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.
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.
The irony is, something like this probably would have been a lot less expensive to make, while also appealing more to fans. It’s funny how so many people in the movie business are not very good at, you know, the movie business.
Sorry, you’re all getting techno-feudalism.
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.
The level of paranoia is kind of crazy.
One of the many games just sitting in my steam library, waiting to be played.
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.
We just got a leaked image from inside Team Cherry:
A lot of economists don’t listen to anything Joseph Stiglitz says, because he’s not from the Chicago school. Economics is so stupid.
Only people who know absolutely nothing about Marxism think Harris, or any other Democrat, is a Marxist.
I mean, America is a very liberal country. Between classical liberals, neoliberals, and progressive (social) liberals, I’d say liberals are a pretty healthy majority in the country.
“Too little law and we’re not safe, and our liberties aren’t protected," Gorsuch told The Associated Press in an interview in his Supreme Court office. "But too much law and you actually impair those same things.”
This is overly simplistic. It’s not as though there is some universal threshold after which there is “too much law.” It’s not necessarily about the quantity of laws, but the necessity and efficacy of the laws. If all the laws on the books are necessary and effective at addressing some problem or achieving some goal, then the amount of law is sufficient even if the absolute number of laws is relatively high.
One of the main tenets of neoliberalism is: the government which governs least, governs best. However, this is not necessarily true. It is entirely possible for a government which “governs most” to also “govern best,” and for a government which “governs least” to “govern worst.” Again, the amount of governance does not necessarily determine the quality of governance, at least not by itself.
It is entirely possible, likely even, that we have at least some unnecessary and/or ineffective laws and regulations on the books here in the US, at the federal, state, and local levels. However, merely reducing the overall number of laws will not necessarily by itself make the government more efficient or effective. I am all for simplifying and streamlining our regulatory and legal systems, to improve efficiency where possible, but we should no more repeal laws merely for the sake of repealing laws than we should pass laws merely for the sake of passing laws.
It is not necessarily true that “big government equals bad and small government equals good,” nor is it necessarily true that “small government equals bad and big government equals good.” It’s not about the size of the government, it’s about the necessity and efficacy of the government.
I think she’s American.
Of course parents not taking appropriate precautions doesn’t absolve the companies of responsibility. Unethical behavior is unethical behavior, even if there are things consumers can do to protect themselves from it. After all, the precautions wouldn’t be necessary if the companies didn’t engage in this behavior in the first place, so these precautions aren’t really solutions only mitigations.