Lame duck isn’t a popularity contest.
Your suggestions of what he could have done are all what a Lame Duck could get through, so i think you’rethinking a Lame Duck presidency is more useless than it is.
Its the big policies, like that Inflation Reduction Act, or Jan 6 commission, that would have been much harder to even get started. I know, I know, so much for those.
Maybe. I don’t know. People have a lot less rights in other countries than their own. Theres a clear propaganda line I can see there, maybe it’d be flimsy, but it doesn’t seem to take much ‘justification’.
Thats the uncharitable reading and the link discusses that.
My opinion. If they thought it would sell, then they knew it was an acceptable option. Biden’s decision not to understand the wisdom of a one term presidency was his failure. So it doesn’t matter whether he planned to be a one termer or not, the option was in the frame. Therefore it was a real option he had, whether he took it seriously or not is all to his failing.
The answer to why he wouldn’t commit to it early is given in the linked article. If he had he would be a lame duck from the outset. Politics is about timing, a confirmation of a one term presidency at a normal time would have been the correct action. So from what I gather about the process, that would’ve been about a year out from the end of term.
Bet ‘The don’t tread on me’ sovcit folks are knotted and contorted messes now. Where’d all yer flags go now, ya cunts.
Why do people forget that Biden told everyone he would be a one term/transitional President during his campaign. If theres a moment, then its the moment Joe Biden decided to go against his own pre-Presidential calculations and try to hold onto power for a second term.
Justifications aside, he should have allowed the democratic process to follow through naturally (as much as is possible in that byzantine system). And fully supported the Democratic party’s choice as an elder Statesman and soon to be Presidential Alumni who qould be remembered for his commitment to democracy over power, rather than power over democracy.
I think its not even the average football fan.
The peaceful suburbanite psyche of the average ‘western’ person hasn’t been penetrated yet, even with all thats happened. Thats in large part due to the media, and how they don’t cover the increasingly serious corruption, murders, and traitors.
A great current example is the sentencing and jailing of that national traitor from Reform UK. It caused barely a blip in the media, just phenomenal there wasn’t a classic british media circus around it, so phenomenal I find it suspicious.
But its surely more than the media, maybe willful ignorance? Simple lack of care, a sort of “thats their business, not mine” attitude? I don’t know, human behaviour is weird when it comes to inconvenience.
So much of this world seems to run on whatever is most convenient, (to be read as least mentally taxing), for the person in the decision makers position at the time. Be it a president, local cop, lawyer, teacher, or any other authority position, it always comes down to was it easier for that person to make that decision, or this decision.
Importantly, i think its the making of a decision not the outcomes of said decisions. So the easy decision could lead to harder to manage outcomes, but the decision maker at the time found that decision easiest to process as opposed a more complex option as the decision to go with.
Yeah okay, those hit with a 13% reduction have a large hole to fill. Hopefully other donors will come to the party, but in a cost of living crisis, well theres a lot of other pressures.
So does this mean NPR and PBS are going to shutter? Or significantly reduce their operations? Or have they still got enough private benefactors to carry on?
Side note: I wonder if they still have any of that Ray Croc money left in some random fund?
Interesting to learn about this company, the different storea, and different ‘front facing storefronts’ ideas soubd on the face of it to be similar to the OP’s idea.
[I only read the wikipedia for my response] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rakuten).
But a read through the criticisms section and the example of the negative systemic influence of centralised power are numerous.
The examples where the systemic centralised structure of the company influenced the pathway are,
the Corporate Culture section the ‘Englishionisation’,
disabling product reviews. This was a product specific case, but it highlights the fact they can take this action sitewide at any time, with little to no recourse.
Price Hiking, with up to 18 Rakuten employees having been revealed to have promoted the idea with vendors. If your online marketplace is telling you to do something on price, the pressure for an individual business is great because you are then vulnerable to them making decisions against you with very little you as a vendor can do to respond.
With these few examples from their wikipedia page the negative and at times malign effects of a centralised platform are revealed in the same way the same exercise for Amazon would reveal the same systemic consequences. With the system OP is advocating the onlibe marketplace would be unable through its own structure to implement these pressures on vendors operating on the network. This systemic difference would make it better for vendors, and customers alike, however harder (but not impossible) for a commercial operation that maintains the network to exist. I’d look tobthe Mcdonalds’ Harry Sonneborn owning real estate example of how you can use unique adjacent business structures to build a viable business while not undermining it’s core selling point.
Thats one relaxed pup
Thats really sad you say that considering your home instance is slrpnk.net, which is based off a movement that reaches for a genuinely positive outlook.