|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 08 2025 08:39 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2025 08:29 Uldridge wrote:
What if the Dems ran a hot young woman like AOC and made her slogan "Try to grab this pussy, bitch", you think that would have won them the race? You could even add "and reap what you sow" to capture the evangelical base. I think a Dommy Mommy would perform much better than any other female politician archetype. Whatever they do, it needs to be something a woman can lean into and build an identity around. Clinton was more of a politics nerd than an aggressive/dominating presence. A polite and kind woman will just be framed as weak. Something in the middle will be framed as both weak and annoying. AOC or Jasmine Crocket could have an effective campaign if they were completely unhinged and commanding. Voters want someone who comes across as honest, personable, and most importantly, ANGRY. Our entire country has been conditioned into a persistent state of anxiety, anger, and sadness. An angry and aggressive candidate is what people want. Dommy Mommy is only archetype that allows a woman to have those qualities. And for the record, I'd support Jasmine Crocket over AOC any day of the week.
Totally agree with you that AOC or JC on permanent "absolutely not gonna take any shit from my opponents" mode would be damn good candidates, and we know they can both get there without sacrificing substance. I'd love to see that from them, or from anyone else who can bring that to the table.
|
United States42653 Posts
On July 08 2025 08:00 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2025 07:30 KwarK wrote:On July 08 2025 07:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 08 2025 06:06 KwarK wrote:
Eh, Biden could well have thought that only the oldest whitest man could beat Trump and that he dropped out then Democrats might be dumb enough to try and run a black woman against him. I don't think anyone is disputing that Biden's own senile thoughts made sense to him. The blame rests squarely on the party for not having the balls to force him out sooner so they could have a primary to get someone actually likeable. Of course I have some benefit of hindsight there because we didn't know for sure if they could force him out and it would have been a gamble to make that move until his debate performance forced their hand. Okay but assuming he thought the party might do something dumb like nominate a black woman who would lose to Trump, was he wrong? I don't even know how to answer this. Are you speaking specifically of Kamala Harris? Given her 2020 campaign results I don't think there is any risk of her being nominated by popular vote. In fact there was a term floated at the time called the "Kamala problem" because Biden stepping down that late in the game meant "oh shit we're going to have to run Kamala, fuck!" Or are you talking about some other unnamed black woman that would win the primary and then lose to Trump that Biden would somehow be able to foresee as if he can predict deep into the future by using the mental energy he saves from not remembering what he ate for breakfast. You don't actually have to respond to this. I know you're really just trying to make the point that the reason Kamala lost, while being deeply unpopular, having zero charisma, being unable to answer questions, and cackling for no reason is "cause racism."
Based on that response I don’t think you understood any part of my point.
Also there can be more than one reason why a candidate wins and loses. Kamala can have a laugh and America can be racist and weird that you don’t think those could coexist.
|
On July 08 2025 09:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2025 08:39 Mohdoo wrote:On July 08 2025 08:29 Uldridge wrote:
What if the Dems ran a hot young woman like AOC and made her slogan "Try to grab this pussy, bitch", you think that would have won them the race? You could even add "and reap what you sow" to capture the evangelical base. I think a Dommy Mommy would perform much better than any other female politician archetype. Whatever they do, it needs to be something a woman can lean into and build an identity around. Clinton was more of a politics nerd than an aggressive/dominating presence. A polite and kind woman will just be framed as weak. Something in the middle will be framed as both weak and annoying. AOC or Jasmine Crocket could have an effective campaign if they were completely unhinged and commanding. Voters want someone who comes across as honest, personable, and most importantly, ANGRY. Our entire country has been conditioned into a persistent state of anxiety, anger, and sadness. An angry and aggressive candidate is what people want. Dommy Mommy is only archetype that allows a woman to have those qualities. And for the record, I'd support Jasmine Crocket over AOC any day of the week. Totally agree with you that AOC or JC on permanent "absolutely not gonna take any shit from my opponents" mode would be damn good candidates, and we know they can both get there without sacrificing substance. I'd love to see that from them, or from anyone else who can bring that to the table.
If either of them (or anyone else) is going to do this, they are going to have to identify a significant portion of the party as their "opponents" they "absolutely are not going to take any shit from".
One current example would be the NYC Mayoral race where it's pretty clear a bunch of Democrats are still fighting tooth and nail not to elect Mamdani despite him winning the primary. That's with the alternative being some of the worst/scandal ridden Democrats still politically active at the moment.
|
United States24676 Posts
I'd be more worried about the voters who usually vote for republicans. If AOC or JC had been the presidential candidate, I think we'd have a sizable portion of the population willing to commit mass murder to prevent them from winning.
|
On July 08 2025 07:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2025 07:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 08 2025 06:06 KwarK wrote:
Eh, Biden could well have thought that only the oldest whitest man could beat Trump and that he dropped out then Democrats might be dumb enough to try and run a black woman against him. I don't think anyone is disputing that Biden's own senile thoughts made sense to him. The blame rests squarely on the party for not having the balls to force him out sooner so they could have a primary to get someone actually likeable. Of course I have some benefit of hindsight there because we didn't know for sure if they could force him out and it would have been a gamble to make that move until his debate performance forced their hand. Okay but assuming he thought the party might do something dumb like nominate a black woman who would lose to Trump, was he wrong?
Bizarrely I think that after debate best shot Democrats had, was to do primary and let run Michelle Obama in it. She would stomp it and her vs Trump would be actually close call.
|
She has repeatedly said she does not want to.
|
On July 08 2025 09:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2025 09:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 08 2025 08:39 Mohdoo wrote:On July 08 2025 08:29 Uldridge wrote:
What if the Dems ran a hot young woman like AOC and made her slogan "Try to grab this pussy, bitch", you think that would have won them the race? You could even add "and reap what you sow" to capture the evangelical base. I think a Dommy Mommy would perform much better than any other female politician archetype. Whatever they do, it needs to be something a woman can lean into and build an identity around. Clinton was more of a politics nerd than an aggressive/dominating presence. A polite and kind woman will just be framed as weak. Something in the middle will be framed as both weak and annoying. AOC or Jasmine Crocket could have an effective campaign if they were completely unhinged and commanding. Voters want someone who comes across as honest, personable, and most importantly, ANGRY. Our entire country has been conditioned into a persistent state of anxiety, anger, and sadness. An angry and aggressive candidate is what people want. Dommy Mommy is only archetype that allows a woman to have those qualities. And for the record, I'd support Jasmine Crocket over AOC any day of the week. Totally agree with you that AOC or JC on permanent "absolutely not gonna take any shit from my opponents" mode would be damn good candidates, and we know they can both get there without sacrificing substance. I'd love to see that from them, or from anyone else who can bring that to the table. If either of them (or anyone else) is going to do this, they are going to have to identify a significant portion of the party as their "opponents" they "absolutely are not going to take any shit from". One current example would be the NYC Mayoral race where it's pretty clear a bunch of Democrats are still fighting tooth and nail not to elect Mamdani despite him winning the primary. That's with the alternative being some of the worst/scandal ridden Democrats still politically active at the moment.
I agree. It'd be interesting to see how they navigate the primary against more moderate Democrats. An endorsement from Bernie / touring with him would be nice, though at the end of the day it's going to come down to the primary candidates themselves. Who gets called out and how / what's the tone, etc.
|
Maybe it is recency bias, but I believe it works best when someone comes out of nowhere (or at least way down) and builds momentum throughout the process. I think people anointed early do not have the same energy or passion in their campaigns.
|
On July 08 2025 09:47 micronesia wrote:
I'd be more worried about the voters who usually vote for republicans. If AOC or JC had been the presidential candidate, I think we'd have a sizable portion of the population willing to commit mass murder to prevent them from winning.
We already sort of have that anyways
|
On July 08 2025 10:13 Billyboy wrote:
She has repeatedly said she does not want to.
That was a really werid throughline that the usual suspect grifters kept parroting. Some werid delusion that she would come out of nowhere like its Argentina and take power.
|
On July 08 2025 09:47 micronesia wrote:
I'd be more worried about the voters who usually vote for republicans. If AOC or JC had been the presidential candidate, I think we'd have a sizable portion of the population willing to commit mass murder to prevent them from winning.
How did Kamala Harris's candidacy manage to placate these people against committing mass murder?
|
On July 08 2025 13:17 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2025 09:47 micronesia wrote:
I'd be more worried about the voters who usually vote for republicans. If AOC or JC had been the presidential candidate, I think we'd have a sizable portion of the population willing to commit mass murder to prevent them from winning. How did Kamala Harris's candidacy manage to placate these people against committing mass murder?
Did you forget Trump was an inch from being assassinated? Or do you live in a fairy tale where only one side of the political isle can attempt such a thing?
|
On July 08 2025 09:47 micronesia wrote:
I'd be more worried about the voters who usually vote for republicans. If AOC or JC had been the presidential candidate, I think we'd have a sizable portion of the population willing to commit mass murder to prevent them from winning.
Even if.. maybe this is necessary to show that ... well your reality is not normal anymore.
Your President is a rapist grifter business fraud. Your SecDef is addicted to his phone.. and alcohol and casually leaking secret plans, while having planted a bug in the pentagon to keep using his messengers services in his office.
Guy in charge of health? Has brainworms from disregarding foodsafety, gets every vaxination possible - yet cosplays as anti-vaxxer and "Let god sort dem out" mode.
Federal funding get slashed, deficit overblown.. to collect even less taxes.
Can't even begin to describe what ever the fuck went wrong with people like MTG, Leavitt, Miller, Besset, Noem or Bondi... they already looked like AI can maneuver a corpse arround - they somehow seem addicted to praise and defend whatever Trump says or does.
Trump and his Mar-A-Lago faced crowd look like their Brains have been talken out to store the excess skin that was lifted wearing that stupid baseball caps like they are 5, when they are 85.
You live in "Southpark Reality".
What the fuck.
|
Isn't South Park a good show, perhaps?
|
On July 08 2025 08:39 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2025 08:29 Uldridge wrote:
What if the Dems ran a hot young woman like AOC and made her slogan "Try to grab this pussy, bitch", you think that would have won them the race? You could even add "and reap what you sow" to capture the evangelical base. I think a Dommy Mommy would perform much better than any other female politician archetype.
Thousands of pages of sophisticated exchanges in the US pol thread could only lead to one illuminating outcome after all.
Somewhere, the ghost of a guy with a pipe, a beard and a few lines of coke on his table watches with interest.
|
On July 08 2025 18:29 Uldridge wrote:
Isn't South Park a good show, perhaps?
Well, interestingly we can't even get South Park the way we used to because paramount is delaying it so they don't hurt Trump's feelings before their big merger goes trough.
Same reason they decided to settle a clearly frivolous lawsuit he filed because he didn't like a 60 minutes interview of Kamala.
Super interesting how all the free speech absolutists around here are completely silent on that.
Also the absolute hypocrites who screamed "lawfare" for 4 years while Merick Garland was sitting on his hands, super interesting that they don't have any issues with Trump literally using these suits (just like the NBC one) to extort and get bribes from media companies and get them in line.
Fake ass libertarian cosplaying fascist bootlicker cucks.
|
Gaslight Obstruct Project
Its always the P
|
I'm just surprised more MAGA are not super mad about Trump not building his wall. With it there would be no immigration problem and there was no reason for them not to build it when Mexico was paying for it. Huge misstep.
|
On July 08 2025 19:22 Jankisa wrote:Well, interestingly we can't even get South Park the way we used to because paramount is delaying it so they don't hurt Trump's feelings before their big merger goes trough. Same reason they decided to settle a clearly frivolous lawsuit he filed because he didn't like a 60 minutes interview of Kamala. Super interesting how all the free speech absolutists around here are completely silent on that.
Those alleged free speech absolutists must either
1) Not exist,
2) Be busy doing other things than stamping their "called Drumpf poopy" card with you personally,
3) Actually not be silent, but you weren't listening at the time, or
4) Simply disagree with you, which is a group of people that at some point you are going to have to accept the existence of.
|
On July 08 2025 22:08 Billyboy wrote:
I'm just surprised more MAGA are not super mad about Trump not building his wall. With it there would be no immigration problem and there was no reason for them not to build it when Mexico was paying for it. Huge misstep.
It was basicly done, but then Joe Bide tore it down again! Don't you read your "Truths" every morning?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
