• GBU_28@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Lol if you’re tired of public discourse, perhaps take a break. I’m not responsible for your day. Edit I am not attempting clever, so don’t put that incivility on me either.

    Second, I agree that the premise is a good one. Use votes (or lack thereof) to influence behavior even in primaries. Edit it is good voter behavior to do so, in general.

    But ultimately, before there is a statement or discussion from the Whitehouse we have zero evidence that they cared about the primary votes at all and didn’t have some other variable come to the surface that finally forced some progress.

    You are asking me to prove something happened for which there is no evidence, and I am expressing skepticism that an action had the reaction you propose. I can’t prove something exists or doesn’t and neither can you.

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        10 months ago

        “probable” is a value judgement by you. If you have data that non-voting in past primaries has definitively driven policy change then we can talk probability, but I’ve never seen such a metric described.

        I am ready to be educated on the historical record of this dynamic, then we can reasonably discuss this current event.

        Otherwise guessing something happened as a result of non-voting is just speculation.