|
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 December 18 2025 00:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2025 00:22 pmh wrote:
Nothing personal against aoc but she would be a horrible candidate on the national stage as i see it. The fact that she is a women is one thing (unfortunatly) but its far from the only reason. It will not be easy but i do think a women could win the presidency if its the right women with the right image.
Its many things combined. She has a progressive image but its the wrong kind of progressive image. ts the progressive image that is easy to rail against for people. The angry and upset , and in some way naive , kind of progressive. Aoc is the stereo type progressive that americans love to hate. Mamdani has a way better image when it comes to beeing progressive and sanders also is way better (though he is to old now). I just dont see her image ever working out on the national stage but maybe i am wrong.
Can you elaborate more on the key differences that you see between Mamdani's image/approach and AOC's? What does Mamdani do right that AOC does wrong? Just happy approach vs. angry approach? Because Sanders does both of those. Mamdani has (presumably) a penis, AOC (presumably) does not.
Its crude and 'not of this time' but if you look at the last few decades that seems to matter a significant amount.
|
On December 17 2025 19:42 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2025 17:48 oBlade wrote:On December 17 2025 16:38 Acrofales wrote:On December 17 2025 16:12 oBlade wrote:
I specifically chose the cholesterol example because you really can't have cheese without it. Like you can't have a combustion engine without making CO2.
You can take two points and draw an infinite straight line connecting them, but that doesn't mean there is a physical mechanism to create such a trend. That line doesn't have to match reality just because you can draw it. Then using it as a standard isn't realistic.
Like you have the Boeing 737. They extended the wings by 5% and got fuel savings of 5% per trip. Because of the extra lift and efficient winglets. Yet doubling the wings to save 100% of your fuel and fly on fumes in some kind of perpetual motion machine is not connected to physical reality. Even though that point lies on the same straight line fit. So demanding it and blaming Boeing for being too greedy to pull it off would be weird.
The other problem with emissions regulations is they are in an offset framework. Like companies that reach carbon neutrality by building a data center and then planting 3423823 trees. Trees are good of course. But for car manufacturers the emissions standards they have to meet are averaged over all the cars they sell. So you can make up for more gas chuggers with the hybrid end of your line.
What should really the point of fuel economy and emissions standards be? That a company can't get rich making, for example, a really cheap car, whose fuel economy is so bad, yet it's so cheap, that it's cheaper for the consumer to spend the difference on gas instead, because society will end up shouldering the burden of all the extra CO2 that guy emitted, we absorb the price while those two get the benefits. Same with emissions you don't want somebody doing their best to minimize CO2 but nobody buys their cars since they're too expensive, so the standards apply to the whole industry. They should be realistic. And if they have a goal they should be designed in a way that results in that goal.
The
Actual examples would help this not go in circles if you know if a specific comparable truck whose emissions have gotten worse since Obama's time with the same engine displacement/comparable engine or something. Meaning the company deliberately eschewed the goal of better emissions and better fuel economy. That's a very long post to set up a strawman to make it seem the people who create the standards have never heard of diminishing returns. They have. You're wrong. Thanks for jumping in. If their regulatory framework is so well-conceived, then what is the problem exactly? The automotive lobby worked tirelessly to torpedo this goal you posted and thus presumably agree with: Show nested quote +Same with emissions you don't want somebody doing their best to minimize CO2 but nobody buys their cars since they're too expensive, so the standards apply to the whole industry. They should be realistic. And if they have a goal they should be designed in a way that results in that goal.
They got exemptions and loopholes and backdoors implemented that assured they could continue on in pretty much the same exact way they had been since the 90s: marketing bigger=better to American people and ignoring development of fuel efficiency and emission reduction in long-standing favourite models.
You are coupling things that need to be decoupled.
What you want is radical car size standards and that's not the job of emissions standards.
Thinking trucks are too big because their grills are too big, they're too high, and they don't fit well on city streets, can be dealt with in a Vehicle Sizing Act. It's definitely not the job of Ford to randomly want to make people in the US want Fiestas more than F-150s because it's some progressive urban planning and road safety policy.
Using emissions standards to, say, make certain pickups de facto unmanufacturable would be sidestepping the law and legislating via regulation. The point of emissions standards is make emissions better, which they have. Unfortunately, because they were designed by people who are not as smart as you think, the gains perhaps aren't as good, paradoxically, as if smaller vehicles were allowed to have more emissions than they are.
Someone wants to determine how big cars than be, it's different than how much CO2 cars should emit per size. Some people might draw the line at pickups. Some at SUVs. Some at full-size sedans. Some at mid-size. Some at compacts. Some people's idea of greener transportation could be we should all be driving golf carts. Which is legitimately less CO2 than now. You could also tax by size. Tax by emissions.
If companies' cars aren't getting smaller, or their cars aren't getting smaller enough, that doesn't mean they are gaming the system. It's just that was never the point. They don't need backdoors and loopholes to find ways to sell big cars. The entire system of tying emissions to footprint alone, inherently results in that. Perhaps readers outside the world of cars are getting confused by the many hats the word "footprint" wears? This doesn't mean CO2 footprint. It's the area of the shadow of the car at noon. The 2D size of the car. That's the base of regulation.
There are other ways to regulate poorly that could also have unintended consequences. But blaming car manufacturers for making bigger cars in a regulatory framework that favors bigger cars in certain cases.. It's like blaming a coconut for falling on your head. The rational approach would've been don't stand under a palm tree.
Only other emissions comment is I think catalytic converter harvesting should be a death penalty terrorism offense.
On December 18 2025 01:30 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2025 16:38 Acrofales wrote:On December 17 2025 16:12 oBlade wrote:
I specifically chose the cholesterol example because you really can't have cheese without it. Like you can't have a combustion engine without making CO2.
You can take two points and draw an infinite straight line connecting them, but that doesn't mean there is a physical mechanism to create such a trend. That line doesn't have to match reality just because you can draw it. Then using it as a standard isn't realistic.
Like you have the Boeing 737. They extended the wings by 5% and got fuel savings of 5% per trip. Because of the extra lift and efficient winglets. Yet doubling the wings to save 100% of your fuel and fly on fumes in some kind of perpetual motion machine is not connected to physical reality. Even though that point lies on the same straight line fit. So demanding it and blaming Boeing for being too greedy to pull it off would be weird.
The other problem with emissions regulations is they are in an offset framework. Like companies that reach carbon neutrality by building a data center and then planting 3423823 trees. Trees are good of course. But for car manufacturers the emissions standards they have to meet are averaged over all the cars they sell. So you can make up for more gas chuggers with the hybrid end of your line.
What should really the point of fuel economy and emissions standards be? That a company can't get rich making, for example, a really cheap car, whose fuel economy is so bad, yet it's so cheap, that it's cheaper for the consumer to spend the difference on gas instead, because society will end up shouldering the burden of all the extra CO2 that guy emitted, we absorb the price while those two get the benefits. Same with emissions you don't want somebody doing their best to minimize CO2 but nobody buys their cars since they're too expensive, so the standards apply to the whole industry. They should be realistic. And if they have a goal they should be designed in a way that results in that goal.
Actual examples would help this not go in circles if you know if a specific comparable truck whose emissions have gotten worse since Obama's time with the same engine displacement/comparable engine or something. Meaning the company deliberately eschewed the goal of better emissions and better fuel economy. That's a very long post to set up a strawman to make it seem the people who create the standards have never heard of diminishing returns. They have. You're wrong. His question is also a bizzare gotcha. "Can you show me an example of a company selling a product that isn't compliant with the law? didn't think so, checkmate atheist."
You have no idea what you're talking about at this point.
Individual vehicle models are not regulated in the US.
There is no reason F-350s from 2024 couldn't emit more CO2 than F-350s from 2016 even with the exact same footprint and engine displacement as long as Ford on balance meets emission standards among all their pickups.
You would have been exposed to that information by having read my earlier post rather than just clicking post.
You said companies made huge expensive vehicles instead of figuring out how to make theirs better. You can't simultaneously keep shitting on these companies and then not have a single demonstrable case of them getting away with something bad. Literally name the model or lines that aren't getting better. I asked because I was interested. And interested in an actual tangible case not theorycrafting about pizza analogies that people don't understand either. While I've tracked some data I haven't perused thousands of vehicle stats myself. So otherwise if it turns out the huge-ass death trucks that Europe doesn't need are also just improving emissions across the board, I'm going to put my pitchfork away and take a nap after another false alarm.
|
Seems like the propaganda machine that spooks Democrats from making correct decisions, that convinced enough of them to shoot the party and the country in in the foot by consolidating around a historically unpopular candidate because it was "her turn".
Even with the party being firmly on the side of Hilary Bernie still got 46% of delegates, it's pretty easy to imagine that in a fair primary where the party leadership didn't clearly favor one candidate he'd walk away with the nomination.
The fact that there were many Bernie/Trump voters and the fact that Hilary lost by so little implies that he'd more then likely win the election in 2016 and we'd all be better for it.
I'm writing all this because the same smear machine that's been sicked on him from both Democratic establishment and GOP has been at it trying to convince everyone that AOC is "toxic" or whatever other misogynist shit they could come up with.
She is not, she has moderated a lot (and she was never really extreme in any way), she's basically Bernie with boobs and 50 years less, there is absolutely no reason to think that she with a good VP and a consolidated party behind her (this would be the hardest part) wouldn't mop the floor with the corpse of Trump or JD Vance or little Marco, especially given how this Trump presidency has been going.
The fact that people in this thread can't really point their finger at why exactly she wouldn't be a good candidate and still came to this thread to say this is a terrible idea shows how well the American capitalist and corporatist propaganda machine works, just like it works with "we have to have big cars" and "we can't do anything about guns" or "we can't have universal healthcare".
|
Guys the cars being built are what americans want. Not the other way around.
Fuel efficient sedans are not that popular. Kia and hyundai redid their whole product line to add SUVs. Ford cancelled most if not all their sedans.
People dont want them in the US
|
I think the core problem might really be that she is female.
It is incredibly absurd, but there seems to be a reasonably large percentage of the US population who would vote for any man over any woman, no matter what other characteristics they may have.
|
On December 18 2025 03:03 Simberto wrote:
I think the core problem might really be that she is female.
It is incredibly absurd, but there seems to be a reasonably large percentage of the US population who would vote for any man over any woman, no matter what other characteristics they may have.
What if she just identified as a F-150?
|
|
|
On December 18 2025 02:56 Sadist wrote:
Guys the cars being built are what americans want. Not the other way around.
Fuel efficient sedans are not that popular. Kia and hyundai redid their whole product line to add SUVs. Ford cancelled most if not all their sedans.
People dont want them in the US Sure.
If you ignore the decades long media campaigns by the American automotive industry to convince Americans that they want pickup trucks.
|
On December 18 2025 02:56 Sadist wrote:
Guys the cars being built are what americans want. Not the other way around.
Fuel efficient sedans are not that popular. Kia and hyundai redid their whole product line to add SUVs. Ford cancelled most if not all their sedans.
People dont want them in the US
Every advertiser's wet dream, the person not only blissfully unaware that demand can be generated with creative marketing but actively telling people that it never happens.
|
On December 18 2025 02:27 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2025 19:42 Acrofales wrote:On December 17 2025 17:48 oBlade wrote:On December 17 2025 16:38 Acrofales wrote:On December 17 2025 16:12 oBlade wrote:
I specifically chose the cholesterol example because you really can't have cheese without it. Like you can't have a combustion engine without making CO2.
You can take two points and draw an infinite straight line connecting them, but that doesn't mean there is a physical mechanism to create such a trend. That line doesn't have to match reality just because you can draw it. Then using it as a standard isn't realistic.
Like you have the Boeing 737. They extended the wings by 5% and got fuel savings of 5% per trip. Because of the extra lift and efficient winglets. Yet doubling the wings to save 100% of your fuel and fly on fumes in some kind of perpetual motion machine is not connected to physical reality. Even though that point lies on the same straight line fit. So demanding it and blaming Boeing for being too greedy to pull it off would be weird.
The other problem with emissions regulations is they are in an offset framework. Like companies that reach carbon neutrality by building a data center and then planting 3423823 trees. Trees are good of course. But for car manufacturers the emissions standards they have to meet are averaged over all the cars they sell. So you can make up for more gas chuggers with the hybrid end of your line.
What should really the point of fuel economy and emissions standards be? That a company can't get rich making, for example, a really cheap car, whose fuel economy is so bad, yet it's so cheap, that it's cheaper for the consumer to spend the difference on gas instead, because society will end up shouldering the burden of all the extra CO2 that guy emitted, we absorb the price while those two get the benefits. Same with emissions you don't want somebody doing their best to minimize CO2 but nobody buys their cars since they're too expensive, so the standards apply to the whole industry. They should be realistic. And if they have a goal they should be designed in a way that results in that goal.
The
Actual examples would help this not go in circles if you know if a specific comparable truck whose emissions have gotten worse since Obama's time with the same engine displacement/comparable engine or something. Meaning the company deliberately eschewed the goal of better emissions and better fuel economy. That's a very long post to set up a strawman to make it seem the people who create the standards have never heard of diminishing returns. They have. You're wrong. Thanks for jumping in. If their regulatory framework is so well-conceived, then what is the problem exactly? The automotive lobby worked tirelessly to torpedo this goal you posted and thus presumably agree with: Same with emissions you don't want somebody doing their best to minimize CO2 but nobody buys their cars since they're too expensive, so the standards apply to the whole industry. They should be realistic. And if they have a goal they should be designed in a way that results in that goal.
They got exemptions and loopholes and backdoors implemented that assured they could continue on in pretty much the same exact way they had been since the 90s: marketing bigger=better to American people and ignoring development of fuel efficiency and emission reduction in long-standing favourite models. You are coupling things that need to be decoupled. What you want is radical car size standards and that's not the job of emissions standards. Thinking trucks are too big because their grills are too big, they're too high, and they don't fit well on city streets, can be dealt with in a Vehicle Sizing Act. It's definitely not the job of Ford to randomly want to make people in the US want Fiestas more than F-150s because it's some progressive urban planning and road safety policy. Using emissions standards to, say, make certain pickups de facto unmanufacturable would be sidestepping the law and legislating via regulation. The point of emissions standards is make emissions better, which they have. Unfortunately, because they were designed by people who are not as smart as you think, the gains perhaps aren't as good, paradoxically, as if smaller vehicles were allowed to have more emissions than they are. Someone wants to determine how big cars than be, it's different than how much CO2 cars should emit per size. Some people might draw the line at pickups. Some at SUVs. Some at full-size sedans. Some at mid-size. Some at compacts. Some people's idea of greener transportation could be we should all be driving golf carts. Which is legitimately less CO2 than now. You could also tax by size. Tax by emissions. If companies' cars aren't getting smaller, or their cars aren't getting smaller enough, that doesn't mean they are gaming the system. It's just that was never the point. They don't need backdoors and loopholes to find ways to sell big cars. The entire system of tying emissions to footprint alone, inherently results in that. Perhaps readers outside the world of cars are getting confused by the many hats the word "footprint" wears? This doesn't mean CO2 footprint. It's the area of the shadow of the car at noon. The 2D size of the car. That's the base of regulation. There are other ways to regulate poorly that could also have unintended consequences. But blaming car manufacturers for making bigger cars in a regulatory framework that favors bigger cars in certain cases.. It's like blaming a coconut for falling on your head. The rational approach would've been don't stand under a palm tree. Only other emissions comment is I think catalytic converter harvesting should be a death penalty terrorism offense. Show nested quote +On December 18 2025 01:30 Sermokala wrote:On December 17 2025 16:38 Acrofales wrote:On December 17 2025 16:12 oBlade wrote:
I specifically chose the cholesterol example because you really can't have cheese without it. Like you can't have a combustion engine without making CO2.
You can take two points and draw an infinite straight line connecting them, but that doesn't mean there is a physical mechanism to create such a trend. That line doesn't have to match reality just because you can draw it. Then using it as a standard isn't realistic.
Like you have the Boeing 737. They extended the wings by 5% and got fuel savings of 5% per trip. Because of the extra lift and efficient winglets. Yet doubling the wings to save 100% of your fuel and fly on fumes in some kind of perpetual motion machine is not connected to physical reality. Even though that point lies on the same straight line fit. So demanding it and blaming Boeing for being too greedy to pull it off would be weird.
The other problem with emissions regulations is they are in an offset framework. Like companies that reach carbon neutrality by building a data center and then planting 3423823 trees. Trees are good of course. But for car manufacturers the emissions standards they have to meet are averaged over all the cars they sell. So you can make up for more gas chuggers with the hybrid end of your line.
What should really the point of fuel economy and emissions standards be? That a company can't get rich making, for example, a really cheap car, whose fuel economy is so bad, yet it's so cheap, that it's cheaper for the consumer to spend the difference on gas instead, because society will end up shouldering the burden of all the extra CO2 that guy emitted, we absorb the price while those two get the benefits. Same with emissions you don't want somebody doing their best to minimize CO2 but nobody buys their cars since they're too expensive, so the standards apply to the whole industry. They should be realistic. And if they have a goal they should be designed in a way that results in that goal.
Actual examples would help this not go in circles if you know if a specific comparable truck whose emissions have gotten worse since Obama's time with the same engine displacement/comparable engine or something. Meaning the company deliberately eschewed the goal of better emissions and better fuel economy. That's a very long post to set up a strawman to make it seem the people who create the standards have never heard of diminishing returns. They have. You're wrong. His question is also a bizzare gotcha. "Can you show me an example of a company selling a product that isn't compliant with the law? didn't think so, checkmate atheist." You have no idea what you're talking about at this point. Individual vehicle models are not regulated in the US. There is no reason F-350s from 2024 couldn't emit more CO2 than F-350s from 2016 even with the exact same footprint and engine displacement as long as Ford on balance meets emission standards among all their pickups. You would have been exposed to that information by having read my earlier post rather than just clicking post. You said companies made huge expensive vehicles instead of figuring out how to make theirs better. You can't simultaneously keep shitting on these companies and then not have a single demonstrable case of them getting away with something bad. Literally name the model or lines that aren't getting better. I asked because I was interested. And interested in an actual tangible case not theorycrafting about pizza analogies that people don't understand either. While I've tracked some data I haven't perused thousands of vehicle stats myself. So otherwise if it turns out the huge-ass death trucks that Europe doesn't need are also just improving emissions across the board, I'm going to put my pitchfork away and take a nap after another false alarm.
No one is saying individual vehicle models are regulated, Emission standards are standards, which you find out by reading the name.
Theoretically two vehicles that are different are different, thats an incredible point to make.
The things that they're getting away with that are bad are the vehicles that they're making and their inability to sell them on the global market. I don't think that you're really interested when you just vaugepost with goalposts so poorly planted there isn't a point addressing them.
You're free to create arguments in your head and win them all you want, you don't have to share them on the internet. If you want to discsus things with other people you need to engage with what they're saying instead of constantly trying to substitute the conversation onto your terms.
Modern american cars are terrible. They're fragile, expensive, inefficent, they kill people, their headlights are so high due the grills that they blind people at night. They also look the same and no new design has come out from them in decades.
Do you disagree with these things?
|
AOC objectively has very different polling than bernie; and on the surface they both appear very similar -- social democrats -- the tone, tenor and emphasis are not identical. With how the media will market her on the one hand, and whatever genuine aesthetic, stylistical, and philosophical differences that exist between her and bernie on the other, its actually quite easy to imagine she would do much worse than him: literally every poll suggests as much.
|
United States43545 Posts
On December 18 2025 02:04 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2025 00:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 18 2025 00:22 pmh wrote:
Nothing personal against aoc but she would be a horrible candidate on the national stage as i see it. The fact that she is a women is one thing (unfortunatly) but its far from the only reason. It will not be easy but i do think a women could win the presidency if its the right women with the right image.
Its many things combined. She has a progressive image but its the wrong kind of progressive image. ts the progressive image that is easy to rail against for people. The angry and upset , and in some way naive , kind of progressive. Aoc is the stereo type progressive that americans love to hate. Mamdani has a way better image when it comes to beeing progressive and sanders also is way better (though he is to old now). I just dont see her image ever working out on the national stage but maybe i am wrong.
Can you elaborate more on the key differences that you see between Mamdani's image/approach and AOC's? What does Mamdani do right that AOC does wrong? Just happy approach vs. angry approach? Because Sanders does both of those. She's a Latina. Americans don't vote for women and they don't vote for brown people. That's all you need to know.
But is there any evidence of resurgent misogynist and racist politics beating candidates other than old white men?
|
On December 18 2025 04:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2025 02:04 Acrofales wrote:On December 18 2025 00:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 18 2025 00:22 pmh wrote:
Nothing personal against aoc but she would be a horrible candidate on the national stage as i see it. The fact that she is a women is one thing (unfortunatly) but its far from the only reason. It will not be easy but i do think a women could win the presidency if its the right women with the right image.
Its many things combined. She has a progressive image but its the wrong kind of progressive image. ts the progressive image that is easy to rail against for people. The angry and upset , and in some way naive , kind of progressive. Aoc is the stereo type progressive that americans love to hate. Mamdani has a way better image when it comes to beeing progressive and sanders also is way better (though he is to old now). I just dont see her image ever working out on the national stage but maybe i am wrong.
Can you elaborate more on the key differences that you see between Mamdani's image/approach and AOC's? What does Mamdani do right that AOC does wrong? Just happy approach vs. angry approach? Because Sanders does both of those. She's a Latina. Americans don't vote for women and they don't vote for brown people. That's all you need to know. But is there any evidence of resurgent misogynist and racist politics beating candidates other than old white men?
Yeah. Trump twice.
Sadly, historically there have been exactly three types of president. Old white men, middle aged white men, and Barack Obama.
Meanwhile, there have been a lot of racist and/or misogynist presidents.
I honestly don't know how one should deal with this. It seems absurd to only run old-ish white men because the racists and misogynists will vote for any old-ish white man over any other candidate.
But they do, so if you run any other candidate, you tend to lose, giving even more power to the racists and misogynists.
It is shitty all around, but i think it cements one core observation: The US voting population is simply a bit shit.
|
United States43545 Posts
On December 18 2025 05:08 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2025 04:46 KwarK wrote:On December 18 2025 02:04 Acrofales wrote:On December 18 2025 00:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 18 2025 00:22 pmh wrote:
Nothing personal against aoc but she would be a horrible candidate on the national stage as i see it. The fact that she is a women is one thing (unfortunatly) but its far from the only reason. It will not be easy but i do think a women could win the presidency if its the right women with the right image.
Its many things combined. She has a progressive image but its the wrong kind of progressive image. ts the progressive image that is easy to rail against for people. The angry and upset , and in some way naive , kind of progressive. Aoc is the stereo type progressive that americans love to hate. Mamdani has a way better image when it comes to beeing progressive and sanders also is way better (though he is to old now). I just dont see her image ever working out on the national stage but maybe i am wrong.
Can you elaborate more on the key differences that you see between Mamdani's image/approach and AOC's? What does Mamdani do right that AOC does wrong? Just happy approach vs. angry approach? Because Sanders does both of those. She's a Latina. Americans don't vote for women and they don't vote for brown people. That's all you need to know. But is there any evidence of resurgent misogynist and racist politics beating candidates other than old white men? Yeah. Trump twice. Sadly, historically there have been exactly three types of president. Old white men, middle aged white men, and Barack Obama. Meanwhile, there have been a lot of racist and/or misogynist presidents. I honestly don't know how one should deal with this. It seems absurd to only run old-ish white men because the racists and misogynists will vote for any old-ish white man over any other candidate. But they do, so if you run any other candidate, you tend to lose, giving even more power to the racists and misogynists. It is shitty all around, but i think it cements one core observation: The US voting population is simply a bit shit.
Okay but setting aside the evidence, is there any evidence?
|
|
|
|
|
Obama's biggest advantage was the economy was a smouldering crater and the incumbent president had a 25% approval rating. Seeing as how we're speedrunning both of those factors, I think AOC would win over whatever Republican runs, because they're inevitably going to be some sycophantic dipshit that refuses to condemn all the worst parts of MAGA that's making them historically unpopular.
|
On December 18 2025 06:13 LightSpectra wrote:
Obama's biggest advantage was the economy was a smouldering crater and the incumbent president had a 25% approval rating. Seeing as how we're speedrunning both of those factors, I think AOC would win over whatever Republican runs, because they're inevitably going to be some sycophantic dipshit that refuses to condemn all the worst parts of MAGA that's making them historically unpopular. But what if its Trump running for a 3e term? ^^
|
At this rate, i totally expect a story about Trump personally painting moustaches and pirate eyepatches with a marker pen on every democrat presidents portrait in the white house some time next week.
|
The only way Trump wins a third term at this trajectory is if there's a pandemic of brain worms that is exclusively fatal for people with above-room-temperature IQs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
