PumpkinSkink

It's a little more complex than that. He, like, was buying shares, blew past the 5% ownership disclosure point, failed to disclose, was forced to disclose his stake. He was then offered a seat on the board, didn't like the lack of control, and made a meme offer on the remaining stake to take the company private, tried to pull out, and was forced to buy the company he didn't want to buy by the board of directors who didn't want him to buy it.

He's the recent Adam Conover interview with the details: https://youtu.be/sxG2Y3E0uEY

I think I used to play Halo 3 with that guy

Oh I get it now. You're saying that "there won't be a next election". Careful with the self fufulling prophecies. If you don't want to succumb to that, I recommend getting involved locally. Whoever you trust electorally will need your help now to build a bulwark for 2026, and getting your hands dirty will help you get over the pessimism.

I think it's more "a lot of people would really like someone to significantly change the system of politics, and Trump promised to be a wrecking ball... oh and btw... wtf do you mean Facism. Are you like my Highschool history teacher or something? Isn't Hitler dead"

Occam's razor isn't "the simplest, most reductive answer is usually right" it's "entities must not be created beyond nessecity". It argues that when you have two hypotheses which have equal explanatory power, you should usually choose the one that has fewer elements (assumptions, new rules). The classic example is a heliocentric solar system vs a geocentric one. Geocentric needs very complex laws of motion to get the sidereal motion correct, heliocentric doesn't.

"everyone is racist" doesn't have the same explanatory power as the detailed analysis you're seeing journalists and your fellow lemmy users construct of Biden, Harris, and the Democratic establishments failure to recognize the need for loud populist messaging and unforced errors depressing voter enthusiasm, therefore we cannot apply Occam's razor to the situation.

Say it then. We're in the period of time where we must critically evaluate the failures of the political machine that delivered this. I'm trying my level best to provide detailed, informative assessment of what I'm seeing without resorting to vitriol or anger, both online and in real life. If you have additional details, provide them. This is the time for vigorous debate, and reassessment, and I see the Democrats as much more of allies than the Republicans, so if you, or any other liberal can get past the phase where you're upset with the leftists who have broadly provided critical support for the Democratic coalliton, I welcome your input.

Except money evidently doesn't buy it by itself. If it did Harris would have won. Effective messaging (Where is the Dem Joe Rogan? They kicked the closest thing they have out of the DNC for expressing broadly popular opinions) and playing to the base of people willing to vote for you (Dems will never get those Republican voters no matter how many immigrants they promise to stop at the border) wins elections.

Well 71 million Trump voters over 244 million eligible voters is 29%.

This is spectacular to hear. I have to wonder if the shift in control will exacerbate the issues that prevented the passing of a budget, however. I haven't thought it through fully yet, but whatever the make up of the senate and house are, passing a budget is priority #1, and how that shakes out is going to be one of, if not the most significant short term effect on the economic situation of regular people.

As much as I hate to admit it, Newsom has the right plan here. Democrats in power need to erect as many institutional barriers to Trump implementing his own policy, and doing it at the State level disrupts their route of attack significantly. The danger is that shielding blue state Republicans from the worst effects of Trump's economic policy might erode their potential support base, but they have to either take the risk, or carve out exceptions to their own policy that disproportionatly allow blue state Republicans to feel the sting (maybe, for instance, avoiding protections for small businesses). I doubt Democrats have the stomach for the latter option, so Newsom is making the correct play, and others should follow suit.

Liberalism is the political project which gave us the 18th century liberal revolutions of for instance, the US and France. It centers invidivual freedoms like free speech, association, and the right to own and use private property without interference from the government. It can be seen as a reaction by the land owning middle classes of the 17th and 18th centuries to the power of divine right monarchs, and is the founding principal of both the Democratic and Republican parties. It centralizes human rationality and debate of ideas as means of finding true paths to the future.

Leftism is an umbrella term which holds a few groups in it (Most notably Social democrats, Communist Socialist, and Communist Anarchist ideologies). It can be traced back through history to many times and places, but modern forms of it originate in the utopian socialism of post-revolution France. Leftism promotes the primacy of human well being and equality (or at least more equally distributed material wealth) over property rights. Generally this takes the form of support for the abolition of class society (owner class vs worker class), belief in worker-centered policy, trade unionism, worker cooperativity, and internationalism... but again, it is a big umbrella, and there is a lot of deviation from this formula. In place of rationalism and debate of ideas, Leftism generally centers material conditions and material outcomes of policy.