Tamb

Thats also a reasonable point. I was also mainly replying to someone who replied to you, and this app for some reason doesn't differentiate that in a meaningful way??? Creates really unnecessary confusion

Yes. Google is something you rely on. It serves a purpose, solves a problem. Something addictive is something to feel compelled to do for its own sake. Like Twitter or porn.

That's the Wikipedia use-case. He's asking about the Twitter use-case.

Narcissism-of-Small-Differences-posting?

The left often cares more about vibes than outcomes. But vibe in one hand and shit in the other. See which gets full the fastest. We need votes. That means we need a broader tent. We broaden the tent, in part, by improving real outcomes.

Farm subsidies, yes. I'm sorry, I thought you meant, for example, massive corn subsidies. Subsidies to family-owned farms are essential and horribly insufficient, and I think improving them should be one of the core planks of the Dem platform.

The point, my only point really, is that many in the left do not listen to rural people or take their interests seriously. Those subsidies are to corporations that destroy rural communites and those education programs are about "getting people out" instead of making rural areas themselves better.

In a nutshell:
1) to fix shit, we have to win
1) Telling ppl that what they want is wrong makes them vote for the other guy
2) Some discussions on the left treat non-urban ppl as if they are wrong, or write off their interests entirely.
3) we might win more if we stop that.

I do not think the left should sell out trans people. I also do not think the left should continue to ignore rural people. I think the left needs to *win.* Because *this* is what we get when we lose. One way the left can win is by focusing on outcomes over process, esp in areas we have written off

It is not a policy issue per se. Please read to understand, not to argue. It is a matter of political approach, of which policy is a part. If we write off suburb/rural folk as unreachable, we will keep losing and we will get nothing.

To be clear, the urban shortage is a serious problem. It is not the only one. Some people are always gonna want a big house and a yard and/or not to be surrounded by urban sprawl. They aren't wrong for wanting that and they should be accommodated as much as is sustainably possible

That's not the point, either. 1) it's not about the notable Dems but the left broadly construed. 2) the problem isnt "attacking the suburbs" it's treating suburb & rural folk as a problem to be solved instead of citizens to be represented. A party that only reps the big cities is a party that loses.

Absolutely, I agree that our current housing system does not allow people to self-select. I think the broader point, though, is if progressives approach the problem as, basically, "convince people they want to live in a high rise," instead of "how do we make the suburbs better," we'll keep losing.

The point is about approach. If we take the approach that suburbanites are *wrong* for wanting a yard, they don't vote for us. We look like condescending scolds instead of outcome-focused, competent leaders. We have to address the concerns of everyone, even people different from us.

Let's be clear here that this is a false dilemma, and not what Hank was claiming. People want urban apartments, people want big suburban houses, people want mcmansions. These are different constituencies, and they all vote. And trying to change what people want has been an obviously losing strategy.

This was not his claim. His claim was that there are people who do not want to live in a dense, multi-use walkable neighborhood, who want a big yard, and they vote. And that isn't changing. You either compromise, win, and get something, or you don't compromise and you get nothing.

Yes, but if you run on this platform, you lose. Because the suburban-pickup truck constituency is constitutionally overrepresented. Just facts. Our first goal has to be to win. Because when you lose, it doesn't matter how right you are. You still get nothing.

They will spend three times as much money and make the world infinitely stupider and more dangerous in order to punish people they see as lazy. Even if it means more children die of cold and hunger. "Christian conservatism" is a death cult. There is no argument that will fix them.

Conservatives paint leftists as irrational, arguing leftist policies are expensive and inefficient. When we counter that they are more cost-effective and efficient than what we currently have, they reveal the truth: they fundamentally believe in the purifying power of suffering.

“I’m doing good things,” I tell myself as I delete the military service of a dead woman. “I’m still a good person.”

Then leave! And then come back!

Well if twenty years next to Conan didn't kill him, Congress should be a breeze

Like I really think that of the three parties of the Dem coalition (Economic left, Social Justice left, liberal centrists) the economic left is the one that needs to be running the show rn. It doesn't matter if Bsky will vote for you, we need a platform socially conservative workers will vote for

Turns out "behaving consistently" and "being an authentic human being" are pretty popular

He's not a Russian agent. He and Putin and Hitler and Joe McCarthy and Jefferson Davis are all mushrooms off the same fungus, they're all agents of the same anti-democratic idea that we've been fighting for centuries. He isn't loyal to Russia; he and Putin are loyal to the same thing.

"They cannot conquer forever."

Every human being should pay nothing for hosting. Billionaires should pay for housing through taxes.

Economic populism wins elections right now. Give people more than the nothing Dems usually give us.