The Mexican flag, probably.

US presidents haven’t been punished for wrongdoing for at least half a century.

The only thing that will stop him, singular, is death. The only thing that will stop them, plural, is a popular uprising.

Depends on what you consider modern. “War is a racket” is a thing for a reason.

I mean, credit to the guy, he did invest early and hard in MAGA.

While I do agree it’s more complicated than “money = food,” a lot of this complexity is fueled by imperialism of one kind or another, so this isn’t an “oh well that’s just life” situation. People would be less hungry if, for example, the people keeping them hungry weren’t financed and armed by America and (occasionally) China. The message of “we could fix this if we wanted” is still accurate.

Imperial boomerang moment in 3, 2…

Its absolutely not guaranteed they can compromise the midterms enough to prevent the complete collapse of their coalition.

But if their coalition collapses Trump won’t be able to execute his platform. Hence, the coup. The GOP is betting on being the ruling party of Trump’s fascist dictatorship. Also like the other person said, the goal here is a white America; the immigration thing is just an excuse.

So they went from 50% support to 30% support. That’s a pretty hefty change, but given that they’re the regimes primary victims I have to wonder what those remaining 30% are thinking.

PS: In the current stage of American politics, voting blocs are meaningless.

I have no idea, how about you look it up and report back? Given that other mayors were spending as much or more than that, clearly the process costs a pretty penny.

Given the conduct of the US military since… ever, I doubt too many high ranking office there had anything resembling a moral compass even before Trump. Maybe it’s counterproductive, but I love to see the imperial boomerang in action.

The way I understand it, a mayor is supposed to just… appoint people to places when they take office. But they need to find those people somehow, and that somehow costs money.

Our military is simply murdering people.

This has been the case for as long as your military existed, so that goes without saying.

Given that European style social democracy is crashing and burning as we speak, it’s definitely a low bar.

Long story short: They’re beholden to their donors, not their constituents. They’re not centrists because they believe in that stuff (I suspect they do, but that’s incidental), but because their donors want them to be centrists. I mean, if they ran on a leftwing program they’d need to do something leftwing to appease their constituents, and that would require them to tax the rich.

Sure, I never said otherwise so I’m not sure how that’s relevant to my point.

So was it fine for Charlie Kirk to say hydroxychloroquine was 100% effective in treating COVID? Because that’s the equivalence I’m making here: Charlie Kirk claiming hydroxychloroquine treated COVID and vaccines are ineffective in 2020 == Michelle Obama claiming Harris and Hillary lost because of their gender in 2025. Besides, again she’s the country’s most popular Democrat; even if she doesn’t have a formal role her voice counts for something. I’m not saying she should lead the charge against fascism, but the least she could do is not say dumb shit.

Well, for one “they go low, we go high” has not served American democracy much. For another, I don’t like friends of war criminals (see: Bush). Not saying a damn word about her husband’s atrocities is also pretty guilty. Mostly though I hate it when liberal has-beens try to steer the conversation even after though their methods have clearly failed. When the country’s most popular Democrat says “oh yeah Harris totes lost because she was a woman that was definitely it” it pushes a harmful, potentially fatal given the circumstances, narrative about the adequacy of Dem policies in 2024. Every part of the establishment Dem ecosystem deserves about this much scorn until they shut the fuck up and let people who know what the fuck they’re doing try to save democracy. Not to mention, scapegoating gender rather than politics drags down progressive women like AOC, who otherwise could make a bid for the presidency.

TL;DR: She’s, intentionally or not (though I suspect the former), doing the political equivalent of saying that inject bleach was actually a perfectly safe and effective treatment method for COVID.

Oil they consume nationally is oil they can’t sell.

Its opposition has continued in the run-up to the UN Cop30 climate summit in Brazil, yet the country is now also making a whirlwind switch to renewable power at home.

It’s kind of in their interest to decrease their own oil consumption while keeping international oil consumption high, which is kind of what they’re doing. As for your other points, good public health is good for the economy in general, but not necessarily a boon for the leadership’s coffers. They make their money from oil; other people would make money from a thriving and diverse economy. It’s that divide that fuels seemingly counterproductive policies; they benefit special interests who don’t care about everyone else.

Are we “ready” for her? I don’t know. But she’s the kind of woman candidate who could win.

Not disagreeing with you, but the last few years in America and worldwide have convinced me that, at least in the West, backlash to women leaders is mostly a fantasy. I mean how many fascist leaders or prominent personalities are actually women? You can’t convince me the American left and center-left are more sexist than the literal fascists who elected literal fascist Georgina Meloni, or the literal neo-Nazis supporting literal neo-Nazi Alice Wiedel. People will vote for an Apache helicopter if it promotes their (real or perceived) interests; shockingly little of modern Western elections boils down to gender.