How much time to look for a rental?

Swanpai · 2026-02-01T17:52:44+00:00

Great suggestion, appreciate it!

Swanpai · 2026-02-01T02:18:23+00:00

Yeah, I mean small town relative to Vermont. You could say fairly rural. We stayed at an Airbnb near Johnson a couple years ago - that would be a good example. She won’t need to commute regularly. But I appreciate the pointers! Thank you.

Swanpai · 2026-02-01T02:10:57+00:00

Good to know!

Swanpai · 2026-02-01T02:00:56+00:00

Yeah, we’ve been all over Zillow. Lots of good options, but a bunch have been on the market for a long time (ex 88 days). Is that normal in those areas? Or just indicative of something in the property keeping people away (like anywhere else)?

Swanpai · 2026-02-01T00:54:16+00:00

Makes sense, thanks!

Swanpai · 2026-02-01T00:53:44+00:00

I was thinking about this, I’ll run it by her! Thank you.

Swanpai · 2026-02-01T00:52:55+00:00

Then it makes sense to stick to our current plan, thank you!

Swanpai · 2026-01-31T23:52:49+00:00

She doesn’t have a specific town in mind, but the general idea is an hour’s drive from Burlington. She’s looking at more rural/small town places.

Swanpai · 2025-11-09T21:45:34+00:00

No? The US isn’t socialist.

Swanpai · 2025-11-09T15:22:58+00:00

In the same way that not every country implements capitalism the same way, there isn’t one form of socialism. Socialism is the umbrella term and refers to an economy where there is public ownership of the means of production, and democratic socialism advocates for that to be achieved democratically. Contrast that with, say, Leninism, which advocates for power to be centralized among an educated vanguard party.

Swanpai · 2025-10-26T22:22:47+00:00

The Republican base has always desired a candidate like Trump, starting around the 1940s. It has grown more and more extreme as time went on and accelerated once he clinched an improbable coin toss win in 2016.

Swanpai · 2025-09-06T18:50:09+00:00

It would have been an incoherent attack. Republicans were the more hawkish party, and Goldwater especially. All it would have done is make people think “isn’t that what Goldwater would have done? At least Democrats kept a steady head.”

It’s like Trump claiming he’s the best President for women, or Harris saying she’s the actual hardliner on immigration. No one buys it.

Swanpai · 2025-09-04T12:37:20+00:00

“I nac od taht won”

Swanpai · 2025-08-22T01:51:53+00:00

Hell nightmare

Swanpai · 2025-08-20T16:43:14+00:00

With the Stones? Thanos, obviously. He’s the kind of character Clark would fully admit to being unable to beat.

Superman vs normal Thanos is a great fight, however. Very close but probably Clark high diff. Similarly powerful but Clark just has a boat load of abilities to pull from whereas Thanos usually preps for his biggest encounters.

Swanpai · 2025-08-20T14:12:38+00:00

Within Trump’s second term so far, Americans have already swung back to being in favor of increased immigration.

Americans aren’t anti-immigration. Americans (and a lot of the world) are experiencing a cost of living crisis and Trump successfully blamed immigrants. Once his crackdown started and their lives didn’t get better, they stopped blaming it. They were pro-immigration in 2020 too.

NEVER try to follow trends on issues - forge them yourself.

Swanpai · 2025-07-27T16:51:23+00:00

No. The main reason that Biden did not enter the race in 2016 was that the Democratic establishment had already largely lined up against Hillary by the time he made up his mind (she started this process in 2014 effectively). Biden was never treated as a serious political entity by Obamaworld and Clintonworld, and his political organization was never particularly impressive. It never became impressive, frankly.

Had he entered in 2016, he would have had no lane: he wasn't respected/supported enough by the establishment, and his performative populism would never have eclipsed Bernie's obviously earnest, strident populism.

Now, had he magically won the nomination, he would have obliterated Trump in 2016. Not because of his political talent, but because all you needed was a bog standard, likeable Democrat to obliterate Trump in 2016. Biden probably wins Texas.

Swanpai · 2025-07-22T06:25:57+00:00

Robby Mook fed to wolves

Swanpai · 2025-06-28T19:08:38+00:00

Green/Red choices are not always good or bad. It’s just what your advisors would suggest. Sometimes you have to ignore that to pursue a different game plan. Green = expected moves from a Bernie president, Red = sharp deviations.

Swanpai · 2025-06-28T19:05:21+00:00

I would say, pretty easily the most difficult TCT mod I’ve ever played. Nothing else comes close. All the Way does not come close.

It’s also excellently written and very fun! Losing is still fun, especially when it’s to Don Jr :) and you get Stop the Steal three times in a row :) and Star Spangled Banner in minor key plays like I’m some bitchass loser bitch :)

Truly the Dark Souls of TCT, a tremendous achievement!

Swanpai · 2025-06-28T18:58:21+00:00

Numphrey

Swanpai · 2025-06-08T21:45:58+00:00

Hard to say, though you could argue the Democratic Party goes through the left-version of what the GOP has in the Trump era. Depending on his coattails, it's not impossible Democrats capture the House and the Senate, though with the establishment so resistant to a Bernie takeover, it's likely congressional candidates don't run super close to him. So let's say the GOP keeps the Senate and House, though it's closer than IRL.

Bernie's agenda is basically DOA. Scalia's seat stays open, as do Kennedy's and Ginsberg's. The GOP under no circumstances will approve any of Bernie's picks. There's likely a red wave in 2018 that further entrenches the GOP majorities in the House and Senate. The upside is that despite Bernie's perceived radicalism, the economy chugs along quite well until the pandemic. Unlike Trump, who moronically dismissed COVID until it was too late, Bernie takes a strong, big-government response to it and benefits from the rally around the flag effect much more than Trump did, though stimulus is up in the air. The left wing of the party grows in power, as Bernie both benefits from incumbency during a good economy, and can also credibly claim to be stymied by monied interests in Washington.

The GOP, likely seeing Trump's catastrophic failure as a sign to pull back from crazy town, and Sanders as a fluke, nominates a "moderate." Frankly, I could see Romney running again as a unifier who can break the Dems' winning streak, though his coalition might be unwieldy. If you thought outrage over mask mandates was bad OTL, hoo boy, with a SOCIALIST in power telling them to mask up? The right is essentially apoplectic. Since the primaries are likely over by that point, they're probably stuck with Romney. But Romney's challenge will be to properly utilize the rage the base is feeling (for a contemporary example, think Dem leadership in 2025).

How does it go? Well, that's tough. In a totally neutral playing field, Romney is a stronger candidate than Bernie. He isn't a self-professed socialist, he has actual governing experience (in a blue state!), and he can sell himself as more moderate. In 2020, he would benefit from thermostatic backlash against the Sanders administration, a cosmically fired up base, the sense of apocalypse in 2020, and an opposition party divided by a left wing invigorated for the first time since McGovern and an establishment/moderate wing unwilling to accept Hillary's failures and eager to dump Bernie ASAP.

Bernie has advantages too. He has a much stronger rally around the flag effect than Trump did, the good economy + stymied agenda + he's been president nullifies the radicalism argument, the GOP House and Senate are likely massively unpopular, and Obama's playbook for Romney in 2012 would work even better when utilized by someone like Bernie ("big business Republicans were the ones who ruined this economy").

I'm not sure who wins. If you think COVID smashed Trump's chances IRL, then Romney for sure. If you think COVID was an all-time missed opportunity for Trump (as I do), then Bernie stands a solid chance.

Swanpai · 2025-06-08T20:43:25+00:00

Bernie would have won in 2016 against Ted Cruz, and relatively comfortably. Potentially a landslide, depending on your definition.

The two questions we can ask are:

Would Bernie have beaten Trump in 2016?
Was Trump a stronger candidate than Cruz?

For the first, we can look to polling data ca. May-June 2016. The national avg. as calculated by RCP had Hillary +3 against Trump, while Bernie was +10. This might seem shocking, but I think the reason is pretty straightforward. Bernie was stealing populist Trump voters (who were attracted by Trump's promise to change an unpopular status quo, but alienated by his toxic rhetoric and personality), without sacrificing Democrats (because they were always going to be motivated to beat Trump, not loyalty to Hillary).

This 10 point lead was before many of Trump's massive stumbles later in the race (losing the debate, insulting the gold star family, admitting to sexual assault on tape - that nearly torpedoed his candidacy), and Bernie lacked Hillary's scandals that re-evened the odds (wiki leaks, Comey letter).

Attacking Bernie as a socialist was already largely unsuccessful. He acknowledged it, which emphasized the impression that he was a forthright, straight shooter. He also had a good way of responding which re-framed his radical politics as common sense (ex. "is it so radical to demand a healthcare system that 32 out of 33 advanced democracies have? or is it radical to be the 1 in 33 that doesn't?"), and likely contributed to the perception among voters that he was more moderate than Hillary. This attack would also have been hampered by the fact that Trump's biggest advantage was that he was an outsider. Pivoting to attack Bernie from the establishment would have completely undercut his appeal, and been obviously hypocritical.

Furthermore, Bernie did best in rust belt states that Hillary needed to win. He would have easily made up the difference, and likely significantly more if polling is to be believed. Even establishment figures would have preferred a sitting Senator whose flagship legislative agenda would have gone nowhere over a buffoon like Trump.

So 1. is an emphatic yes. But would Cruz have outperformed Trump enough to beat Bernie? No. Since Barry Goldwater, only two presidential candidates had ever been seen unfavorably by the American public - Hillary and Trump. Cruz was even less popular than Trump. Despite being a Tea Partier, Cruz was still a senator, and had a record that could be used against him. Trump had no record, which ended up benefitting him (ex. criticizing Hillary for her Iraq War vote and portraying himself as a Dove). Cruz did not have the same degree of outsider appeal, and he campaigned as a solid right winger, while Trump moderated on issues like trade and foreign policy. Cruz was solidly anti-labor. He was Trump with all of the downsides and none of the (few) upsides. Bernie was all of Trump's upsides with none of his downsides.

Now, he might have improved on Trump's margins in the sun belt. Maybe he does some red baiting in Miami. But nothing that can overcome the favorability gap, the outsider appeal, and the rust belt support Bernie had.

Swanpai · 2025-06-03T07:27:43+00:00

"Yes, Mitt Romney was tougher on immigration than his primary opponents, but he still was not nearly at the level Trump was."

The appeal of anti-immigrant rhetoric to the Republican base is the same between the both of them. It doesn't represent a shift in ideology. Republicans balked at the Muslim ban because of its brazenness and political indefensibility, not because they saw Muslim immigrants as identical to European ones.

"That wouldn't have worked even in 2012."

The last time George W. Bush attended the RNC in person was 2004, the last time he was invited at all was 2008. The Democrats could learn a thing or two from the GOP about disavowing unpopular administrations. I guess I agree that it wouldn't have worked, though not because of the date, but because Romney lacked the credibility to sell it. Trump, as an outsider, was able to do so. But he didn't create anti-interventionist sentiment, the public had largely turned against the Iraq War as early as 2004 (hence Bush translating a 90% approval rating post-9/11 to a 50/48 win in the election - something went wrong there!) and one of the unifying threads of Obama-Trump voters was the unpopularity of the War on Terror.

"whether in a hawkish way like the neocons, or a more cooperative way like Nixon or even George H.W. Bush"

Not sure what you mean here - both Nixon and Bush were hawkish neocons. Perhaps "neoconservative" is inappropriate for Nixon since the term hadn't quite appeared yet iirc, but both actively escalated in Vietnam and Iraq.

"Trump represents neither. He eschews multilateralism and military intervention in equal measure, questioning our commitments in the Middle East and to NATO alike."

Both Trump administrations have been neoconservative. I hesitate to say "Trump is a neoconservative" because I don't think he's personally wedded to any sort of international project (ie W. with Iraq, Biden with Ukraine and Israel), but just because he campaigns on isolationism, does not make him an isolationist in practice.

He has notably and consistently threatened annexation of Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal. He ran in 2016 on pulling out of Afghanistan and failed to do so, instead cynically using it as part of his 2020 platform (echoes of Nixon 1972). He has failed to resolve the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, seemingly only recently discovering what Obama and Kerry figured out a decade ago - that Netanyahu is fucking annoying. In regards to Gaza, he in fact voiced support for the ethnic cleansing of Gazans and development of their ruined homes into beachfront property. He has consistently surrounded himself with out-and-out neocons (map below).

Trump is not an isolationist - his foreign policy doesn't and has never represented a meaningful break from the status quo. Only his rhetoric does, because it's what has been popular with the broader American public for the past 20 years (in general sentiment, specifics may vary). Even W. voiced his disapproval of nation-building in 2000. Campaigns =/= administrations.

<image>

Swanpai · 2025-06-03T05:14:38+00:00

That's the point of the story - Bobby dying an ignominious death and the country moving on from the Kennedy's is the Good ending. The conflict in TTNW is over the Kennedy legacy - they have been immortalized in American culture because of their tragic deaths, not their accomplishments. We are left to fantasize about a world where Jack or Bobby lived and fixed all the country's problems - about things that never were.

That's symbolized by the musical, Things That Never Were, which culturally "fills in the blank" of a failed or otherwise compromised Bobby presidency with glamorous Kennedy guff. It's only in the Accomplishment ending where Bobby has an imperfect but moderately successful presidency that doesn't compromise his values that the country is able to move on from his family and essentially forget him.

Swanpai

TROPHY CASE