The military would remain loyal to the Dems
lmao half the military are Trump loving chuds.
edge
joined 2 years ago
What was supposed to be a bit of a joke turned into a long ramble.
Democrats would love to have Obama back, and I think they might have their best opportunity after this election (not that they’d ever do it and even if they did they’d probably fumble it hard).
Think, Trump has just been elected to his second turn, Republicans are riding high on their victory. Then Democrats propose to them a bipartisan amendment to remove term limits. Republicans might agree* thinking they can have Trump forever, but “all” Democrats need to do is beat him with Obama in 2028. Which honestly he probably would beat Trump unless they fumble it harder than they fumbled 2016 and 2024 somehow (they probably would).
* One thing that might blow this idea apart is the disconnect between Republican voters and elected Republicans. The voters would absolutely squeal for the possibility of a third Trump term (and more). But will the electeds? Trump has been good for them in many ways, but the old guard still hates him. But on the other hand how much of the old guard is left? McCain is [do we not have an emote of his daughter crying while being served spaghetti out of his head?], Romney is on his way out, and the Trumpers took the speakership.
All of this came from me randomly remembering [damn I really can’t find emotes today. Where’s that lib character saying he would vote for Obama again and the actor didn’t realize it was a parody?].
Killing him might lead to a backlash worse than him getting elected again.
I think I'm only exaggerating a little bit in saying it might cause a civil war.
Says the man insulting the intelligence of his own supporters (and former supporters).
Hopefully that puts a dent in companies that crunch. Why crunch when you can just go to some other studio?
It has a footnote that says it excludes Mexico, but it doesn't say if it excludes the rest of Central America.
Clearly he's anticipating his loss this year and planning to run in 2028 (at the sprightly age of 87), hence the "pause" between terms.
North America*
^*Excl.^ ^Mexico^
Does it exclude just Mexico, or does it exclude all of Central America? Does it include Greenland?
I'm guessing it's just the US and Canada, so they should have just said that.
B
- No, your shitty candidate is the reason
- Yes
- What other actions have you taken? What use were they?
- Voters have the memory of a goldfish. The current guy is bad (as always) so they vote for the other guy.
- Marx, Lenin, Parenti, probably a bunch of others.
I
- Yes
- Yes
- Yes
- Sacrificing thousands of Palestinian lives for your own benefit is selfish.
- Yes
N
- No, but it should at least not actively make things worse.
- You're the one trying to convince people to do something, if you're an asshole about it they probably won't want to do it. We don't care either way.
- Yes
- Yes
- Not necessarily, but it is saying you're fine with their big policies, like genocide.
G
- It doesn't matter whether you vote, but I will think less of you for doing so.
- It doesn't, but neither does voting.
- "My guy's genocide isn't as bad" isn't the argument you think it is.
- Literally every election at all levels is the same: center-right lib vs right wing lib. We've tried multiple times to change that by voting for center-left libs in primaries, but you have resisted us every time, and those center-left libs turned out to be pretty shitty too.
- Nah, but I'd probably keep replying because I hate seeing stupid shit go unchallenged. I probably shouldn't though.
O
- Voting for a candidate that supports genocide does indeed mean you support genocide.
- What fucking primaries?
- Yes
- Yes
- It gives you the same amount of power as voting.
could add 4bn tonnes to US emissions by 2030
In what way does the graph indicate that? It's not raw emissions because that's around 5 billion, it's not change in emissions because that will be down from about 5.5 billion, it's not compared to Biden or his target because even Biden's target is only about 2 billion less.
The most generous interpretation I can give it is that they typoed 2050 in the title, and that it's Trump's ~4.2 billion rounded down vs Biden's target of 0. But even that's pretty wrong because that wouldn't be "adding" emissions, it would just be reducing emissions less.
Damn I have 8 AIs in my mouse???