Now there’s another shower thought.

What if one day airplanes just like…stopped working…

One of the reasons Kamala failed was that her central message was crippled from the start. Her main campaign plank was that Trump was a threat to democracy. The problem with this was that Biden didn’t treat him like a threat to democracy.

Trump should have been arrested on day one of Biden’s term. He should have been rapidly tried in a military tribunal, had the book thrown at him, and quickly been convicted. And SCOTUS justices that dared to try to intervene should have been charged as accomplices tried with similar swiftness.

Biden didn’t do that. He appointed a Republican to lead the DOJ. That Republican then sat on his ass for two years, then began a slow investigation, only for Trump to eventually run out the clock.

Biden did not treat Trump like a threat to democracy. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus the last time there was a similarly-scaled threat to democracy. Lincoln ruled like a dictator during the Civil War. He had pro-Southern newspapers, in the North, censored and shut down. He actually showed what you need to do to a true threat to democracy.

True threats to democracy require bold and sometimes quite draconian response. It’s an emergency, democracy is on the line, and drastic action is required.

If you DON’T act with that kind of haste, you show that you don’t actually feel democracy is being threatened that much. Biden proved that he really didn’t believe his own rhetoric. Biden in his heart really doesn’t believe that Trump is a threat to democracy, as he certainly didn’t act like he thought he is.

This is why Kamala’s central campaign message fell flat on his face. There is ZERO reason an incumbent should ever be able to run on a platform of “my opponent tried to steal the last election.” If you’re the incumbent, it was YOUR responsibility to protect the republic from threats against it. If your opponent is truly a threat to the republic, why weren’t they locked up or sent to the gallows a long time ago?

That was the central problem of Kamala’s core message. If someone tries to violently overthrow the government, you are supposed to send the military after them and turn them into a fine mist or turn the justice department on them and see them hanged for treason. You’re not supposed to just let them off the hook and then bitch to the electorate that they’re dangerous and can’t be trusted. And if someone is a true threat to the republic, you shouldn’t even let the Supreme Court get in your way.

They’re too corrupted by corporate bribes to right the ship, hopefully it sinks into a sea of conservative ignorance and an actual leftist party can rise from the ashes.

And you know what’s really sad about this? They don’t even have to be! Kamala massively outspent Trump. One thing the DNC refuses to learn is that there is such a thing as saturation in campaign messaging. Past a point, past a certain number of commercials, flyers, mailer, door-hangers, text messages, and on and on? At some point it just stops working. At some point you just start annoying people. Hillary massively outspent Trump in 2016, and Kamala massively outspent Trump in 2024. It didn’t matter. Most of those dollars were completely wasted showing ads to voters that were already completely over-saturated with ads.

Maybe you need corporate money for the type of wasteful campaign Kamala ran, but it’s not like she didn’t also raise millions and millions in individual donations. Even in the era of big money politics, it is entirely possible to bring in enough small donations to run a presidential campaign. All that corporate money that Kamala sold her soul for was ultimately spent preaching to the choir or trying to reach the unreachable.

I’m not so willing to give the DNC a pass.

Is it easy? No. But it’s not like the DNC has tried numerous strategies and had brilliant plan after brilliant plan fail despite their well-considered attempts. The DNC algorithm for finding a candidate is quite simple:

1. Survey the existing party ranks.

2. Find the highest-ranking centrist within the party you can.

3. Ideally, don’t have a primary at all. But if a primary cannot be avoided, throw the full weight of the party apparatus behind that person before the primary and do everything possible to sabotage anyone else during the primary.

2016 was a coronation, with massive numbers of superdelegates endorsing Hillary before the first primary vote was cast, putting their thumb on the scale. 2020 saw the DNC actively collude against Sanders. When it looked like he was about to win the primary, they arranged that all the centrist candidates except Biden drop out, while leaving Warren in to dilute the progressive vote. The ONLY reason Biden got the nomination was because the entire party leadership structure colluded to get the other centrists to drop out, ensuring his victory. And of course, in 2024, well you’re aware of that clusterfuck.

The lesson here really isn’t that hard. Primaries exist for a reason! Competitive primaries ensure that your candidate can handle themselves well, and that they actually have some broad support among the electorate. They’re a trial by fire that only fools skip.

I CAN do better than the DNC. I can do better than the DNC because I have some humility and realize that I have no business trying to select who the next ideal democratic candidate is. If I ran the party, I would adopt the following rules:

1. Every election must have a primary. Even if an incumbent is running, a full competitive primary will still be held. The incumbent president should receive no advantage in that primary other than name recognition.

2. Some process to prevent the kind of candidate collusion that occurred in 2020. Any candidate that is found to have done this should be ineligible to receive the party’s nomination.

The ONLY arbiter of who should win the nomination should be the voters. Candidates need to arise from natural political movements that arise free of central DNC influence. The party shouldn’t play favorites, and it shouldn’t nuke candidates just because party leaders don’t like them.

a wealth tax

Did she actually campaign on this, or was it just some white paper she had on her website? There’s a difference between having a policy that you are campaigning on and actually intend to carry out and some vague policy paper a staffer wrote.

25k credit for first time home buyers This was an absolute embarrassment of a policy. Did you see the requirements on it? They presented it as a typical neoliberal bullshit policy. It was filled with so many specific requirements that almost no one would qualify for it. And it was bad economic policy too, as it would simply serve to further inflate the overheated housing bubble.

support for legalized cannabis

You cannot run on something that is one of your severe policy failures. Democrats have been running on the cannabis issue for multiple cycles at this point. They’ve all dragged their feet and slow-walked it for cheap political points.

support for trans people

She’s objectively better on this than Trump, but trying to Third Way it, she screwed herself over. Democrats were vocally supportive of trans rights before any kind of major backlash emerged, but their support was only ever skin-deep. Trans issues were largely absent from the recent DNC.

The Republicans latched onto anti-trans bigotry as one of their major campaign planks, and the Democrats responded by just trying to ignore trans people entirely. They avoided discussing trans people whenever possible, and they never came up with effective responses to Republicans’ main attack points. If you actually believe in trans rights, the correct response to the charge of “you want men in women sports!” is to say, “well trans women aren’t men, and you shouldn’t moronically assume trans women have the same athletic advantages as cis men.” If you actually believe in trans rights and equality, you would say, “the differences between men and women sports performance is almost entirely due to testosterone. Any minor differences that remain are not worth discriminating against people over.” Etc. You know, actually RESPONDING TO and REBUTTING the attacks Republicans make against trans people.

Centrist democrats showed conclusively that their support for trans people was nothing more than shallow political pandering. The Biden administration hasn’t been using all the levers of federal power to protect trans kids from their state governments.

This kind of mealy-mouthed centrism is what cost Kamala the election. She isn’t an enemy of trans people, but she’s also not a real ally. She doesn’t want to actively harm trans people, but she doesn’t have some fundamental belief in the worth of trans rights. It’s just another political football to her. It was beneficial to seem extremely pro-trans in 2020, and now that the conservatives have rallied against trans people, now she’s not so eager to defend trans people. It seems disingenuous and it made her look like someone who would say anything just to win the election.

How many of those 10-15 million watching from the sidelines would have shown up for a pro-Palestine candidate?

No one was expecting her to become a rabidly pro-Palestinian protester. No one expected her to get up at the podium and say, “actually, Hamas did nothing wrong, and the Israelis should be relocated out of Palestine.” People wanted her to make US military aid contingent on Israel meeting human rights guidelines. Israel, despite all the precision weaponry we give them, has a worse civilian:military kill ratio than Hamas. They kill more civilians for every soldier they kill than radical terrorists. Despite all their high-tech weaponry, THAT is how unconcerned Israel has been about civilian casualties. Hamas has done a better job of avoiding civilian casualties than Israel.

Anyway, the polling showed that calling for a cease-fire and other measures would have been immensely popular. This was a completely unforced error on her part. She threw away votes for nothing.

Spinning is better than not spinning.

And yet, without such people, these institutions will never change. If you want these institutions to be non-hateful, you have to get non-hateful people into them. We’re not going to get rid of Liberty University any time soon. And I would prefer to see it grow into a non-bigoted institution than to have it remain a bigoted institution indefinitely.

Sometimes you just have to work at places that are hostile to trans people, and you just have to hope they don’t find out you’re trans. If the only place that you can find a job in your field is at a Christian College, maybe you’ll accept the job and hope for the best. Potentially losing a job at some point in the future is better than not having a job today.

Full self driving should only be implemented when the system is good enough to completely take over all driving functions. It should only be available in vehicles without steering wheels. The Tesla solution of having “self driving” but relying on the copout of requiring constant user attention and feedback is ridiculous. Only when a system is truly capable of self-driving 100% autonomously, at a level statistically far better than a human, should any kind of self-driving be allowed on the road. Systems like Tesla’s FSD officially require you to always be ready to intervene at a moment’s notice. They know their system isn’t ready for independent use yet, so they require that manual input. But of course this encourages disengaged driving; no one actually pays attention to the road like they should, able to intervene at a moment’s notice. Tesla’s FSD imitates true self-driving, but it pawns off the liability do drivers by requiring them to pay attention at all times. This should be illegal. Beyond merely lane-assistance technology, no self-driving tech should be allowed except in vehicles without steering wheels. If your AI can’t truly perform better than a human, it’s better for humans to be the only ones actively driving the vehicle.

This also solves the civil liability problem. Tesla’s current system has a dubious liability structure designed to pawn liability off to the driver. But if there isn’t even a steering wheel in the car, then the liability must fall entirely on the vehicle manufacturer. They are after all 100% responsible for the algorithm that controls the vehicle, and you should ultimately have legal liability for the algorithms you create. Is your company not confident enough in its self-driving tech to assume full legal liability for the actions of your vehicles? No? Then your tech isn’t good enough yet. There can be a process for car companies to subcontract out the payment of legal claims against the company. They can hire State Farm or whoever to handle insurance claims against them. But ultimately, legal liability will fall on the company.

This also avoids criminal liability. If you only allow full self-driving in vehicles without steering wheels, there is zero doubt about who is control of the car. There isn’t a driver anymore, only passengers. Even if you’re a person sitting in the seat that would normally be a driver’s seat, it doesn’t matter. You are just a passenger legally. You can be as tired, distracted, drunk, or high as you like, you’re not getting any criminal liability for driving the vehicle. There is such a clear bright line - there is literally no steering wheel - that it is absolutely undeniable that you have zero control over the vehicle.

This actually would work under the same theory of existing drunk-driving law. People can get ticketed for drunk driving for sleeping in their cars. Even if the cops never see you driving, you can get charged for drunk driving if they find you in a position where you could drunk drive. So if you have your keys on you while sleeping drunk in a parked car, you can get charged with DD. But not having a steering wheel at all would be the equivalent of not having the keys to a vehicle - you are literally incapable of operating it. And if you are not capable of operating it, you cannot be criminally liable for any crime relating to its operation.

In many cities, nighttime noise level is limited by decibel level. But even low-level noise is allowed if below some level. So you could have some extremely quiet speakers gently wafting spooky sounds while you do this. Or if that’s a bridge too far, whose to say you don’t personally just like listening to Gregorian chants and quiet levels while you work?

Life pro tip for those nocturnal. Even those nocturnal folks need to mow their lawns. For modestly sized lawns, a scythe can be a great option! It’s also perfectly legal to mow your lawn with a scythe at three in the morning, dressed in a long black hooded robe.

This is myopic thinking. We all live in one big housing market. If you don’t have enough houses built, it doesn’t provide housing for the working class. You just end up with multi-millionaires living in tiny homes.

When you restrict the ability of builders to build new homes, they focus on maximizing the profit of the few homes they can make. We had cheap housing in the US in eras where we made it possible for builders to build vast numbers of housing on a colossal scale. That way you can really harness economies of scale and drive down the price tremendously.

There are two ways to make money by making something. You can either make high-margin luxury goods, or you can make vast numbers of low-margin affordable goods. Our current restrictions on home buildings encourage developer to take the former path, when we want to encourage them to take the latter.

That’s pretty idiotic. We don’t have a shortage of land. We have a shortage of land within a reasonable commuting distance of job centers.

SpaceX has been paid extensively for services not rendered. The funds that are currently paying for their Starship development were ostensibly for a lunar lander. And they’re years behind schedule at this point. They haven’t even started on the lander itself.

No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.

I think we should indict Sam Altman on two sets of charges:

1. A set of securities fraud charges.

2. 8 billion counts of criminal reckless endangerment.

He’s out on podcasts constantly saying the OpenAI is near superintelligent AGI and that there’s a good chance that they won’t be able to control it, and that human survival is at risk. How is gambling with human extinction not a massive act of planetary-scale criminal reckless endangerment?

So either he is putting the entire planet at risk, or he is lying through his teeth about how far along OpenAI is. If he’s telling the truth, he’s endangering us all. If he’s lying, then he’s committing securities fraud in an attempt to defraud shareholders. Either way, he should be in prison. I say we indict him for both simultaneously and let the courts sort it out.

To me, it’s not even just about what it looks like. It’s what it represents. One cyber truck, if were unique, could be a legitimately cool work of art. But as a mass-market vehicle it’s just ridiculous.

Like, if there was only one cyber truck, and it was something a local gearhead had welded up in his garage, I would legitimately respect it as a cool and unique work of artistic expression. It would show that they have creativity and are willing to make a bold statement to the world.

But if you just buy one of thousands of cyber trucks that exist in the world? That no longer represents your original creative expression. That just represents having bad taste and having poor personal finance skills.

Building your own art car is cool. If Ford decides to start making them by the millions, then that would just be sad.

The cyber truck is the vehicle for the man who wears a fedora with a t-shirt.

You should look more into what Hitler was actually like personally. The dude was basically a giant incel.

There’s a reason the Democrats always end up tilting right and trying to court some moderate Republicans. There’s a reason Harris is spending her efforts trying to pick off some moderate Republicans in the suburbs rather than trying to appease the hard left.

The problem with the hard left voters is that they are fickle and contrarian by nature. Yes, they’re talking about Palestine this year, but that’s just the cause of the day. The truth is, many on the left will simply look for any excuse not to sully their precious clean hands by voting for a mainstream liberal party. They look for an excuse, any excuse will do. And every four year, they find one. For Kamala it’s Gaza. For Biden it was the Crime Bill. For Hillary it was Bernie. There’s always some grievance the far left reactionaries will find, their precious excuse not to be one of the normies and vote for the mainstream candidate. They’re professional contrarians to the core. They start with the end goal - be a cool outsider above the sludge of normal average politics. And then they work backwards from there. Gaza is simply the cause of the day.

Note, this doesn’t happen with the far right. The far right instead recognizes that it’s better to support the mainstream right party, but to work continuously to pull them further and further to the extreme. This strategy is why they’ve been far more successful than the far left. The far right holds their nose, votes for the mainstream candidate, and works to pull the party further to the right in the future. The far left stamps their feet, demands perfection, and takes their ball and goes home. They always find an excuse to not participate. Ultimately, they just want to be the cool kids that are too cool to participate in the normie fight. They will always find an excuse not to support the Democratic candidate. They’re petulant children, not voters candidates can actually appeal to.

This is why Dems always pander to the right. It’s simply a better strategy. Far left voters are fickle, unreliable, and will always invent a new purity test. They’re ultimately politically irrelevant, and they have no one but themselves to blame.