I know who he is because I’m a space nerd and follow congressional politics closely, and I like him, but I also know that most voters don’t pay attention to congressional politics, nor remember the kind of news stories he’s showed up in.

He would be a strong candidate… if he had a larger public profile with the average voter.

I like him, but the average voter doesn’t know about him. He doesn’t even rank in battle ground polling.

The average voter doesn’t know who mark kelly is.

They don’t know where he stands.

They know where AOC stands.

Of the commonly proposed candidates for 2028, she routinely preforms best in polling in battleground states.

She’s the only federal level Democrat with any sort of broad public support.

No one else is note worthy or generally liked.

She is literally the only option. Anyone else is risking mass voter apathy and a voter turn out flop in an election that should be a slam dunk.

If you’re going to vote in the dem primaries, don’t fucking vote based on who “is most electable”, vote for who you want to win. Choosing the candidate that “is the most electable” keeps losing elections, because that crown keeps getting chosen by corporate owned media who just anoint that tittle to the most corporate friendly candidate, and voters don’t like corporate friendly candidates.

The most electable candidate is one who excites people, no one else even considered for running excites anyone except for corporate lobbyists.

Bush, Clinton, bush, Regan, Ford, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Hoover, Coolidge, Wilson, McKinley.

The majority of US presidents between 1900 and 2000 never spent time as senators, most in no foreign policy position what so ever. Most didn’t even serve time in an elected federal office. Even less exposure to foreign policy in a governor position than a house rep.

Why is it different here? Who would you suggest, who has been “in the senate” or some other role more exposed to foreign policy? The other potential candidates that have even close to her level of public support have even less foreign policy experience.

This is absurd, it is nonsense, any excuse to discredit the only candidate who has real public support, not just a bunch of corporate funded think pieces.

deleted by creator

… shut!

the leadership at a lot of companies have a very poor read on public sentiment, kind of strange given how much data they collect and how much they like to talk about how good they are at using that data.

And a lot of high level leadership at collages run in the same circles are executives at big companies. These speech events are sort of a benefit for both sides, the leadership at the collage gets to advertise what a good job they’re doing that they were able to get someone so influential to speak, and the speaker gets a sudo-academic platform to state their ideas and an ego boost from the huge in person captive audience.

A lot of them just kind of write off the discontent they see as “a vocal minority”, so when mass confronted with actual public sentiment, i do think it kind of blind sides them.

I think, she has a very small set of sincerely held beliefs, one of them being that the US should completely disengage from all foreign entanglements.

I think that she tried to seek opportunities to gain influence and power in the Democratic Party to enforce those goals, she was disillusioned and saw no route for her self there, so she pivoted to maga because it looked easier to advance to a position of power within. She was willing to say and do anything to get that position where she could pursue her deeply held belief, and she got there, and found that by the very nature of the easy power, she had completely given up any autonomy to act upon her beliefs.

Now, it’s pretty clear that this is not the beginning of a political movement she can harness, but the death of one that used her, she’s stepping away to not be associated with the worse to come. Maybe she’ll be able to salvage a career of some sort, but really, the best she can hope for is not be noted in history text books as a key player in the clusterfuck coming.

So, it’s not just benzene but a whole cocktail of aromatics (carbon molecules with rings in them) in addition to the ethane which is used to make poly ethylene plastic.

To answer your question, no, they never alter production for the sake of making more plastic, rather changes in production are driven by the availability of certain types of crude oil (heavy vs light, sweet vs sour) and demand for certain types of fuel. These changes result In more or less production of plastic precursors as a side effect.

Demand for plastic is almost entirely driven by the availability of the precursors, more supply means a lower price, means more uses for plastic become cost effective and displace other materials. They make far more money selling fuels than they do selling plastics. The margins on fuels are much higher as plastic requires additional inputs, additional manufacturing/processing, and additional marketing to be sold.

The fuel sales are effectively subsidizing the cost of plastic, as it would not be cost effective to produce on its own. Other, cheaper, and easier to manufacture materials would displace its uses if it wasn’t already being produced as a byproduct of fuel.

Actually it was a response to local governments attempting to ban plastic packaging. You know, because they were the ones who had to pay for disposing of it.

Glass bottles of milk or soda got picked up and re-used by the companies that sold stuff in them, metal cans got bought up for use as scrap metal. Municipal garbage only had to deal with stuff like wood, paper, cardboard, and food scraps; stuff that rotted and broke down over time. Plastic though, well, it didn’t break down, it filled up the dumps, and suddenly towns had to constantly be digging new dumps. This was expensive and a bunch of local governments started banning the use of single use plastic packaging. Oil/plastic lobbyists went to state governments and got them to ban the local bans.

Of course this was going to be unpopular, so they also spent a bunch of money funding PR blitz’s to convince everyone plastic recycling was viable, and that it was actually the responsibility of average consumers and municipalities to implement it. And now local governments are burdened with the cost of dealing with all the waste generated by oil and plastic companies.

And in real life, the shredder is plastic packaging and junk that everyone else has to dispose of when they’re done with it. Not the oil companies problem, now it’s the responsibility of local municipal governments. Your tax dollars subsidizing the disposal of oil company byproducts.

So, there are certain products of refining oil that are just in the wrong range of properties to be used in their own right as fuels, over a century of work has gone in to finding uses for the stuff that can’t be fuels, or performing alchemy to make it in to fuel, what’s left over at this point is stuff that just… can’t be made in to fuel. Some of the thickest, densest gunk gets turned in to asphalt for roads, this is called bitumen. Above that is heavy oil used in ships or for heating, then diesel, then kerosene/jetfuel, then Naphtha, then petrol/gasoline, and then stuff like butane and propane.

Naphtha is just in this weird space where it’s too thick to be useful for places where you need the fuel to vaporize in to a gas easily like butane or gasoline, but to light to be used in something where you need it to stay liquid at high temperatures, like diesel. Lots of stuff was tried to find a usage for Naphtha but none of it was economical or had a large enough demand to use enough of it. So they started doing catalytic reformation to it, basically smashing the molecules up to make them lighter. This produces a new mix of stuff, the heavier bits are added to gasoline to raises its octane, but the lighter half of this stuff is too short for use in gas. This lighter stuff is mix of some useful stuff like butane and propane, but then there is ethane and a mix of weird aromatic compounds. These are just not useful as fuels and there isn’t an affordable way to process them in to fuels. So… something needs to be done with them; just venting them is not an option because a lot of it is super carcinogenic stuff like benzene.

And this is the issue, this is the bottom of the barrel left overs after so much processing, it can’t be dumped, it can’t be sold as fuel. It’s only useful as chemical feedstocks for making various plastics and chemicals. If we’re going to refine oil to make diesel, jet fuel, and gasoline, we’re gonna end up with these byproducts and we’re spent a century trying to figure out how to use them as fuel, and there just isn’t an economical way to do so. Ether the fuels get way more expensive to cover the costs of disposing of the junk safely, or they get passed along as plastics, chemicals, and asphalt for everyone else to deal with when they’re not useful anymore.

Yah, but hear me out, growing trees doesn’t make the planet get hotter.

Plastic recycling basically everywhere is a scam. It requires direct government subsidization to be cost competitive with new plastic. Companies actually advertising that they do it or could do it are missing the forest for the trees or just greenwashing.

Because plastic is a byproduct of oil production. It is a way to get rid of fractions of oil that are not used as fuel. No matter how efficient plastic recycling gets, it will never be cost competitive with new plastic. Refineries will just drop the price of the new plastic to ensure all of it gets sold, since if they couldn’t sell it, they would have to pay to dispose of it.

The real value of plastics isn’t that they’re good materials for things, it’s that they’re a way for oil companies to push the responsibility of disposing of their waste products on to public waste management by laundering it through packaging and cheap junk.

Lmao, from low down on the page

StudyFinds Analysis articles are created using an exclusive AI-based model with complete human oversight by the StudyFinds Editorial Team.

So yah, ai generated slop articles, not even edited or optimized for SEO with, just straight up writing the articles.