Between inauguration day and the end of the year.
‘Go after’ in the sense of making their lives difficult in some public way, causing them financial hardship, etc.. In most cases, a post or something spoken during an interview only will not count, will have to be accompanied by some specific action. I will be the final judge of any edge-cases but will read any sources or arguments made in the comments.
Let’s see where this goes. N/As on added items that are ridiculously broad or way too difficult to prove.
If not elected, not elected resolves yes, everything else no immediately after election results.
Update 2025-02-01 (PST): 'Going after someone' includes actions taken against loyalists, such as Liz Cheney & Jan 6 Committee. (AI summary of creator comment)
1,000
3.00@Predictor this should resolve yes already.
Trump even doubled down today https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114776149269773065
About 43% of all solar energy is on farmland, according to the USDA. A targeted disincentive for renewables on farmland is a major blow to solar and wind. https://heatmap.news/plus/the-fight/spotlight/trump-targets-solar-on-farmland
@Marnix From that article it only looks like federal money going towards solar energy will be disincentivized if it conflicts in some way with agricultural interests. I'm uncertain whether that counts as causing financial hardship or merely no longer contributing financial support.
Another way of looking at this is whether we frame in terms of Trump the person (who is also US president) or the President of the United States officially acting as the embodiment of Federal Government (who is also Trump the individual).
since the criteria includes financial hardship: these birds are singled out for tariffs as the only residents of their island! https://www.wired.com/story/trump-tariffs-antarctic-islands-heard-mcdonald/
why was 'Universities' resolved?
Joe Biden, Alexander Vindman, Liz Cheney all had their security clearances revoked. Doesn't necessarily count as something that "makes their life harder," for Vindman, as he hasn't had active clearance for years but I would argue this should be a YES for Cheney (attorney) and probably Biden, too as the point of revoking his clearance is specifically revenge.
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114205890583765400
You can't make this shit up
@Marnix supposedly withdrawing SS protection of adult children https://apnews.com/article/hunter-biden-trump-secret-service-ashley-50eba3fcd1ef9d2580fb4bc464d229f6
Limit order at 61% YES if anyone's interested
Plus actions happening regarding pulling US support and punishing Ukraine for being invaded.
@Predictor is there a reason not to resolve this? He’s verbally insulted and taken real actions against Zelenskyy https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/02/24/politics/us-joins-russia-ukraine-un-vote
@Marnix oh, it's actually even sillier https://bsky.app/profile/daralind.bsky.social/post/3lhzapaqjzk2d
who's the most likely candidate here? maybe somehow trying to influence @LuigiMangione's sentence in a harsher direction?