This assumes he was shot at directly. A stage blood pack in the midst of anticipated gunfire sounds more likely to me than a triumphant, exposed rise after actually being hit.
Still, far from a certainty. But the rhetorical power of such an event, the uncharacteristically brave behavior, and the similarity to known false flags in ahem historical regimes prevent me from discarding the hypothesis.
The word “meme” was coined by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene to allude to the concept of a unit of cultural information subject to mutation and selective pressure. The whole image-macro-overlaid-with-text interpretation is just an easily evolved exemplar which rose in popularity relatively recently.
A screenshot of a comment can effectively communicate a cultural concept. In some cases, much of the context of the concept being communicated is intrinsic to being a comment (green texts, Tumblr comment chains, etc).
The case, in my mind, for the false flag hypothesis is simple: he’s a blithering coward. If a serious attempt was made on his life, nothing about his prior behavior suggests he would be fist-pumping. His confidence betrays comfort. Further, he idolizes those who have used similar false flags. Maintaining composure in such an event is so remote a possibility, that the probability of an orchestrated scenario with foreknowledge, a common blood capsule, and collateral damage seems comparatively likely.
Not certain, of course, but probable enough for consideration. Certainly it’s far too early to draw concrete conclusions one way or another. However, if it were a false flag, how would it look differently?
As Adrian Veidt said, “He’s got a poison capsule. Don’t bite down! Don’t bite down you scum. I want to know who sent you.”
Technically, yes. However there are circumstances some places in the lower brackets where making more can disqualify you from welfare benefits. In those circumstances, an increase which is too small to compensate for the loss of benefits would be, effectively, a net loss.
Obviously though, that’s not really an issue at the 400k bracket.
That’s why I said “some portion”. Even without them, it’s still a healthy majority
deleted by creator
But more than that, I’m not certain which groups you’re counting as centrist neo-libs here.
Some portion of Populist Right down through Democratic Mainstays. A clear majority.
Most polls would report this, here’s the first one I found. Most of the middle of that typography spectrum is broadly centrist neo liberalism with relatively minor pet issues.
It works every time, time continues to be bought. Most voters are centrist neo-libs, that’s what wins elections. If you want to get something other than buying more time, the onus is on progressives to climb the ladder and show the centrist neo-libs that they have a pragmatically actionable and broadly electable platform.
I’m all for something more than buying time, but as it stands it’s not popular enough to win. So I’m continuing to vote for buying time until it is.
So your alternative is to make a shiny new mistake: ushering in abject fascism, to create a vastly shittier hole. Yay.
Personally, I’m going for the neoliberal, of only to buy time for the leftists to get their shit together.
Yeah part of being an effective legislator is drumming up support for your legislation, which is exactly what this looks like. When your job is literally writing policy into reality, “strongly worded letter” can be anything from a hollow complaint to legally actionable constitutional law.
A letter informing his fellow legislators of the tangible action he’s undertaking. The letter is a supplement to that tangible action, which helps empower it. What more do you want?
Congratulations, you have been promoted from “terminally online Leftist” to “Leftist who understands the basics of American elections”.
Not my party, not my wing. I categorize myself as one of the “Leftists who understand the basics of American elections” mentioned above. I vote strategically, because a Leftist isn’t one of the top two names on the ticket. The name with an R next to it is significantly detrimental to the advancement of Leftist policy, the name with the D next to it is also detrimental, but to a far lesser degree.
Until an effective Leftist’s name takes one of the top two spots on the ballot, the math is simple: D > R. Even if both are negative, so long as D > R, the choice e is D, every time.
I’m talking to you about the practical benefit of voting for a particular candidate, not blame. Leftists comprise maybe 5% of registered voters. Centrist Neo-Libs comprise probably 30+%. Leftist turnout is significant in tipping a close election, but not enough to carry it without the Neo-Libs.
Neo-Lib candidates are better for Leftists than Fascists are. On every single metric, they are better, or at the very worst equal. Even if you consider the Ratchet model, the keep-things-the-same party is objectively better than the ratchet-to-the-right party. At least it gives you time to popularize Leftist policies and candidates. The further we ratchet to the right, the harder it is to promote the Left.
Not a very materially significant portion of them, since he wasn’t elected. I fear the terminally online leftists have convinced themselves they represent a silent bloc of significant size, and that outwardly embracing their policies would gain Democrats more voters than they alienate.
Certainly, Dems need every vote they can get, and every tiny 1% bloc helps in a tight race. But centrists are a much bigger bloc than the far-left, and scaring them off is a net loss. Democrats are yucky, but Republicans are poison, big tent for yucky or get force-fed poison.
Centrist Democrats will. Leftists who understand the basics of American elections will. Fence sitters will stay home, and terminally online leftists will vote third party out of protest, and thus the God King will ascend his golden throne.
Yes, which is why I added “exhausted” to highlight why that is undesirable.
Can’t say I agree with your conclusion there, that’s a pretty significant change of meaning. The Militia is explicitly described as something that is organized, armed, disciplined, and trained by Officers.