The Trump messaging was really pretty brilliant. Despite its simplicity, it was incredibly effective. He asked people if they felt like they were better off today than they were four years ago, a majority said no, and that’s all it took.
There are a lot of things that are just universally beneficial, like healthcare, environment, education.
Ok, so let’s focus on that stuff, then. My point is, maybe we can’t achieve perfect justice and fairness for everyone, so let’s just try to like make rent more affordable and make it so people don’t have to stress as much about paying their bills and maintaining a decent standard of living.
It’s all too much. The Democratic party wants to be a big tent party, the party of all. That’s just not possible. Every group wants the party to prioritize their issues. Blacks and whites, straight people and gay people, men and women, young and old, religious people and atheists, owners and workers, cops and criminals, leftists, moderates, and conservatives, etc, etc, etc. We can’t give everyone what they want.
I’m sorry, I really am, but we can’t make everyone happy. Especially since a lot of these groups do not like each other. Look, it would be great if all these different groups could come together in one big rainbow coalition of peace, join hands and sing Kumbaya but it ain’t gonna fucking happen. Stop trying to please and appease all these people and instead try to materially improve the lives of as many people as possible.
Stop trying to achieve perfect justice for every identity group and just focus on making housing more fucking affordable for as many people as possible, and healthcare, and a decent education, and so forth.
How exactly can a political party address what is for men essentially a collection of toxic culture issues?
I don’t necessarily know, and neither does the Democratic party, which is at least part of the reason why Trump just got reelected.
I can see why some young men might feel like the Democratic party is prioritizing women’s issues over those affecting men, especially young men. In fact, it might seem like the Democratic party is not only indifferent to struggling young men, but hostile to them. I can understand why someone might not want to vote for a party that thinks of them as deplorable, pathetic losers.
On average, pay has risen faster than prices in recent years.
Fuck the average. Incomes vary far, far too much for the average to mean much of anything.
Everyone, from small business owners, to the self employed and independent contractors, to hourly wage earners who have not seen their income increase at a rate that is at least equal to the rate of inflation, every year, have had a pay cut. I can’t say how many of these people there are, but I would estimate they number in the millions.
By 2030? Not going to happen, then.
You’re right, that would be virtually impossible. I should have said that we need to decommission the fossil fuel powered machines as quickly as possible, to have the best chance of reducing global GHG emissions by >45% by 2030. But, we do need to have all fossil fuel powered machines that have GHG emissions that can’t be offset by things like carbon capture and sequestration, decommissioned by 2050, to meet the Paris climate agreement goals. That gives us a couple more decades, but even that will be extraordinarily difficult.
with urgent, decisive action, we still can avoid unmanageable outcomes
But not just any urgent, decisive action, it must be the right action. The wrong action could be insufficient at best, and actively harmful at worst.
To meet the Paris climate agreement, we must reduce global GHG emissions by 45% to 50%, from current levels, by 2030. To achieve that, we must begin decommissioning all existing fossil fuel powered machinery, from power plants, to manufacturing, transportation, and agricultural equipment, and replace them with net zero emission alternatives, as quickly as possible. I don’t think anyone really knows how best to do that, at least not on a global scale. It’s not something we’ve ever done before.
I don’t think anyone really hates Jo Millionaire. Jo, the master electrician that lives down the street and employs 5-10 electricians from apprentice to employee-master is a millionaire and contributes positively to their local community.
I think that’s true, but some Jo millionaires get rich enough to become part of the billionaire aristocrats. That’s the goal, isn’t it? Don’t most business owners want to grow their business and their wealth, seemingly indefinitely? Maybe that’s why the millionaires are such strong supporters of the billionaires: because they ultimately aspire to be among them. Obviously, most won’t be able to achieve that, but they aspire to it nonetheless.
Consumption of world’s wealthiest people also making it increasingly difficult to limit global heating to 1.5C
We’re not going to achieve the 1.5C target. It’s just not going to happen. Yes, it might (might!) still be physically possible to limit warming to 1.5C, but it’s not economically, politically, or socially possible. The only way we could achieve 1.5C at this point would be if there was some major economic collapse or some other major crisis. There’s no real way we can reduce GHG emissions at the rate necessary to achieve 1.5C while the global population, global economy, and average per person consumption rates continue to grow at their current pace. Some might say it is theoretically possible, but I don’t really care if it is. We’re not looking for theoretical solutions, we’re looking for actual solutions, and I think the actual solutions get us somewhere between 2.5C and 3C.
it’s nonsense to claim that Trump getting elected, is happening because voters are angry because of mysterious reasons that no one can figure out…
That’s not exactly what I am saying. It’s more that there isn’t yet a consensus of what the root problem is. There are a lot of theories, sure, like yours. That’s one theory, but, confident though you may be that that is the exact problem, not everyone agrees, or at least they think there’s more to it than that.
I think there might be some truth to your theory, but I don’t agree with the idea that these people are essentially doing fine, but they’ve been brainwashed into thinking they’re not doing fine. That it’s all just a result of some kind of mass hypnosis. That kind of erases the very real problems that many of these people do face.
Trump happened because large segments of US voters feel disenfranchised and resentful, as they feel they have been left behind and that their lives have been made worse by the policies of the political establishment and experts. If said political establishment and the experts want to end the Trump movement and prevent something similar from happening again, they’re going to have to address the concerns of dissatisfied voters. I don’t really think either party knows how to go about doing that.
I think part of the reason for that is there’s still significant discussion about what has caused so many Americans to become so unhappy with leadership, and you can’t really come up with a solution until you correctly identify the problem. I still don’t think the experts have a very good grasp on why Americans are upset. Until they figure it out, they can’t come up with a solution, and until they come up with a solution, movements like Trumpism are still very possible.
Elon Musk is a dipshit, though.
Fair enough, but when you’re trying to recreate something as intimate and vulnerable as sex, it just stands out more. Of course when I’m watching a movie I consciously know that what I’m seeing on the screen isn’t real, but when it’s done right I’m so immersed that that part of my brain turns off and I’m able to get completely lost in the story or spectacle. But more often than not, when there’s a sex scene I get completely taken out of it and instead of seeing characters having sex, I see actors engaged in an awkward simulation.
I’m not a teen (far from it), but I’m with the kids on this one. The vast majority of sex scenes in movies are awful. They’re awkward and totally unrealistic. It completely takes you out of the movie. Most sex scenes are not engrossing or engaging, they don’t immerse you in the story, they push you out of it.
Most every sex scene feels like it was made by someone who’s never had sex. Every angle is the right angle, every thrust is ecstasy, it’s nonsense. It’s like someone who thinks the covers of romance novels are depictions of real life.
There are a lot of intimate moments that can be portrayed convincingly enough on film, but sex is rarely one of them. And it’s just not necessary. Let the audience infer, let us use our imaginations.
and you are just sowing a lot of discontent. That is largely my issue, as irrational as it might appear at first glance to be angry with an article just saying that inflation has decreased from its highs.
I don’t think it’s irrational at all. I think it’s perfectly understandable. The typical, out of touch economist, however, doesn’t understand. Their formulas, theories, and models tell them that everything is working perfectly, or at least as well as can be expected, and they’re really not interested in hearing any evidence to the contrary (like the lived experiences of actual human beings).
Yes 2% is the usual inflation target, so getting it down to that level constitutes defeating inflation.
But the layperson doesn’t know that. When the average person hears that inflation has been defeated, they assume that means prices are going to come back down. I think it’s understandable why people think that: If inflation means prices go up, then the end of inflation must mean that prices go back down. Of course, that’s not the case. For reasons most people don’t understand, prices must continue to go up every year, albeit preferably at a rate the experts consider manageable. You can try to explain this to people but they might not be receptive to being told that prices are just going to keep going up, forever, and it has to be that way because of some complex economic concepts that are beyond their understanding. It’s honestly kind of depressing, being hit with the reality that you’re always going to be playing catch up with increasing prices.
Housing needs to be about housing, healthcare needs to focus on healthcare.
That’s why I think profit needs to be eliminated from the equation. With it, the priority will always be maximizing profit, with providing a quality product or service being secondary, or even incidental.
Housing, healthcare, education, and other universal necessities shouldn’t be for-profit.
I already said: