I'm with anon on this (no offense intended, ssanon). Mega is giving us the best she's got. I also agree with Mega's perspective on /pol/ culture fwiw.
>Why, hours after the election, did seven people travel to an undisclosed location to hold a very private & highly secured/guarded meeting?
Purple revolution planning was the answer to that one.
>the last time a presidential candidate didn’t personally give a concession speech
For your consideration…
http://time.com/4551598/concession-speech-history/
http://www.academia.edu/5177198/Presidential_concession_speeches_The_rhetoric_of_defeat
>>>91787
>>>91741
>>>91748
>>>91741
no concession speech in 1956?
LOL
Stevenson apparently gave AN ACCEPTANCE SPEECH even though he ended up losing. Sound familiar?
https://www.c-span.org/video/?3400-1/stevenson-1956-presidential-acceptance-speech
> I don't see the point in posting her stuff in here.
fair enough! we all have Q in common here, so focusing on that does make sense, regardless of what else we think about others.
>>>91728
I agree. If we think Bouvet is actually important, then it definitely deserves a thread of its own so that important questions and insights don't get buried here.
Thanks for your high energy, too. I love working with such based people.
Sorry, I don't know. I just learned it over time and tbh still f it up a lot.