I mean, she's a LOT less corrupt than trump. There are scales to this. trump literally stole state secrets to sell to our enemies for a profit; he tried to extort Ukraine, he's so firmly in Putin's pocket that he may as well be a Russian agent, and he's threatening genocides and dictatorships and political violence daily, maybe hourly.

So yeah, she's a hell of a lot less corrupt. That doesn't make her blameless or uncorrupt, but there's shades of gray to this my man. :)

The Idiot invited Kremlin agents into the Oval Office to laugh about firing the FBI director, and we only found out because Russian photographers published the pictures.

She was a lot less corrupt than The Idiot.

(Caveat: I am an NDP voter)

Chrystia Freeland isn't my favourite, but she would absolutely be a better choice than Trudeau. She can lock up our centrist voters, she's an easy 'economy good' candidate, and she'd absolutely dumpster Poilievre in a debate. She was lead editor for the Financial Times (London), she's half-Ukrainian and fluent in the language, and frankly I feel this this story says just how fantastic a candidate she could be:

During 1988–89, she was an exchange student at the Taras Shevchenko State University of Kyiv in Ukraine, where she studied Ukrainian, which she is fluent in.[19] While there, she worked with journalist Bill Keller of The New York Times to document the Bykivnia graves, an unmarked mass grave site where the NKVD (the Soviet secret police) disposed of tens of thousands of dissidents.[1] The official Soviet story held that the graves were the result of Nazi atrocities. She translated the stories of locals who had witnessed covered trucks and "puddles of blood in the road" that predated the Nazi invasion, adding evidence that the site was actually the result of Stalinist repression.[1]

While there she attracted the attention of the KGB, which tagged her with the code name "Frida", and Soviet newspapers, who attacked her as a foreigner meddling in their internal affairs over her contacts with Ukrainian activists. The KGB surveilled Freeland and tapped her phone calls, and documented the young Canadian activist delivering money, video and audio recording equipment, and a personal computer to contacts in Ukraine. She used a diplomat at the Embassy of Canada in Moscow to send material abroad in a secret diplomatic pouch, worked with foreign journalists on stories about life in the Soviet Union, and organized marches and rallies to attract attention and support from Western countries. On her return from a trip to London in March 1989, Freeland was denied re-entry to the Soviet Union.[20] By the time her activism within Ukraine came to an end, Freeland had become the subject of a high-level case study from the KGB on how much damage a single determined individual could inflict on the Soviet Union; a 2021 Globe and Mail article quoted the report by a former officer of the KGB, which had described Freeland as "a remarkable individual", "erudite, sociable, persistent, and inventive in achieving her goals".[20]

(Emphasis mine)

MP, you say? How about Maddie Phillips from Ghost Wars and The Boys? 😛

(Yes, I know what an MP is. It's a Member of Portishead)

Honestly I was willing to accept Michelle Obama back when Biden was the nominee, because she had better odds of beating Trump than Biden did. They just need to be more competent than Trump, so... pretty much anyone.

That bit ~~her~~ in the ass.

That bit The USA in the ass.

Hmm that makes sense. And yet something like 3 million more people voted for her than trump, right? Maybe Kamala can pull this off if people tend to like her any amount better than Hillary. Also, I think Kamala will put in the extra effort, whereas, as you said, Hillary didn’t seem to.

AOC is going to have the same problem, I hope she has a plan to head it off.

Of course she's much more likable naturally, so maybe it won't work as well.

There's a legitimate concern about kids being in front of screens constantly. I'm sympathetic towards the idea that the constant attention grabbing stimulus is maybe not so great, especially when it's thick with advertising and other propaganda.

But the fixation on violence and sex, absent any concern for general quality of life for children, makes kids out to be this latent criminal element. The political inclination towards asking "How quickly can we start treating kids as criminals?" is a huge facet of social decay in the 90s/00s.

For all her talk of "It takes a village", Clinton seemed totally unconcerned with the quality of life in American neighborhoods.