling sales and brought an era of "the (high) price is what it is" before sale prices crept back this year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 07:48
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Punishing you for being poor is the entire point. Having more money means you get more privileges, that's what money is, and coming up with a new way for poor people to suffer is just as good as coming up with a new way for rich people to consume. It is unlikely that anyone involved in this process is going about it with the goal of "punishing people for being poor." They think they can sustain their current profits.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 08:01
|
|
|
ElegantFugue posted:He's not wrong that republicans will try to remove D candidates from ballots; he is wrong that this will be new. Conservatives have been making serious and determined efforts to strip Democratic candidates since at least Obama; the courts keep shutting them down with, "you can only do that for people who did treason; your efforts to block opponents off the ballot 'for being a (relevant slur)' are not valid." Sadly, the efforts are not limited to republicans. Just in 2020 I can recall Democrats working to have the Green Party removed from the ballot in swing states like Wisconsin. Why do we call them “Democrats” when they are so fond of anti-democratic practices like having their political enemies removed from the electoral process? Perhaps they should be renamed the “Authoritarians”? Hieronymous Alloy posted:What's bad and alarming is that a presidential candidate did an insurrection and a large fraction of the country is apparently cool and good with that. The Colorado ruling is cool and good because people who do attempt coups should not be allowed back into office, period, no matter how many people vote for them. Personally, I think democracy is “cool and good”, even when people vote for someone I don’t like. It’s disappointing to see others willing to compromise their principles so easily.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 12:11
|
|
|
The Top G posted:Sadly, the efforts are not limited to republicans. Just in 2020 I can recall Democrats working to have the Green Party removed from the ballot in swing states like Wisconsin. Or the Green party could of followed the rules to get on the ballot like everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 12:17
|
|
|
The Top G posted:Personally, I think democracy is “cool and good”, even when people vote for someone I don’t like. It’s disappointing to see others willing to compromise their principles so easily. It can be completely consistent with their principles for someone to believe that if someone wishes to end democracy that they have no place in democracy. For an example of where this principle is applied, consult a document known as the United States Constitution. Trump isn't just some President with policies people disagree with, there have been plenty of those over the last decades and there was no big call to have them actually disbarred from running in elections even when people thought their policies were bad, even when they were harmful to Americans, even when people were out in the streets protesting them, even when there were riots in the streets. And even Donald Trump isn't in danger of being kept off the ballot because people 'don't like' him. People loving hate Trump and he got his rear end kicked as a result. But his removal isn't because of any of the things he did that tormented immigrants or endangered trans people or played extremely dangerous brinkmanship games with Iran, it's not because of the massive degradation of respect for America globally or the endangering of American intelligence assets and offense given to allies, it's not the bungled response to Covid that got a lot of people unnecessarily killed and disabled, it's not the long list of things he did that got shot down by the courts, it's not all the stuff that got leaked or shared with inappropriate people, it's not even all the regular rear end corruption he engaged in! It's the very specific actions he performed that were directly aimed at overturning, by one means or another, the results of a clean, fair, open, and unambiguous Presidential election; all of the other stuff be it stupid, dangerous, or indeed criminal is all kept within the realms of a political argument as "Here's why you shouldn't vote for this guy", not having him struck from the ballots so people can't vote for him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 13:19
|
|
|
The Top G posted:
Yeah you got me good there, voting for the guy who did a coup is actually being pro-democracy. Surely the best way to protect democracy is to let people vote him in again! Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 13:53 on Dec 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 13:51
|
|
|
Misunderstood posted:People think Biden is "too liberal," when you ask them in a phone poll. The single thing polling companies spend the most time and effort on is throwing away responses from people who are aren’t going to vote. I mean, not even counting Pierre Rico and DC, there are ~20 million American adults not even legally entitled to vote. And voter turnout for people under 50 is pathetic, at least partly because in large parts of the country voting can’t even theoretically do anything. The fundamental point is that Biden’s economic policies are mostly benefiting people who won’t, or can’t, vote,. This could be countered by a sufficiently large and enthusiastic get-out-the-vote effort. But that requires middle class volunteers; ones who can choose to take time off work. And those people are not really benefitting from leftist economic policies, and so are inherently going to have an attraction towards arguments that lead to them stopping doing that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 14:02
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Isn't the more reasonable read here, considering the supported legislation, that they are progressive at some times and in some ways and not progressive at other times in other ways? That’s true in general with the question I asked. However, the broader context was leftists getting mad when he stated just this past month that he isn’t a progressive, just a Democrat, since he has called himself a progressive recently. Even though he also stated the exact same “isn’t a progressive” line earlier last year too. And TBH, maybe when he called himself a progressive, it was just within the scope of a particular issue. But I don’t honestly know or care enough to look. I just think it’s funny that people got mad at him for saying the literal exact same thing he has said in the recent past radmonger posted:The single thing polling companies spend the most time and effort on is throwing away responses from people who are aren’t going to vote. Huh? Often, polls only go after people who are eligible to vote, but I haven’t heard of them getting rid of responses from non-voters who are still eligible Do you have some links I could read up on regarding this? Kalit fucked around with this message at 14:34 on Dec 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 14:05
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Punishing you for being poor is the entire point. Having more money means you get more privileges, that's what money is, and coming up with a new way for poor people to suffer is just as good as coming up with a new way for rich people to consume. Discendo Vox posted:It is unlikely that anyone involved in this process is going about it with the goal of "punishing people for being poor." They think they can sustain their current profits. There probably isn’t even a person involved. There is an algorithm that was written once, which changes pricing based on sales data, and maximizes for returns. In BFC they posted a paper showing how these learning algorithms can approximate cartel pricing, driving pricing up to the monopoly pricing level and keeping it there with punishment. But that was in an experimental case with a duopoly. But I look at my state and that experimental duopoly very much matches the actual grocery duopoly present in most of the state.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 14:05
|
|
|
Misunderstood posted:
Exactly. See: Freedom of Speech, where they seem to believe they're doing it wrong if someone's not being triggered or offended. They're just tellin it like it is and people don't like it!
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 14:26
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:There probably isn’t even a person involved. There is an algorithm that was written once, which changes pricing based on sales data, and maximizes for returns. I don't suppose there are any consumer side apps to help people find the best price options?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 14:49
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I don't suppose there are any consumer side apps to help people find the best price options? Awful lot of “can only compare prices in sales ads”. It’s going to be worse than that soon. I think a lot of grocers want to move to digital tags.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 15:24
|
|
|
Kalit posted:... I believe the magic google terms are "likely voter model."
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 15:34
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:I believe the magic google terms are "likely voter model." Ah, thank you. Is this only used in polls where they specify it in the methodology or is it common practice to always use it in polling? For example, would it still be used in a Biden job performance poll where it states a random sampling was used (e.g. https://news.gallup.com/file/poll/547808/2023_12_21%20Biden%20Approval.pdf)?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 15:46
|
|
|
It depends on the pollster. Some will never use it because it's hard, some always use it, and some produce separate registered voter and likely voter estimates. Biden has been doing much better in likely voter screens because a huge component of that is education, where democrats have been cleaning up. More educated = more likely to vote. More educated = increasingly dem leaning. This is a reversal of a trend where Republicans did better in these models.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 15:49
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I get it, I don't like Biden as a person either. But no matter how much I dislike him as a person or as a politician, he has done a lot of stuff well to the left of what I imagined the mainstream Dems would even consider ever doing, and the voters sure don't seem to be appreciating it. And if voters don't respond to leftist policy, that is a serious problem, and it's one that leftists can't continue to close their eyes to. We're teetering on the edge of fascism, it's seriously time to stop making "no true leftist" arguments and start figuring out how to get Americans to turn out for leftist politics. As someone who voted party-line Republican until 2016, the hard pill to swallow here is that the left needs to decouple social issues from economic, and focus on the latter over the former. For whatever reason, liberals have all decided that it’s okay to punch down on lower-class whites, and that disdain and disrespect just oozes out of their pores when they talk about traditionally progressive social issues. Biden won because he connected with struggling white people - he talks about them with empathy, pulls from his own life experiences, and doesn’t write them off as irredeemable. In terms of more recent elections, the Georgia Senate race proved that you could win on economic populism in a red state, and Youngkin won because the Democrat leaned into the social side and got smacked down. No one’s going to vote for someone who hates their culture or religion, and you can’t win nationally without a sizeable chunk of disadvantaged whites. Also, yes I’m aware that social and economic issues are inextricably linked, I’m talking about optics and focus. Words and messaging matter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 16:28
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:As someone who voted party-line Republican until 2016, the hard pill to swallow here is that the left needs to decouple social issues from economic, and focus on the latter over the former. No. gently caress off. There is zero reason to continue perpetuating inequality to appease racist, sexist fuckwits, especially because this "focus on economic things" somehow inevitably seems to mean "do things that help white [probably men] more than any other group" which just makes it worse. Maybe that's what would appeal to you more, but that doesn't necessarily make it the right move morally or politically. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Ravenfood fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Dec 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 16:34
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:As someone who voted party-line Republican until 2016, the hard pill to swallow here is that the left needs to decouple social issues from economic, and focus on the latter over the former. For whatever reason, liberals have all decided that it’s okay to punch down on lower-class whites, and that disdain and disrespect just oozes out of their pores when they talk about traditionally progressive social issues. Biden won because he connected with struggling white people - he talks about them with empathy, pulls from his own life experiences, and doesn’t write them off as irredeemable. In terms of more recent elections, the Georgia Senate race proved that you could win on economic populism in a red state, and Youngkin won because the Democrat leaned into the social side and got smacked down. No one’s going to vote for someone who hates their culture or religion, and you can’t win nationally without a sizeable chunk of disadvantaged whites. Since you brought it up, if you want to share, what made you change your party line voting in 2016? And was it a sudden/specific instance or just a gradual change of mind?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 16:49
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:No. gently caress off. There is zero reason to continue perpetuating inequality to appease racist, sexist fuckwits, especially because this "focus on economic things" somehow inevitably seems to mean "do things that help white [probably men] more than any other group" which just makes it Quck reality check; a disproportionately large number of ethnic minorities are poor. And every other racist owns a car dealership, or a 5 figure pension. That you appear to genuinely think otherwise is a result of the reality distortion field around politics caused by one fact; poor people don’t get to vote.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 16:53
|
|
|
The thing about "downplaying" social issues is that Republicans will not downplay them - they are 100% electorally reliant on them, so they will keep pushing forever. When somebody over there is shouting about how a certain kind of person should not be allowed to exist, are you just supposed to ignore it, because it might make some old-fashioned guy somewhere sad if you argued against that? When somebody says "this class of people wants to rape your children, and the state has to take action against them" the correct response is not "hey, let's talk about marginal tax rates." I'm also a little baffled at this constant assertion that social issues are some huge drag on the Democratic party. Social issues are one of the main reasons Democrats are dominant among younger voters (and the reason that whatever polls say, Biden is going to lose very, very few of them to Trump). Abortion is Republicans' single biggest election liability! The midcentury Democratic coalition was politically dominant and economically transformative, but it was built entirely on tolerance of racism, and eventually the sacrifices that were made on the altar of Southern populism blew up the party entirely. We can't make a mistake like that again. The party's commitment to secular humanism cannot be questioned. In 2024 Democrats have to turn social issues into a conversation about personal liberty, about "freedom". Republicans have made it incredibly easy for them to do this, and although you hear it a bit, the Democrats should be throwing the f-word around in every soundbite they have. It's a classic American fetish and the GOP is handing them the issue on a silver platter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 16:59
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Since you brought it up, if you want to share, what made you change your party line voting in 2016? And was it a sudden/specific instance or just a gradual change of mind? The specific policy that pushed me to the “don’t vote for Trump” side was the Muslim travel ban, and I officially changed my party affiliation the day after the “good people on both sides” presser, along with a letter to the RNC explaining my decision. Looking back, there was definitely a growing frustration with seeing the party increasingly moving away from philosophical underpinnings towards operating on instinct and emotion, and to be honest I was tired of being on Team Stupid. I realize lots of you are gearing up to make the “BUT THEY WERE ALWAYS RACIST YOU JUST WANT DECORUM” argument, but I honestly believe the party fundamentally changed. Trump was the flashpoint, but he couldn’t have succeeded without some strong economic and technological headwinds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 17:25
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:I realize lots of you are gearing up to make the “BUT THEY WERE ALWAYS RACIST YOU JUST WANT DECORUM” argument I guess the thing is, they used to have principles besides white/male supremacy - after all, it was founded as an anti-slavery party. There were reasons, at some point - not reasons I agree with, but legitimate philosophical arguments - to be a Republican, besides being an rear end in a top hat. But they're all gone, and good for you for realizing that, because too many people didn't. (And a lot contorted themselves to fit this funhouse mirror version of the party.) In not changing your registration until 2017 I'd say it took you a good 23 years to notice what had been pretty obvious since Gingrich became speaker... but hey. You did it. So yeah, they were always racist, but used to be racist in a somewhat less destructive way. Thing about "decorum" is that it's not worthless, as much as we like to mock it here, and even have a smilie for such purposes. We were better off when racists thought it was inadvisable to be publicly racist. Even if people were still pretty drat racist in the 1990s, at least the idea of "racism is bad" was pretty unquestioned. If bigotry is "in style," then a lot of weak-willed people end up getting on the bandwagon - they get to fit in, and feel like they're better than other people to boot. People love both of those things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 09:48 |
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:I have 0 doubt at this point that he'll try to instigate another J6 type event if he can if he loses but the recent ruling won't matter one whit to him or the R's. He will certainly try to stir up poo poo if he loses but it is a very different thing stirring up poo poo from the position of being the sitting President, where delaying the bureaucratic process that officially installs your successor (the guy who defeated you) means you stay in power indefinitely, than being an unsuccessful challenger where delaying things only perpetuates the status quo where you are not in power, and you are not in charge of any arms of the state security apparatus and do not have the ability to even do things like slow walk an armed response to invasion of the Capitol. Edit: A Jan 6th success would have only required successful delay of certification of the electoral votes, which happened later that night because there were enough officeholders determined to go through with it once the building had been secured. For Trump to gain power as the challenger after losing next year would require a full on successful rebellion, a much taller order. Zwabu fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Dec 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 18:01
|
|
