The problem I’ve found is that liberals will say that “Now is not the right time” all the time and there never ends up being a right time to talk about it. It feels like a cycle of right before the election so can’t talk about, right after the election so can’t talk about since they haven’t had time to address it, then the midterms are coming up so can’t talk about it, then right after the midterms they don’t have the power to address it anymore so can’t talk about it, then the presidential election is coming back up again so can’t talk about it. There’s also the fact that more people pay attention during election seasons so talking about it then allows you to reach the most people. And at the end of the day all it would take to get these people on your side would be to oppose the genocide. It would have some impact but I would say the majority of voters who care about Israel enough to change their vote based on it were probably already voting Trump with how pro Israel he is, so you would be gaining many more voters than you lose.

As someone who’s 23 and grew up with smartphones and all of that as they were starting to become popular I feel like I have some takes on a lot of the opinions I’ve seen on the different sides of issues like this. I lean in general towards giving your kid a phone once they’re old enough to want to be able to talk with friends and do things on their own afterschool but having some non-intrusive ways to keep an eye on what they’re doing with it until sometime when they’re a teenager. That just seems like the best way to not ostracize them from other kids while still making sure they’re being safe online. Even though in general things worked out fine for me with my parents letting me have my own laptop and iPod touch and eventually iPhone from a pretty young age without really watching what I did on them I definitely see a lot of times that I could have ended up being taken advantage of online if things had been slightly different. And the reason I say non-intrusive ways to keep track of what your kid is doing is because I knew kids who did have like parental restrictions on their phones and all of them knew ways to bypass them and do what they wanted to do anyways. So the only way you’re gonna successfully keep an eye on them is if they don’t know you are and you only interfere if it’s a genuine safety problem, and even then you make sure to not punish them for it as that will make them start hiding things from you actively, you treat it as a learning moment and help them understand why what they were doing wasn’t safe. I’m still very much figuring out what my exact views on this are but I think leaning too far in either direction of not letting them have social media or a smartphone at all even when they’re starting to reach middle school or letting them have unrestricted access to social media and a phone both have their problems and you have to find a good balance in the middle.

As someone who uses USPS to deliver mail or packages whenever I need to do that it definitely isn’t universally agreed on. It has reasonable prices compared to the other ones and I’ve never had issues with packages taking too long or getting lost.

I mean the problem with your argument is then that there’s nothing we can do, as there isn’t really any pathway towards impeachment right now. As Republicans hold both houses and have pretty clearly shown their loyalty to Trump even with the fact that they’re getting so much backlash they won’t hold town halls anymore. So at this point these kinds of protests are one of the few ways to try and hurt the people in power, as well as to start building community that is needed for any kind of more direct action. It also gives Trump and Elon the opportunity to overreact against protests (like if they decide to follow through on the domestic terrorism thing) which will further galvanize people into action.

Honestly when switching from Reddit to here that is the thing I missed the most. It was a lot better at serving you things you liked compared to here where you can only really sort by either what’s active or popular or what you’re subscribed to. I get some people really like that but a lot of people want it to be more personalized to them without having to go search for the things they want. It’s also great for discovering new things because sure I can setup my subscriptions to show what I like but then it won’t make connections and show me new things I might like. Combine that with there being less content and therefore certain areas of interest not being represented here at all makes mainstream social media better for most people.

I mean with the recent stuff going on with them trying to deport someone for the pro-palestine protests I’m just reminded of the quote “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

The way it’s written my mind immediately read it in the voice of Wheatley from Portal 2.

Yeah I definitely still have problems with remembering to do it, especially if I get an idea when I’m not at a place where it’s easy to note the idea down. But even having a few things on there can be enough and sometimes help with jogging my memory about other things I wanted when it comes closer to an event.

I have the same problem when I need to come up with things on the spot. So instead I keep a list that I add ideas I get for things I want over time. That way if someone asks I can show them that and I don’t have to think on the spot about what I want.

I think that’s definitely a big reason for non-swing state voters but I do also think how hard it can be to vote in some states is a pretty bit barrier too. If you look at turnout data by state theres a reason a lot of the red states with the more strict laws have lower turnout compared to my home state of Oregon which isn’t a swing state yet still can get 75% turnout in 2020 even though it’s a solid blue state, cause we do full vote by mail.

You’re right there after looking into it, he didn’t endorse either but he did speak at the RNC which for a lot of people looked like an endorsement but is a little different. The quote of we can win with or without you was from a meeting the teamster’s president had with Kamala. Even if it was in response to him speaking at the RNC or showing some support to Trump that’s definitely not how you get someone to back you and in my opinion shows the attitude the Dems had to a lot of people this cycle. This idea of either you vote for us or we’ll win without you cause you have no other good choice. That attitude is not one that makes people excited to go out and stand in a 3 hour line to vote for you in a swing state. And if they keep relying on this you either vote for us or you get stuck with the bad option of Trump they’re only gonna win whenever Trump is in office and actively doing really really bad things.

Yeah that would be nice but the only way I see that happening is if a Bernie like politician manages to win the primary and the election and reshapes the party like what Trump did. But reshaping it in that way is gonna face a lot more pushback from donors than compared to what Trump did. So there’s always a chance but it feels pretty unlikely without changes to election and campaign finance laws.

I mean I can understand him not wanting to endorse Kamala when she directly told him we can win with or without you. That doesn’t exactly sound like the kind of person you would want to endorse if they don’t even seem to really care about you or the people you represent. But yeah endorsing Trump was a stupid move, he really should have just not endorsed either of them.

I agree that talking about non-voters in that context isn’t useful but we definitely should talk about non-voters more in regards to why they didn’t vote. Is it cause in a number of states voting access is really hard? Is it due to not liking either party and not feeling like there are good candidates? I think understanding that more could really give a better understanding of this block of people, is it really just people who don’t care about politics and would never care enough to vote or is it people who just don’t have the time to deal with navigating the system to be able to vote.

Maybe they would sell it in a more disconnected form. Cause like we eat veal even though that’s a baby. So maybe instead of eggs being sold in the shell they’d mostly be sold already cracked in a container or something.

Well I can provide examples near me of the grid being improved, now it’s often hard to directly link these to data centers as the power utilities will often focus on reliability and reducing costs as the reasons but based on where these are being built and where new data centers have been opening it does match up a bit with them trying to beef up connections to the west side. And again like I said these things do have environmental impacts that should be considered and all kinds of other reasons why they may not be the best thing to do but it does show that the network is being improved atleast indirectly because of data centers using more capacity.

https://www.portlandgeneralprojects.com/projects/harborton-reliability-project/

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/portland-general-allete-grid-united-north-plains-transmission/717312/

I’m not saying the increased demand would make them build more. I’m saying if companies are forced to rely on the grid they will help pressure/fund new expansions or maintenance on the power grid as if it fails they’re gonna lose money. If they’re not reliant on the grid anymore through things like this they would have no interest in making it better and they would stop applying pressure to make things better. And also atleast in my area increased demand from data center has caused attempts to build more transmission lines. Without these data centers having to use the public grid those investments wouldn’t be happening. Now there’s arguments to be had there about whether we should be encouraging data centers like this at all with the environmental cost of them using this much energy but if managed correctly it could lead to more investment in the power grid to make it better. Whereas if we allow companies to make their own power grid essentially then our current grid will be allowed to continue to fail.

The problem is this allows big companies to skirt the power grid and therefore not have to invest money in it to make sure it’s good and can instead continue to let the grid fall apart even more as they have their own private connections. This is the same reason why government run healthcare and forced public school would be good as it would force rich people to invest in these public goods rather then use their own private better versions.

No one in government except the few progressive Democrats who are routinely demonized and belittled by the rest of the party. The only way I see it happening is if Bernie or someone like him can pull a Trump and win the presidency and completely overhaul the party.

The ratchet isn’t gonna turn the other way until the problem of money in politics is dealt with. Until then there won’t be a real progressive candidate to rally around as in the case of Bernie they get pushed back against by the donors and the rest of the party. I do think there are some problems with people not wanting to unite under one candidate but we’re not even really at the point where that’s the main problem as the bigger problem is donors and the establishment of the Democratic party.