Do you mean the Democrats? If so, yeah, the Democrats do seem willing to accept anti-Trump conservatives into their party.

The Democrats really want to be a big tent party. They’ll take just about anyone within a certain ideological range, centered around the American political middle. This definitely includes many conservatives.

I question the effectiveness of this strategy, though, as when you include too many opposing ideologies in a single party, it can be difficult for the party to choose a clear path to take. It’s often the case that when you try to appeal to as many different people as possible, you end up not appealing to very many people at all.

This really isn’t that surprising. The Republican party has become a cult of personality around Trump, putting it at odds with actual, ideological conservatives.

I don’t know what Trump’s ideology is, or if he even has one. He seems to only believe in his own ambition, for wealth, power, and control.

However, conservativism does lend itself to people like Trump rising to power, because it promotes a central authority and/or aristocracy that preserves tradition, culture, and the established social order. Conservatism doesn’t just tolerate social hierarchies, like class, it promotes them, and, in fact conservatism believes that such hierarchies are not only necessary, but natural and essential. It makes sense that malignant narcissists would take advantage of such a system to try and take their “rightful place” at the top of the hierarchies, because they believe that they are inherently superior to everyone else.

Over the past few years, about 4 in 10 young women between the ages of 18 and 29 have described their political views as liberal

I wonder how the other 6 in 10 young women would describe their political views. While 40% isn’t a majority, I would think liberals are a plurality. Still, it’s a little disheartening that there isn’t a clear majority in the US. It would be nice if a majority of Americans could reach a consensus.

I don’t truly understand why the option is between someone who might be reasonable, and a convicted predator con artist who, at every turn, keeps demonstrating how they’re more racist and incoherent than your great grandpa

I think our system of politics as day time talk show style entertainment is part of the reason why the convicted predator continues to be a seemingly viable candidate.

In a system where a single person gets full executive authority,

Well, that’s the problem, isn’t it. No single person should have that much authority. But, regardless, does this debate platform really tell us all that much about how a person is likely to perform as chief executive? I’m not so sure. I think a person can do relatively well in a debate performance and still end up being a poor president.

I can’t vote for policies.

But you can vote for a representative (two, actually) who can vote for policies. That’s where our focus should be, I think. I’m not really sure why we need a president, to be honest. A single individual with that much power, who isn’t even elected by popular vote, seems undemocratic to me.

I used to advocate for Linux, because I wanted more people to use it, so that more software devs would support it. I care a lot less about that since proton came to prominence. Linux still doesn’t get all the support from devs that I want, but there’s so much great software available now, both open source and proprietary, that I don’t really worry about non Linux users anymore.

So use whatever OS you want, folks. I don’t really care.

Politics shouldn’t be a sport. Critical thinking and data driven analysis are much better methods for determining the best policies than an arbitrary contest of who had the best quips or who totally owned their opponent more. Our future as a country shouldn’t be determined by the political equivalent of a rap battle.

RIP Lt. Zogg

All I’m saying is that people absolutely know why they want their own house. Pretending otherwise is a little ridiculous.

All I’m saying is I think people’s preferences are influenced by the prevailing culture, which certainly impresses on people that owning a home should be the ideal. We’re all influenced by culture, and we’re not necessarily always consciously aware of it.

If people want to live in an apartment that’s great, but it should be a choice.

It should be, I agree. And that’s a big part of the problem: in many cities, a large percentage, or even a majority of the land is zoned exclusively for single family development. There is no choice to build anything else. If the zoning was changed to allow any and all forms of housing to be built, I’m sure neighborhoods of detached, single family homes would still exist, but there would likely be far fewer of them, and/or they would be further from the city center.

I don’t think people should have to live in sardine cans, I think people should have the opportunity to live in apartments or condos that meet their needs.

I understand. I don’t necessarily have a problem with relatively restrictive zoning in rural areas. But, I do think restrictive zoning becomes a significant problem, the closer you get to population centers, or the centers of towns and cities. Limiting higher density housing in city and town centers kind of necessitates people moving into suburbs and even, eventually, rural areas. If there isn’t enough suitable, affordable, relatively dense housing where the jobs and schools and shops are, the suburbs will grow and spread. So, if you want to keep your area as rural as possible, you need to make sure people have plenty of housing options in the city and town centers. Unfortunately, much of the land in many city and town centers is currently zoned exclusively for single family homes. That has to change or sprawl will continue.

Certainly some suburbs are better than others. I’m glad that your suburb does not negatively impact your mental and physical wellbeing. Indeed, I am generalizing. However, I would argue that even the best suburbs are still more expensive and worse for the environment than the best urban areas. The more concentrated human population centers are, the more wild land there can be, and that’s better for the planet.

That being said, I don’t necessarily want to outlaw detached, single family homes, or force people to leave their suburb and move into densely populated urban areas. If your suburb works for you, you should be able to stay there. I do think any tax policies that result in urban areas subsidizing the costs of suburban areas should be eliminated, though.

It’s such a complex problem, it’s going to take a long time to fix. Part of the problem is people don’t really understand what the real problem is. They think the problem is that there aren’t enough detached, single family homes being built. I get why people would focus on single family homes because that’s what Americans want. The “American Dream” is to own your own home in the suburbs, and if you think that everyone who wants a single family home should be able to buy one, then, yeah, you’re going to see the problem as one of not enough single family homes being built. However, I would argue that the American dream itself is the problem.

Suburbs are expensive, and inefficient, bad for the environment, and bad for our physical and mental health. Suburbs necessitate car dependence, and cars themselves require a lot of expensive infrastructure. I know a lot of Americans don’t like to hear it, but we really do need to be living in higher density urban areas. Higher density, mixed use urban areas allow people to walk and bike more, which is better for our health. It’s also less expensive. The farther apart everything is, the more you’ll need to drive, and that means owning your own car, which is expensive.

I don’t think people even necessarily know why they want a single family home. I think Americans want single family homes because we’re told from day one that is what we should want. It’s our culture. You grow up, get married, buy a home in the suburbs, and start a family. You own at least two cars, you drive everywhere, that’s the American dream. I think we need to start questioning if this is really what’s best, and if we should really want it. I know I have, and I’ve decided it isn’t best. I think I would be happier and healthier living in a mixed use urban area, where I could walk or bike to a lot of places, or take public transportation, and if I needed to drive somewhere, maybe I’d take a taxi or rent a car or use some car sharing service.

Very few places like these exist in the US, and that’s because too many people still want to live in a single family home in the suburbs, and many of those people, also have most of their personal wealth in their home, so they push for restrictive zoning laws and other regulations, limiting how much higher density housing and mixed development can be built, thus making such areas relatively rare and thus expensive. There’s a battle going on between people who want single family homes and people who want higher density, mixed use areas.

I know people don’t want to talk about that, because they don’t want to make it an us vs them thing, but it just is. Our desires are mutually exclusive, due to the finite nature of land. A given piece of land cannot be both a low density, single family suburb and a higher density, mixed use area, simultaneously. It must be one or the other. How we “fix” the housing crisis depends on which we choose to prioritize. We either find ways to build more and more suburbs, or we eliminate single family zoning and invest in building many more, higher density, mixed use urban areas. I know which one I choose.

I’m ok with a decent amount of tech in a car. Like I’m fine being able to connect my phone to the car and have android auto take over the infotainment system.

This reminds me of my 2016 Honda Civic. It had just the right amount of tech.

I don’t think the housing crisis is being caused by people who live in rural areas and don’t want there to be endless urban and suburban sprawl. Most people want to live in urban areas, because those areas are where the jobs, shops, and infrastructure are. Sprawl is expensive, inefficient, and bad for the environment. It should be prevented as much as possible. But, the only way to prevent it is to make housing in urban areas, the area where people want to live because it’s where everything is, more affordable, and that means building more, dense housing in those areas. The real NIMBYs are people who own low density, single family homes in urban areas and don’t want higher density housing to be built in that area because it would bring down their property values.

Nevertheless, a nationwide housing drive risks stoking homeowners’ ire in a country where the middle class derives most of its wealth from real estate and two-thirds of dwellings are occupied by their owners.

That’s the thing that nobody wants to talk about. I’m constantly hearing people saying that “NIMBYs” are the cause of the housing crisis, which isn’t untrue, but it doesn’t really get to the heart of the issue. Why do NIMBYs exist? I think the prevailing assumption is that they’re just greedy, miserly boomers who love money and hate young people, but I think the problem is systemic, not simply caused by some individuals who happen to have character flaws.

It’s easy to call these property owners greedy, because it’s not your wealth. If it were your wealth, I bet many of you would be NIMBYs too. Because, again, it’s not just a matter of you having better moral character than them, it’s about the incentives, and how people with opposing financial interests have different incentives. People with wealth have an incentive to protect their wealth, and people without wealth have an incentive to try and acquire wealth.

This is why I’m a critic of capitalism, and why I want to move toward something that could be called socialism (although, not necessarily a Marxist or Marxist-Leninist conception of socialism). I think capitalism creates too many oppositional relationships. It causes people to have opposing interests. Owners and workers, companies and consumers, home buyers and home owners. I think it would be better to try and build a system around our shared interests, around the things we have in common, as opposed to one where we are constantly in opposition to one another.

We all need housing. It is a universal human need. So why have a system that incentivizes some to restrict other’s access to it? Why have a system that creates an adversarial relationship between those who have a home (and the wealth associated with it) and those who don’t?

All of these oppositional, adversarial relationships cause conflict and division.

It feels like there’s still some, mostly unspoken animosity between liberals and demsocs like AOC. I think the Democrats would like people to believe that liberals and demsocs have reached a consensus, and that moderates and progressives are unified, but I think there are still philosophical and ideological differences between them, maybe even some that are irreconcilable. The liberals have definitely made a lot of concessions to the demsocs, but I think they have also tried to make it abundantly clear that the Democratic party is still a liberal party. And that’s understandable, liberalism is the predominant ideology in America. Sure, there are a lot more demsocs today than twenty years ago, but we are still heavily outnumbered.

In the document, Democrats recommit to their support for Israel in the fight against Hamas, as well as their backing of a two-state solution that “upholds the right of Palestinians to live in freedom and security in a viable state of their own.”

Where is the Palestinian state supposed be? In the territories where Israel has already built illegal settlements, or the territories where Israel will build illegal settlements?

Look, the Palestinian people are fucked. They just are. The process of replacing British Mandate Palestine with the state of Israel has long since been set into motion, and it’s unlikely to be stopped. Any idea that there can be both a Palestine and an Israel state is nonsense, espoused by people who are either foolish or being disingenuous. The existence of Israel and the existence of Palestine are two mutually exclusive prospects. It is one or the other, it’s as simple as that, and the Palestinians simply don’t have the military capability to defeat the Israelis. That’s large in part because Israel has backing from the United States, the world’s dominant military super power. For numerous complex reasons, the US chose to support Israel in this conflict. I don’t like it, I wish the US had remained neutral, but that’s just not what happened.

I’m really not sure what else the Democrats could do. If the Democrats were to come out and publicly state what I just said, true though it may be, they would be crucified by Americans who still foolishly believe that there can be an independent Palestinian state. Do the Palestinians deserve to have their own state? I believe they do. I believe every group of people deserves autonomy and independence. But, it doesn’t always happen. In fact, it often doesn’t. It’s just not possible for the entirety of the territory once known as British Mandate Palestine to be both Israel and Palestine, it must be one or the other. Sure, the territory could be divided, but is either side really willing to accept such a compromise at this point? When Palestinians chant, “from the river to the sea,” they are not advocating for a two state solution. And we know Israel doesn’t actually want a two state solution, because they continue to encroach further and further into Palestinian territory. I don’t think the Palestinians want Israel to exist any more than the Israelis want Palestine to exist. This is a zero sum game, and Palestine is going to lose because Israel has support from the US. It’s not fair, but that’s the way it is.

If leftists or progressives want to help the Palestinian people, the best thing they can do is help any Palestinians who want to, relocate to the United States. That doesn’t give the Palestinian people autonomy or independence, but it will save many Palestinian lives.

The true measure of success is the percentage of our total energy consumption that comes from renewables/fossil fuels.

In 2013, renewables accounted for 5.8% of total energy consumption, fossil fuels accounted for 84.4% of total energy consumption.

In 2023, renewables accounted for 9.8% of total energy consumption, fossil fuels accounted for 80.6% of total energy consumption.

Source

It’s certainly moving in the right direction, but much more needs to be done.

Is mpox going to trigger another pandemic?.. That seems highly unlikely.

Well, I guess that answers that question.