Not to turn this too much into a political argument, but a lot of the things that have been discussed as the Democrat’s platform has been things that tend to increase government spending rather than reduce it, such as:
- Paid medical insurance for all
- Free child care
- Regulatory oversight which requires funding and committees etc
- Affordable housing (there are ways to solve this with gov spending and without, but likely we’ll need some form of gov incentives/spending)
I’m not commenting on the validity of these things individually, just that I don’t believe the Democrats since Clinton era have tried to reduce spending
Honestly I think it’s a fundamental hurdle with our political system. Charlie M’s quote of “show me the incentives and I’ll show you the outcome.”
The Democrats under Obama reduced the deficit meaningfully after the financial crisis recovery set in. The deficit went from $1.4T in 2009 to $0.6T by 2016. Part of that was the economic recovery, but there was also both legislation and executive orders that reduced spending and increased taxes.
The Budget Control Act of 2011 capped discretionary spending and cut $1 trillion over ten years, the administration further cut administrative spending by 20% via executive order in 2011. Subsequent actions reduced the deficit by $2 trillion, with 3/4 spending cuts and 1/4 tax increases (e.g. the 0.9% Medicare surcharge and capital gains taxes on earners of >$250k).
I agree with you, though, both parties seem to have stopped trying to reduce the deficit over the last decade, I think in part because it hasn't been rewarded politically at all.
I have some questions about this story. I ask genuinely out of confusion combined with some informed disagreement. If I glance at the deficit in [1], it seems the deficit was lowered a lot, after rising meteorically in 2009, so yes, _someone_ turned the heat down after turning it up super high. Not sure where you're getting a $2T deficit decrease though.
My confusion is augmented by the focus on the first derivative (the deficit) during this period while the national debt rose by more than $10T [2#Background]. It's not clear what matters more on an admins report card. Interest accruing is arguably less under your control, which might be relevant to this question.
Finally, I'm struggling to understand why the 2011 passage of the BCA (which cuts spending in exchange for raising the debt ceiling) is attributed to Democrats primarily. Reading [2], if I were to narrativize it, the story seems to be that the Republicans, spurred on especially by the Tea Party, forced Democrats to agree to spending cuts.
Quoth Wikipedia:
"The Republican Party, which gained control of the House of Representatives in January 2011, demanded that President Obama negotiate over deficit reduction in exchange for an increase in the debt ceiling, the statutory maximum of money the Treasury is allowed to borrow. The debt ceiling had routinely been raised in the past without partisan debate ...
Furthermore, in the House, 72% of Republicans voted for the bill, while only half of Democrats did. In the 112th Senate the story was more mixed, with about 86% Dems and 60% Reps voting yes.
I have not read all this shit in great detail but I hope you can appreciate my confusion, and invite you to indicate what I might be missing. For example, I don't why the deficit was so high in 2009. In one universe of explanations, the conclusion: it's not very praiseworthy to decrease the deficit you skyrocketed yourself.
The 2009 deficit was high because of the 2008-2010 financial crisis. Deficits increase dramatically in economic downturns because tax collections decline (job losses, lower profits, bankruptcies) and increased spending (unemployment, bailouts).
Most mainstream economists think it's good for a government to increase deficit spending temporarily during a recession because it helps prevent deeper recessions that cause long-term impairment of the tax base. If you let half the auto industry fail, for example, it may take a long time for your tax base to recover and start generating taxable income again.
After the crisis, there was bipartisan agreement that the deficit needed to be reduced, but the disagreement was on how. Obama was willing to cut spending but also wanted to increase taxes on higher income households, while the Republicans in Congress drew a hard line against any tax increases and wanted deeper spending cuts. In the end, they reached bipartisan bills, including the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.
The debt ceiling brinksmanship was political theater. Republicans used the threat of defaulting on US debt in order to extract concessions from Democrats without having to agree to any policy demands. Congress passed laws with required spending every year and no one has the legal authority to not spend it. If Congress really cared about reducing the deficit, they wouldn't pass spending bills that required deficit spending.
As for increasing debt in the 2010s, I think it was viewed as a potential long-term problem but sustainable because interest rates were quite low. When inflation was at 2% and interest is at 2%, the US government was able to borrow money at 0% in real terms. Government spending on roads, airports, and even marginally productive projects that increase economic growth could be viewed as rational.
I think the US and world got complacent during the low interest rate era, and eventually realized deficit-spending in a low-rate environment boosted economic growth more than expected. The US doubled down on this by passing the 2018 Tax Cut and Jobs Act, which reduced taxes significantly without cutting spending concurrently, which created large deficits even during periods of economic growth.
The problem now is interest rates have gone up substantially, so debt servicing is going to become a much bigger burden. I don't think it's politically possible to reduce the deficit through spending cuts alone. The annual deficit is greater than the entire US defense budget and Medicaid combined.
Unless we suddenly get a burst of growth from AI that will increase our tax base, (which I think a lot of politicians are counting on), a long-term fix will require increased taxes (which will slow economic growth at least somewhat) and reduced spending (in particular lowering healthcare expenses, which are still rising at an unsustainable rate).
We're on like a half dozen straight Republican administrations of tax cuts for the rich and massive deficit spending combined with unnecessary wars.
Everything you just described is an investment that has a substantial positive output economically, Even when implemented incompetently.
It's so funny to see economic "rationalism" always pop up as soon as Democratic political waves appear, while when Republicans have all the control of the purse strings: utterly unrestrained fiscal malfeasance.
And the disturbing trend with Republican administrations is that the corruption and incompetence gets worse every cycle.
At what point do we really not read code itself anymore? Have Sonnet/Opus write the code, work with the agents on a high level, then have Fable code review and its done.
Any bugs found are looped through agents to fix, and the cycle repeats. Why dig into the code unless for hobby? Just as people don’t write assembly anymore unless for hobby (or learning)
Only exception might be the upper echelons of optimization, like language authors or compiler level work. But even then…
I think it very much depends on what you're working on, and how much you're responsible. For a web front end, not really. A backend where a single line can make a mess out of your data? Yes. Part of the issue too, is code review brings up things you the prompter didn't think about that another teammate may be thinking about. The value goes beyond making sure the code is "correct", but also that it makes sense in your domain.
The "we don't read/write assembly anymore" argument doesn't fit though. Given an input x we know without a doubt we'll get output y. With an LLM, that isn't the case no matter how many guard rails, specs, markdown files, diagrams you give it.
I actually read the frontend code much more than the backend code for the project I'm working on.
Backend code I'm fairly comfortable if the tests are good that it works correctly. It's a much more constrained environment. Obviously there can be things like performance issues that creep in or problems when it mocks too much of the environment.
Meanwhile frontend code I have to consider different browsers, screen sizes, a11y issues, and so on, which agents can certainly do but you have to be fairly explicit about it, and they don't always make the best tradeoffs.
It's looking increasingly likely that many backend systems in the future will just be formally verified and generated autonomously from specs. That means you'd never look at the code, only the spec. You'd basically "program" and "debug" the spec, and the full system would be autonomously generated each time to match the spec.
Frontend code is probably far harder to apply this technique to.
In one case I formalized the spec for a message decoder, then autonomously generated the entire decoder from that. The spec is essentially a very slow version of the decoder written for correctness and clarity, and the implementation became very complex as it went through multiple optimizations, but it was proved every step of the way to match the original spec.
Sweet, we could even develop a standard language(s) to lay out such specs, and write in specialised text editors that would help with debugging. Hell we could even call it ‘programming’
Correct -- this is exactly where the frontier is heading at the startups and AI labs working on this.
While you're being tongue in cheek, what you're missing is that the spec you'd be working on in some cases can be compressed to a small fraction the size of the implementation code. Alternatively, it can be written for clarity and correctness rather than performance, and then the implementation can be optimized like crazy without ever worrying about correctness.
I just had a long session planning an implementation with Opus 5.5 in a reasonably complex system. It was a frustrating affair where it suggested very complex solutions that, sure would work, but would be very slow and difficult to maintain with the rest of the solution. After a long discussion with many variations of complex designs, we found a very simple solution. Elegant even.
I think the problem in this case was:
1. Unusual constraints, that kept nudging the model to overdesign or misunderstand parts of the solution at every turn.
2. One code-comment it found and thankfully mentioned, that a previous session had made up and left there as a fabricated requirement. The model trusted this "requirement" more than my instructions, which unfortunately made sense, since it was indeed written and part of the code.
I'm working on a system that has a mix of trust boundaries with a few perspectives that are a-typical and it trips up the models working on it. Fable 5.2 didn't do better at all.
I have tried to put clear instructions in an agent architecture file, but I haven't managed to get it fluent yet.
I know this topic is very contentious but it seems very clear to me that this is the long-term direction of writing software. UI code isn't quite there yet, which is why we've got all these vibeslop websites proliferating now that all have identical crappy UIs. But I imagine it will get there too.
>Only exception might be the upper echelons of optimization, like language authors or compiler level work. But even then…
Optimization work is especially suited for LLMs. They're great at hill-climbing problems and have infinite patience to test different ideas.
I stopped reading the code many months ago, probably 18 months ago. I the "early" days of agentic coding one did feel dumb when telling the agent for the 30th time to fix a bug and it just couldn't. Now I cannot possibly imagine a scenario where an agent wouldn't be able to fix a given issue on 1st or 2nd try.
FDIC insures deposits up to 250k. Big institutions basically all have this government backing. If an incident occurs, FDIC has deposits available next business day in event of a bank failure
FDIC insurance is mostly unrelated to this. If someone hacks a brokerage, sells a bunch of customer assets for cash, adds new bank accounts for those customers, and then withdraws that cash to those new bank accounts, FDIC insurance does not help at all.
One annoying thing having a guard model is ensuring its FP rate is low enough to not be a headache, and its FN rate low enough to be worthwhile to use. Likely also means you’ll need to either use a frontier-close model, further increasing costs as well as round-trip time.
Or maybe some system 1 model?
For my setup, i have claude code in its own VM, whose VLAN is heavily restricted outside of the internet, my forgejo instance, infisical for secrets, and one way SSH from my machine to the VM.
All secrets are shared via infisical secrets store, so the actual secrets are never shown to the agent. Dev mode can be used for running the system locally during development, and those secrets may be seen in some cases. The foregjo user the agent has access to can only create issues and PRs. Manual merge required, after which a CI pipeline handles the packaging and “production” deployment of the app to my app server VM.
I think a setup like that (or discouraging these agents access to the same computer people keep their finances/health data etc) should be discussed/championed more.
My work encourages just running the harness on their system (which I get for practical reasons among others), to which I then put my work laptop on its own VLAN.
Overkill, for sure. But to me the risk of personal data exfiltration is far too high with these vibe coded harnesses and models which are more and more opaque.
I think there have been a positive number of cases gone in favor of digital privacy recently. This being one of them. It’s unfortunate, but it’ll just take time for these manners to go through the courts.
I’m quite naive regarding the details of the legal system, wonder why we can’t expedite certain cases when a SCOTUS precedent has been established, or some form of expedited legal notice. We shouldn’t have to wait for a perfect case of a flock violation, then wait for someone to be brave enough to spend the money (or if pro bono just their time/reputation) to file a case and go through the system for the next x years
Im all for fighting for digital privacy rights. But referencing the purge with a smile begs the question, are you yearning for a purge-like scenario? Some fantastical idea that you’ll be the main character in an anarchic chaos?
In a democracy where everyone has the right to vote, I think the “downside” that must be accepted is there will exist a spectrum of voters. Voters who only listen to sound bites, voters who mindlessly vote tribally, to voters who research, voters who understand second and third order effects. We also can’t assume we have total information of how the elected official will act throughout their term.
Even something as simple as, attractiveness mattering more in presidential candidates since the advent of television in homes.
At the same time, we had a system whose establishment largely looked down on middle class Americans who didn't go to college. Early to mid 2000’s through the great recession saw the middle class tighten, with no real improvement to healthcare or affordability (attempts were made but ultimately medical costs are still rising). Many middle class people rely on things like cheap gas, child care, and affordable heating among others.
Then you have a system whose leaders actively works to increase gas prices (regardless of EV incentives, you’re asking individuals to purchase new cars when a difference of 1 dollar in gas goes a long way), some states subsidizing green energy programs by additional taxes on oil and natural gas heating costs (just switch to heat pumps and take on a 0 interest loan for 10 years), and rising childcare costs partly due to regulations in childcare businesses.
Then you have someone who claims to be an outsider (he wasn’t), who clowns on the existing elites in debates, and makes vast promises. The other party doesn’t say anything about positive change they’ll bring, just that they aren’t Him. Why not try something different than the status quo over the last 2 decades?
With gas prices up, the Epstein scandal still unresolved, and another ME war, i think if many of middle America were told these would be the outcomes they would not have voted him in again.
We should have more empathy for our fellow Americans, and try to understand each other instead of assuming they want the worst for your side.
We (most of the world) also have to deal with well funded external government organisations constantly pumping out propaganda attempting to make sure we don't work together or have empathy/understanding of each other's views.
Push that through a media filter that optimizes for engagement and it's no wonder these things are happening.
I can agree with your position based on the election on 2016. He was a wildcard, and truly nobody could know exactly how he'd act in office.
I can't agree with your position based on the election of 2024. We knew exactly who Trump was, and it was obvious the second term was only going to be more extreme and unhinged.
And this is where you have to admit that the Democrats just ran a terrible candidate in '24. You might believe she was the better choice but she just did not appeal to the middle, and you need them to win.
I do blame the Democratic party and Biden especially for the major shitshow that was the selection of a presidential candidate. Their hubris and corruption definitely continued to enable this walking disaster of Trump's second term. The Democratic Party has failed America over and over again in terms of actually selecting candidates the people want over people whose "turn" it is.
I also blame the people who voted for Trump for Trump getting elected. Ultimately its the voters who chose this disaster of a presidency, despite obvious signs.
The second term I think was largely handed to him given the Democrats had no primary for Kamala, and frankly were tone deaf with what the “other side”’s needs were in a candidate.
Politicians flip flop, or hopefully truly develop different opinions after experience/learning more.
Kamala came off as a piece of clay molded in the last minute to appease groups just for their vote. A good politician makes that “molding” process come off more naturally. Her and Walz did not really resonate with voters, they were just not Him.
And that is a lesson I hope democrats or a third party has learned that they can’t just reflectively say “I’m not Trump,” they need to show that through their principals, track record, and message of unity.
Hillary admonished trump voters, many of whom are middle class union/laborers. Biden claimed he was pro union then broke up the railroad strike. Kamala couldn’t hold a conversation without some sound bite failure (doesn’t make her bad, just not a politician) and wasn’t elected in any primary.
I think we need to better hear and learn the context of the other side’s perspective to understand why they voted the way they did, then provide a better option not just a different one
I totally agree the Democratic party has routinely failed the electorate.
> I think we need to better hear and learn the context of the other side’s perspective to understand why they voted the way they did
I hear it all the time. If I vote democrat, they're going to do forced gender reassignment surgeries in our public schools. If I vote democrat, I'm for murdering babies. If I vote democrat, I'm supporting Satan, and can't possibly call myself a Christian. To vote against Trump is to vote against God's will. This isn't just some stupid talking point on TV ads, its a position I've heard in person countless times and has absolutely touched me personally.
I've had people who were supposedly my friends for years, people I shared a table with weekly for years, decide they couldn't associate with me anymore because of a yard sign.
These are the people you're telling me that I need to better understand.
Where is the expectation for them to take a real look at reality and actually examine their positions aren't backed by reality, and their votes are going against their own interests?
A problem many people have with Democrats is they think that they're condescending, smug assholes who think they're better than them, talk down at them, and think they're stupid.
Perhaps the many, many comments in this thread, going on and on about how people are misinformed, ignorant voters who vote against their own interests, could be understood for what it actually is, which is that.
There's no such thing as people voting against their own interests. People vote based on what they think will make their life better. The quality of a person's life has a massive number of interrelated variables that are hard to tease out.
Someone might decide that their quality of life will be improved by having better jobs or doing something about the extractive corporate sector that makes it almost impossible for normal people to thrive. They might also try to improve their lives by trying to make other people besides themselves feel humiliated and outcast in society since they are sick of being those people. In fact they might decide that's only thing they can change since that first thing isn't on the agenda of either party.
In all cases people get to decide what they care about and what they think their life improvement chances are by whatever metrics they pick. They are right about their preferences by definition. That's inherent to democracy.
The largest problem with America is a strong culture of believing that my ignorance is just as valid as your knowledge.
This is because 35% of the country identifies as rejecting all science and asserting the belief that the earth is 6000 years old because they explicitly believe a "plain reading" of the bible trumps all
The believe that the earth is 6000 years old or "Young", a belief that is explicitly taught in hundreds of private schools funded through school voucher programs that only hand little timmy very special textbooks that assert that scientists are evil and trying to keep them from gods light.
This belief requires you to not learn how science works. It requires you to reject empiricism entirely. It requires you to believe that science in general is an evil cabal directly in league with satan to make you stop believing in god. It requires you to believe that democrats are in league with these satanists to "brainwash" your good little god fearing kid in school, so you should put him in a private school where he won't be brainwashed because instead he will be taught the truth of god, which is to just do whatever the Pastor and his leaders say, and don't think.
How would you describe a belief that says that technology and technology companies will improve people's quality of life and that the people who run them should be given more power and authority within our culture as a result?
It is very easy, remove all hospitals, power plants, etc from red states. Wait a few months. We will see what their opinion is on technology and its relation to quality of life.
If this was why you voted for Trump you once again failed to pay attention. If anything this administration is down to let billionaires and their tech corporations do whatever they want to do, far more than the administration actually starting to make regulations and antitrust proceedings.
Yet another example of "voting against your interests" due to massive amounts of ignorance.
Trump owns a social media company. The leaders of the other big social media companies backed his run to the tune of nearly $300M dollars.
There's no scenario where I'm voting for Trump. I'm a lifelong progressive and I've been involved in Democratic Party politics for about 30 years. Worked on my first campaign in the early '90s.
So you can dispense with that assumption. Hopefully you can pick up on the point I was making, which is that there are a lot of irrational belief systems in politics. You can find them everywhere.
What I dislike is this tendency among overeducated elite, nominally Democratic Party-type commentators to focus on this meta discussion: Why are they stupid? Why are they misinformed? What bots are influencing them?
How about we just focus on the merits? What exactly is your favorite politician proposing to do? Do they have a conception and understanding of how power works and will they use it to achieve goals of any kind? Can we evaluate them on those goals? The last time your team got a chance, what did they do with it? Can people trust you? Who do you serve and who do you fight?
If the answer to that last question is that you serve Wall Street corporate interests and Silicon Valley and you fight against labor and wage earners then you're not on my team either.
We don't talk about the merits because the merits are clearly not running the show as far as voter decisions. It's all emotion, mostly loyalty and fear. (Using "we" very broadly, since I'm nowhere near being nominally Democrat.)
We could go on and on about the merits of voting for Kamala or Biden in that election, but ultimately it didn't matter because tons of people think voting for a Democrat is a vote for post-birth abortion, forced gender reassignment surgeries, migrants coming to murder you and eat your pets, allowing transgender people to sexually assualt your wife and daughter in public bathrooms, forcing Sharia law on everyone, and force injecting people with dangerous vaccines which are more likely to kill you than the disease they're protecting against.
How do you engage with the many, many millions of Americans which believe these things? You think they give a damn about how some infrastructure bill finally started the planning on replacing that bridge in town that they don't even realize is about to collapse when their pastor says voting against Trump is sentencing you to hell? These same voters that can't put 2 and 2 together and realize the reason why the only hospital nearby closed finally because their state refused Medicaid expansion so long ago.
What's the way you suggest we connect with these topics? What's the right give-and-take here? How do you come to a middle ground when they're off in adrenochrome-fueled lala land?
But hey, according to you, I guess they're acting rationally, and there are no truths or untruths.
People are refusing to vote for Talarico because they know he's a transgender vegan who will outlaw meat in Texas and force your kids to be gay. You think people who think these things will be swayed by another vote for Medicare for All or eliminating the tax cap on Social Security or paid family leave? Nah, he's unelectable because he suggested maybe God doesn't have a penis, as we know for sure God the Father is definitely a dude even though somehow women were also made in the image of God. They can't vote for Talarico because he's against God...as opposed to the guy who's defrauded his friends, practices extreme corruption, got impeached by his own party, and flies around the world with his mistress to party with fugitives illegally supporting him in a Muslim country while costing the public tons of money.
> We could go on and on about the merits of voting for Kamala or Biden in that election, but ultimately it didn't matter
Pretty sure it matters. In fact, I think the merits of the people that you run for president are super insanely unbelievably important. The idea that there's any other way to look at this is completely baffling to me. The fact that Biden was essentially incoherent and Kamala did not appear to have a discernible idea of why she was running in the first place mattered a ton, as did the fact that Kamala was literally selected by an opaque committee process with no voter input whatsoever.
They matter a lot. Try it the other way and run a candidate that has a clear and articulable vision for how people's lives will get better if they're elected, and then starts to act on that vision as soon as they're elected effectively. See what happens. It'll be different. It's happening in New York City right now, if you want one example. When people try this approach instead, the distinction is really easy to see. As is the suddenly vicious opposition from the establishment Democratic Party that's behind these people you're talking about
> People are refusing to vote for Talarico because... Nah, he's unelectable...
This election hasn't happened yet. Once it happens, that will be a better time to explain why he did or didn't win.
I still think that your understanding of the reasoning of the people who don't like him is flawed. The reason people oppose him and don't want to vote for him is because they don't think he's like them and or has their interests in mind. They think he cares about other things and other people besides them and the things that they care about. Conversely, the people that will vote for him will have been convinced that he does care about the things that they care about and will help people like them. Because that's pretty much always how it works.
Have you ever talked to a single person who has the views that you think they have? Or is your opinion of these "people" with these crazy views something that was served up to you by a company run by Mark Zuckerberg or Larry Ellison?
> Have you ever talked to a single person who has the views that you think they have?
Yes. Constantly. Every single day of my life. I've told you that several times now. They're my neighbors. They're my relatives. They're the people who used to be my friends at church. They're my kids classmates parents. They're the people I talk to waiting for the train. They're my barber. They're the person sitting next to me at the bar. Most people I've talked to who support Paxton do so for one or more of the above reasons. The few who aren't like that support him because they're worried about their taxes going up, because their personal financial situation is above all else in their lives. If you truly think these people are rare, you're burying your head deep, deep in the sand.
I've rarely heard any other reasons other than the above as to why vote Paxton over Talarico. These are the arguments I hear in person, on the fliers stuck to my door, and on the TV all the time. And you're failing to give anything different here. You're absolutely right "they don't think he's like them" in that they think he's going to force your kids to be trans and allow for entirely open borders.
If these kinds of lies weren't effective, why would the GOP put so much stock into them? Why would they go on the debate stage and say immigrants are eating your cats and dogs? The answer: because it works. People I talk to in person still routinely think Haitian migrants are likely to eat your pets.
What about when what someone cares about and votes based on turns out to not even exist?
There was a lot of campaigning in 2024 based on completely made up claims. Many voters voted based on that, even though they thought the other candidate was better on other issues they cared about.
> Democrats [are] condescending, smug assholes...going on and on about how people are misinformed, ignorant voters who vote against their own interests,
Totally. No one likes an asshole. But assholes can be right. What's a kinder label than "misinformed" for someone who rejects the truth because of its source?
There's no truths or untruths here. Just preferences and values. Some people care more about some things than others. People vote based on if their life is getting better or worse and who seems most focused on changing that if it's getting worse.
There are. There's a subset of Republican voters who absolutely believe that in Democrat states you can:
- get an abortion up to one month after delivery
- get gender reassignment surgery coordinated at your school without parental awareness or consent.
"There's no truths or untruths here". There absolutely fucking are. And then people like you are acting like we're the ones contributing to it, "Well, have you considered why they might think that way?"
You're not asking them "Have you considered how what you're saying is utterly disconnected from any reality whatsoever?"
> There's no truths or untruths here. Just preferences and values. Some people care more about some things than others
This is easily disprovable. People care about gas prices. They were unhappy with gas prices under Biden and said so loudly. They voted for the candidate that increased them even more.
Reason: ignorance and misinformation.
Outcome: voting against one's own declared interests.
I'm not denying preferences exist. But preferences are shaped by lies. They easily lead to outcomes contrary to those preferences.
What you're saying is just factually incorrect. They had a Biden presidency and a Trump presidency. Prices went up much faster and more painfully under Biden than under Trump.
So they voted for the candidate who had a track record of lower inflation.
Turns out things didn't happen that way but that's a different criticism. You're assuming a forward-looking omniscience of some kind or prediction skill that just doesn't exist.
> So they voted for the candidate who had a track record of lower inflation.
So they made the ignorant choice at choosing the candidate who teed up the highly inflationary environment and enacted policies which driectly drove the inflation. Like, the $450B in cash handouts and the near trillion dollars in forgiven PPP loans with zero enforcement. Loans which his family directly abused.
> You're assuming a forward-looking omniscience of some kind or prediction skill that just doesn't exist.
No, I'd expect people to not make stupid choices. Anyone actually paying attention would understand Trump is bad for the economy long term. But here we are.
Wars and pandemics that begin on the other side of the world cause inflation.
When "smug asshole Democrats" explained why this wasn't Biden's fault, given that it happened on the other side of the world, they got called "smug assholes".
Enacting tariffs and waging war also causes inflation. Tariffs were a campaign promise - zero omniscience required.
And gas wasn't this expensive in 2022. So you're wrong about that.
> smug assholes who think they're better than them, talk down at them, and think they're stupid.
Trump literally said he could say the stupidest things to his supporters and they'll still cheer. Trump is a smug asshole who thinks he's better than his supporters, talks down to them, lies to their faces over and over, and knows they'll support him because they literally see him as God's anointed one.
Now do the other guys. That's the problem here. We have two competing elitist political parties. They unite on their agreement that capital should rule everything and everyone, and disagree on a bunch of other stuff.
Tell me again about how this applies to a candidate showdown like James Talarico versus Ken Paxton.
> There's no such thing as people voting against their own interests.
This is truly as nonsensical opinion as people always choose healthy choices. People can absolutely make self destructive choices. A smoker choosing to smoke isn't making a good choice, but to you they couldn't possibly choose something against their interests. It would be in their interests to stop smoking, but they're unable or unwilling to make that decision.
> self-destructive choices can be rational at times
It's not a rational choice. It's choosing to make the irrational choice.
A drug addict choosing to shoot up isn't making the rational choice. It's a choice we can examine on why they made that choice, but it wasn't reason that drove them to make that choice.
Thinking Trump is the anointed one isn't a rational decision. Voting for Trump to get rid of corruption isn't a rational choice. Voting for a rapist in the middle of a big pedophile ring isn't the rational choice at fighting the pedophiles.
Is it irrational to smoke cigarettes if you're in a concentration camp?
Is it irrational to take out yourself as well as your enemies if you have no realistic prospects for improving your situation but you do have the ability to hurt people who hurt you?
> Is it irrational to smoke cigarettes if you're in a concentration camp?
Yes, I'd agree it's irrational to willfully give yourself a chemical addiction in a place where you are already have enough stressors and it'll be hard for you to continue to feed that addiction once started. It's probably a terrible choice to start an addition in a concentration camp. I can understand why people would choose it, and I don't fault them for making such a decision in such a bad place, but it's definitely not the rational choice.
Have you ever really been at any kind of rock bottom? Or known people who have been around situations like that? Just purely from a self-improvement standpoint, you should try to open your mind to what that might be like and how people make decisions in those kinds of situations.
Yes, I've been homeless, in debt, with only a minimum wage job.
Just purely from a self-improvement standpoint, you should try and not assume you know everything about someone through a short conversation.
I'm not passing off a moral judgement over someone choosing to smoke in a concentration camp. I don't fault someone making that choice. There's a good chance I might make the same. That doesn't make it a rational choice.
I, and the other poster, are beyond that point. I've actually had it said that it's our fault (liberals) that things are like this, because we are refusing to engage and that we "owe" conservatives the opportunity to listen and understand their argument.
That we somehow owe it to people to argue in good faith with them when they are talking of (the ones I've personally had mentioned): post-birth abortion ("in several Democrat states, abortion is legal up to one month post birth!". Apparently you can take your baby home, come back a month later, and say "Nah, changed my mind on this one", who knew?), adrenochrome harvesting, etc.
That it was my/our fault such views propagate because we're not "willing to understand their perspectives".
The thing is, their perspectives are a lie. And in many cases, they know they're a lie, they just don't. fucking. care.
So they can go online and whine about being dismissed or criticized, or pat each other on the back for "knowing the truth". There's a subset who, I'm sure, see such things as actual literal truth, and that's a different issue altogether, but not sure it's my responsibility to solve, or that failure to engage on my part makes the current situation "my fault".
"Maybe I need to put more effort into why they think or feel that way?" That won't work, because I'll be the only one doing so. You'll note that it's never framed as a matter "maybe they should think about why people think what they're saying sounds absolutely ridiculous". There's no effort on critical reasoning or discourse that will work there, because it's not grounded in reason in the first place. And when that comes up, crickets. But no, "keep going high", keep working on empathy for people who actively celebrate LE shooting people, and for a President that will say from the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office, quote, "My kids are insider trading all the time".
This sounds like a conversation about something other than politics.
Do the candidates you support have any kind of track record of making people's lives better, helping average regular everyday working people live lives of dignity where they can afford to live in places and raise their families?
Or do they have a long track record of doing the opposite, favoring the interests of war overseas and corporate hegemony at home?
How is "does your candidate favor a corporate hegemony?" a political question, but "does your candidate favor allowing abortion?" not? Politics is the methodology by which we organize a society, which includes legality, morality, and ethics.
I feel you think you've had some sort of "gotcha" moment by implying that Democratic candidates have failed in meeting their claimed goals. For one, I am unable to vote in US elections. And for two, the candidates I would support would be far left of today's Democratic Party, and I would vote for that Party only if/because the realistic alternative candidates were ... as abhorrent as they currently are.
A candidate favoring or opposing government restrictions on abortion is most certainly a political question. A voter having delusional opinions (or claiming to) is something else.
> I feel you think you've had some sort of "gotcha" moment by implying that Democratic candidates have failed in meeting their claimed goals.
Yeah, of course I do. The fact that Democratic politicians have failed to improve the lives of regular people and aren't really trying to is pretty fucking relevant to why they lose to obviously corrupt opponents.
Which seems important if your goal involves acquiring and wielding political power instead of lamenting all the idiots out there in internet posts.
You're acting like it's only some small fringe of voters which believe these things. It's not.
Nearly 1/3 of the country think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
Most people I've personally talked to about voting for the MAGA candidate have said one or more of these things. The others are usually wealthy people happy for their tax cuts. As mentioned earlier, I've had close friends and relatives refuse to associate with me because I've voted D a few times in my life and obviously do the work of Satan. This isn't some fringe rare thing, if it was would most TV ads I see against Talarico appeal to these fears? If this was truly some fringe why would the President constantly hammer these points?
The answer is, it's not rare. This is the new base of the GOP. The same people who knew Obama was a Muslim from Kenya.
Let's say these people really are some statistically irrelevant percentage of the population. Let's say it really is just that normal, sane, middle class Joe's are truly the people the D's need to target more. How on earth are the R's the better choice for them? This is the party which cuts their healthcare, works to defund their public education, cutting access to college, is even more in bed with corporate interests, is even more obviously corrupt, and overall has had power more and delivered less for the common person. How does it make sense to vote that way?
For a real concrete and recent example, can you explain the voting base for Paxton versus Talarico? Why would that average Joe voter support Paxton over Talarico?
> The second term I think was largely handed to him given the Democrats had no primary for Kamala, and frankly were tone deaf with what the “other side”’s needs were in a candidate.
Yeah, the biggest speedbump for Democratic candidates or left leaning people is the DNC.
From Hillary and the whole Debbie Wasserman-Schulz sabotaging Bernie, being caught doing it, denying it, then ... surprise! She's Hillary's campaign manager within 24 hours of resigning DNC leadership...
... through to one of the most uneducated electorates (which is on both sides), where the single most popular Google search on Election Day? "Did Biden drop out?"
Jan 6 alone was enough to make voting for Trump morally unacceptable. Voting for fear and money over the preservation of freedom is a classic moral failure and every one of the people who voted for Trump not only knows it, but pretends to make it a cornerstone of their political beliefs. If they use Epstein and gas prices as excuses, fuck them.
You assume those voters believe Jan 6 was an insurrection. Many of them don’t. Whether thats a fault of the media/bubble they’re in or gross naivety/negligence is a different discussion.
If you go with the presumption Jan 6 was a mob that got out of hand (not my position, just one of the perspectives), then the idea that he wasn’t able to enact his agenda due to the opposing party, coupled with the shenanigans of the other option (no democrat primary for Kamala being one, with democrat party having done similar in the past with Bernie), then claims that the democrats are spinning Jan 6 and risking another term with him seem more reasonable.
Whether I or you agree with those premise is separate from what the zeitgeist is for much of America
It's not a different discussion. Ultimately the only way you wouldn't understand that Jan 6 was an insurrection supported by the president is through motivated reasoning, driven by their fear of all the rest of the nonsense and desire to put their hope in a strongman to fix it. Given the stakes, this continues to be morally unacceptable.
I simply don't believe that any substantial number of voters think January 6 wasn't an insurrection. Trump openly spoke for a full month beforehand about how he was going to overturn the election, and continues to this day to insist that he should have been allowed to. People who claim it was a protest that got out of hand are not confused, naive, or in a media bubble; they're just lying.
My college educated father said J6'ers were just tourists. He denied there was ever a noose involved. I had to send photos.
The media bubble is something these people seek out. They avoid sources that offend them. They don't go to original sources or seek first hand accounts. When confronted before they get the talking points their responses are rational, then after receiving orders they'll pivot on a dime.
Likely easier said then done, but why not separate infra out from shared vs dedicated hosts? Something like, actions will still run but at some degraded capacity, where actions and PRs are still at least functional.
My company has heavy handily moved from self-hosted version control system to github and now we’re suffering more outages. Though the self hosted system had less features, and we needed to maintain our own jenkins infrastructure for CI/CD, at least we really only suffered from very major cloud-provider level outages
- Paid medical insurance for all
- Free child care
- Regulatory oversight which requires funding and committees etc
- Affordable housing (there are ways to solve this with gov spending and without, but likely we’ll need some form of gov incentives/spending)
I’m not commenting on the validity of these things individually, just that I don’t believe the Democrats since Clinton era have tried to reduce spending
Honestly I think it’s a fundamental hurdle with our political system. Charlie M’s quote of “show me the incentives and I’ll show you the outcome.”
reply