We could argue back at them and say that it's unfair that when we said that you called us anti-democratic (whatever that means). But that's not Judo. That's not using your enemy's momentum and drive against them.
Instead we just agree with them. Yeah, shit's unsecure. Let's secure it. Yeah, we tried to tell you last time it's plausible that politicians would cheat.
You know at minimum a few people on the left are going to say it. Let's magnify their voices to cast doubt on our system, that's well deserving of it.
I don't care what politician is favored or disfavored or wins or loses. I want people to stop worshiping our system. That's all I care about. I think it's the only honest gain we can get out of any narrative.
Oh, also we should sell them on the idea Kamala should have been harder on Israel because that issue was benefiting her and if she had just been a little more bold she could have won it.
It's accurate. When margins are tight any one issue counts as a swing. And the Israel issue did hurt Trump. The general public is way less positive on Israel than the political class. Now more than ever, thankfully. Took them openly committing a genocide to convince these people. There are a lot of people single issue voting on that, especially within the moderates.
And Kamala was less pro-Israel this election than Trump was. So she won those voters who care about that. It's a sizable chunk of people.
There is more than one issue one could make that argument with, that it decided the election. It's all fair because if the issue is larger than the margin then it's true. But that being pro-Israel poisoned a candidate enough to put him under the line is something we want to sell, and sell hard.
And no one in the news is going to push that narrative. So you have to. Likely in more places than here. I suppose I should change that "have to". You get to sell people on Israel having poisoned Trump.
Might as well start putting a few seeds out there ahead of the results so they know how to process it when the results come in. Today is a Trump could have won if he wasn't pro-Israel kind of day.
I was thinking about this.. We really shouldn't be happy with an election result because while Trump may be better domestically he does worship Israel more than Kamala does. So if we should be unhappy with either result what result should we be happy with, even if implausible?
If both Kamala and Trump had heart attacks tomorrow we likely still shouldn't be happy with the result because they would just hold a special election with new pro-Israel stooges and we'd be in the exact same situation.
But ultimately all action is human action, including the decision to hold another election and the effort of organizing it, and the selection of who the people would vote between.
If a perfect intellegence decided to cause all the heart attacks necessary (all happening tonight) such that by this time next year we do not have an Israeli-stooge president, what would that minimum number be?
We know it's a finite number because as a most extreme upper bound if it hit everyone in America but me that would work. There are less extreme upper bounds that are easy to find. So we could either work that upper bound down or the lower bound up.
Like do you think it would be possible for only 6 people to have a heart attack and us not have a stooge president?
On Matrix one of the sort factors is bump. Meaning adding something to the conversation can put it back on the front page. But different from 4chan there are other factors like age and post score. So it's like a hybrid of reddit and 4chan. I want to see if it's still possible to have 4chan like threads that last so I made a few. Help us keep these threads afloat by contributing. If you want to.
I've got a few to pick from:
Bad Halloween costumes: https://matrix.gvid.tv/c/Threads/8Ygivhd3Bw
AI OC General but especially WTF AI/Cursed AI: https://matrix.gvid.tv/c/Threads/5zm88wZcVo
Lotr Meme: https://matrix.gvid.tv/c/Threads/98cc5QpHut
