The Democratic Party's Slide Into Irrelevance
Attaching a poll ... Dems unfavorability rating increased from 45% to 57% during the Biden Administration.
Hi everyone. So I was at a wedding this weekend and all the baby-boomers ... life long democrats... and extremely smart intellectual people ... like they read the new York times and three other news papers cover cover like everyday lol! They are absolutely convinced this is the end of democracy. Trump will undoubtedly cancel elections and continue to do so inevitably (he'll di
If these folks claim to read four newspapers "cover to cover" daily, then they're probably lying.
That said, if they're reading only liberal rags, then of course they will believe that it's the "end of democracy."
[...]
I disagree about the "doomscrolling news about idiots" if you mean Vance and Trump there. What they say and do is actually relevant so monitoring what they say and do isn't "doomscrolling", is being updated with relevant political news.[...]
Nah, pretty much any news story involving those two morons or their sycophants is utterly useless.
If there was a modicum of transparency, oversight or accountability left in the US administration, stories might carry a tiny bit of relevance as a piece of the political puzzle to figure out what goes on. However, there isn't, so that does not matter either.
All you're doing is feeding the beast.
Nah, pretty much any news story involving those two morons or their sycophants is utterly useless.If there was a modicum of transparency, oversight or accountability left in the US administration, stories might carry a tiny bit of relevance as a piece of the political puzzle to figure out what goes on. However, there isn't, so that does not matter either. All you're doing is fe
I don't think it's useless to know that, say, Trump son called for Ethereum to go higher, and then it did go higher a lot after doing worse than BTC for a long while. Nor it's useless to know that Trump had a joint venture or whatever the exact name of the entity was that invested in stable coins.
Especially if you think they are very corrupt you should shadow their trades/exposure and make money, that's capitalism. A bit like when people tried to replicate Pelosi trading.
I don't think it's useless to know that, say, Trump son called for Ethereum to go higher, and then it did go higher a lot after doing worse than BTC for a long while. Nor it's useless to know that Trump had a joint venture or whatever the exact name of the entity was that invested in stable coins.Especially if you think they are very corrupt you should shadow their trades/expos
There has been near 10 years of news stories showing that Trump is a corrupt fraud, the hypothetical person that needs another one to finally make up their mind is a figment of political imagination. We're years past the point where Trump-news is just a political reality show that reward contestants awful enough to sell a front-page to worried readers.
The digital reality of 2025 is that clicking on such news and reading them is to reward and support an unhealthy algorithm-driven media cycle that promotes Trump, be it inadvertently most of the time. As such, the ethical choice becomes simple: Don't.
There are too many things - news included - to learn and study in this world that are far more meaningful than wasting time on the Trump-show and its idiots in news media. Especially since these days it is very wide and far between actual content.
nobody wants more housing if they already own
the artificial scarcity is a backbone of our economy with people assuming their properties will maintain or increase in value over time
in fact, a big part of being a landlord is assuming you can take losses or break even on certain units simply because the value of the property will increase over time
if we increased housing - it upsets everyone who owns a home because now it's 20% less valuable and it would probably bankrupt a lot of people who are landlords as their initial investment and mortage payments wouldn't be able to justify the income stream nor could they even exit with grace now that the underlying assets are cheaper
this is why nobody builds more unless it's absolutely required and when they do build - it's more high end stuff
basically, nobody cutting checks to politicians is renting so no politician is going to do anything that'll upset them - they'll instead campaign on gender neutral bathrooms
san francisco a liberal bastion - had only approved 16 new homes in 2024 as of June
New housing requires land which is incredibly expensive and scarce in San Francisco
Affordable housing requires affordable land which there is zero available in San Francisco
Thats why 99% of their new housing are back yard cottages and basement units
New housing requires land which is incredibly expensive and scarce in San Francisco
Affordable housing requires affordable land which there is zero available in San Francisco
Thats why 99% of their new housing are back yard cottages and basement units
really? how about everywhere you have 2 stories they become 8 or 10 or 12 (or as many as possible with current best in the world engineering ofc)
do you realize all really expensive places should look AT LEAST like manhattan right? if we were in the 50s... these days they should look like central shangai.
and don't say "earthquake" because they have skyscrapers in japan
Your proposed solution is the government requiring land owners to modify existing properties?
I'm not even entirely against the proposed solution its just incredibly authoritarian and about as far from libertarian ethos as possible
Your proposed solution is the government requiring land owners to modify existing properties?
I'm not even entirely against the proposed solution its just incredibly authoritarian and about as far from libertarian ethos as possible
mine? absolutely not. but for the gvmnt to allow literally unlimited construction on land.
owning a house there would immediately mean millions extra in land value (because you can sell to builders of the high rise condos) and then you decide what you do. you can hold out ofc, it's your property.
libertarianism is about the fact that if you own the land you can build whatever you want on it (or sell it to anyone who can build anything on it).
that's the whole idea. free land from the violent usurping limits zoning imposed on it and lets see what happens.
don't you think the equilibrium, in highly desirable areas, would rapidly be "very tall buildings everywhere with some exceptions"?
Your proposed solution is the government requiring land owners to modify existing properties?
I'm not even entirely against the proposed solution its just incredibly authoritarian and about as far from libertarian ethos as possible
rising nations are built on the backbone of eminent domain
we used to use that very commonly during our period of infrastructure and growth - it's one thing that made us so great
now we're terrified of building high speed rail and bus stations out of fear someone won't like selling or perhaps there's some rare salamander living in the area and we'll need to spend 10 years and 5 million dollars first to find out
rising nations are built on the backbone of eminent domainwe used to use that very commonly during our period of infrastructure and growth - it's one thing that made us so greatnow we're terrified of building high speed rail and bus stations out of fear someone won't like selling or perhaps there's some rare salamander living in the area and we'll need to spend 10 years and 5 m
but you don't need that even if SCOTUS cleared the way with the utterly insane 5-4 decision in Kelo v New London (increasing tax revenues are enough to justify eminent domain).
let's start by allowing land owners to do the **** they want.
but you don't need that even if SCOTUS cleared the way with the utterly insane 5-4 decision in Kelo v New London (increasing tax revenues are enough to justify eminent domain).
let's start by allowing land owners to do the **** they want.
Absolutely horrible ruling and people are fighting to get it overturned. Look up Institute for Justice.
I think they are when they say elections won't happen anymore. If you disagree i am willing to take bets with an escrow we agree upon for the 2026 (i lay you 5:1 odds) and 2028 (at 3:1 odds) .I disagree about the "doomscrolling news about idiots" if you mean Vance and Trump there. What they say and do is actually relevant so monitoring what they say and do isn't "doomscrolling
Of course there will be elections. Russia has "elections". North Korea has "elections". Elections do not equal democracy, and if the Republicans manage to keep control of the House next year, it's very unlikely that the US will ever have free and fair elections again, at least in my lifetime.
Of course there will be elections. Russia has "elections". North Korea has "elections". Elections do not equal democracy, and if the Republicans manage to keep control of the House next year, it's very unlikely that the US will ever have free and fair elections again, at least in my lifetime.
your link doesn't give any rationale to the idea that if republicans keep the house in 2026, elections wouldn't be free and fair anymore.
the rest is the blabbering of radical leftists in a publication that got defunded by trump so is as baised as anyone can be against him.
but yes with elections I meant normal elections, with opposition candidates in the ballot, minimal to nothing voting fraud and so on.
why wouldn't the 2028 elections by like that if republicans keep the house in 2026?
Of course there will be elections. Russia has "elections". North Korea has "elections". Elections do not equal democracy, and if the Republicans manage to keep control of the House next year, it's very unlikely that the US will ever have free and fair elections again, at least in my lifetime.
Nobody is more proud of their laws and likely to boast about them than tyrants. They're actually so proud of their shiny rules that they invariably make it illegal to criticize them.
your link doesn't give any rationale to the idea that if republicans keep the house in 2026, elections wouldn't be free and fair anymore.the rest is the blabbering of radical leftists in a publication that got defunded by trump so is as baised as anyone can be against him.but yes with elections I meant normal elections, with opposition candidates in the ballot, minimal to nothi
This article was written before the defunding,but I really just attached it because it defined competitive authoritarianism.
The most likely thing would be they start passing laws to make the Democratic Party illegal. Also they can take control of the national voting process, like Trump is already trying to do, and not put any candidates on the ballot who have the support of many citizens. That is how Putin runs his elections, and Trump has already spoken openly about taking election advice from him.
they can take control of the national voting process ....and not put any candidates on the ballot who have the support of many citizens. .
We already have this.
Consider this. Kamala Harris entered the 2020 primary as a favorite with lots of funding. Her resonance with voters was so weak that she dropped out before Iowa.
Yet the Dems still put her on the ballot in 2024. A woman with no strong history of being popular. Someone who always underperformed other statewide Democrats in California.
The Dems have abandoned populism in a country which selects leaders by popular vote. Pretty much tells the story of the party's irrelevance.
We already have this.
Consider this. Kamala Harris entered the 2020 primary as a favorite with lots of funding. Her resonance with voters was so weak that she dropped out before Iowa.
Yet the Dems still put her on the ballot in 2024. A woman with no strong history of being popular. Someone who always underperformed other statewide Democrats in California.
I dunno, but maybe the Dems put her on the ballot because she was the VP at the time.
Look at the formula for losing to Trump.
Pick a female opponent whose position in a result of their association with a charismatic male politician.
Hillary rode Bill's coattails to power and Kamala got there because she slept with Willie Brown. Ambitious women who want power for its own sake ..... obsequious to wealthy people, not in office for the purpose of doing good things for average people.
Lol yes. The king maker god emperor Willie Brown who 99% of America could be in the same room with and not recognize. Obviously it was clear Harris was going to be a national politician when they dated decades ago. That's not just right wingers making crap up like they always do.
We already have this.
Consider this. Kamala Harris entered the 2020 primary as a favorite with lots of funding. Her resonance with voters was so weak that she dropped out before Iowa.
Yet the Dems still put her on the ballot in 2024. A woman with no strong history of being popular. Someone who always underperformed other statewide Democrats in California.
And you think this was done by the opposition?
My post was in response to a system which doesn't produce popular candidates.
Yes ... she was the VP but Kamala didn't become VP as a result of the public's input.
No, your post was in response to a system where the ruling party prevents popular candidates not in that party from running for office.
My post was in response to a system which doesn't produce popular candidates.
Yes ... she was the VP but Kamala didn't become VP as a result of the public's input.
Okay, but how many VP-picks are a 'result of public input?'
I don't recall a clamoring for Sarah Palin or Dan Quayle to be VP.
I don't recall a clamoring for Al Gore or Lloyd Bentsen or Joe Biden to be VP.
2020 was a period of massive social and racial unrest, so even I at the time thought Harris was a good strategic choice for Biden.
