US politics - Yes country for old men

[Larry of the Lawn]

25 minutes ago, mormont said:

Like TV, or rock'n'roll, or novels?

Kids today.

. 

Well, yes.  I suppose there's more of a case to be made for the aspects of it that Liff mentioned, but I'm not convinced that my designation of something as brainrot is sufficient for it to be banned, particularly when it's the only thing of its kind targeted.  

The security concerns are a separate conversation and concern, but yes, the brainrot aspect of this conversation absolutely has Satanic panic, Tipper Gore coming for you vibes.

Edited March 13 by Larry of the Lawn

[Ran]

Yeah, they're not trying to shut down TikTok, they're just trying to mandate that it no longer be owned by a Chinese company. I liked Matthew Yglesias's analogy in a recent post at Slow Boring:

Quote

Here’s the analogy I like to use. It’s 1975 and a state-owned Soviet firm wants to buy CBS. What happens? Well, what happens is they wouldn’t be allowed to. The FCC would block it. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the US or its predecessors would block it. If they didn’t have the power, congress would write a new law. And even if it wasn’t CBS, if it was a chain of local TV affiliate stations, the outcome would be the same. There would be no detailed factual analysis or demand for gold standard evidence that a Soviet-owned television statement might do Moscow’s bidding or that television is capable of influencing public opinion. We’d reject the idea out of hand. And rightly so, because the downsides would be very clear, and the upside minimal.

Also, worth noting that TikTok  is banned in China. So they can't say they're not going to let it out of Chinese hands because then the US will use it to aim propaganda at and gather data on Chinese users.

Edited March 13 by Ran

[Kalbear]

9 hours ago, DMC said:

Yeah - I didn't say "housing," I said "rent."  That a very important difference, and the latter of course do primarily live in urban areas, which is why it's important.  Moreover, there seems to be an emphasis on costs within cities in very blue states, which of course by this logic are just as irrelevant as cities/areas in very red states or rural states.  Curious how that part's left out.

It's not irrelevant in cities in very blue states - it's cities in ALL states, and since the majority of cities are blue that kind of matters when dealing with swing states. It's more true in San Francisco and Seattle, and that's fair, but it's also accurate in Philadelphia and Milwaukee and Phoenix and Atlanta and Detroit and Las Vegas. 

Mostly, I wasn't talking specifically to your comments about rent (though those are ALSO too high, they're at least not going insane any more) - it's the feeling that things are better at the macro level. Using economist values you're right - but that's irrelevant because there are a whole lot of things that economists willfully do not use that are utterly fucked for people. 

9 hours ago, DMC said:

Never said "the economy is awesome."  Indeed, tried to emphasize the caveats as much as possible.  But great to see you're still habitually mischaracterizing others' arguments!

No, you said "the Joe Biden Economy is something to run on!  The economic news continues to be entirely positive at the macro-level."  Forgive me if I used fewer words to say the same thing. In any case I disagree with that regardless - I don't think that the economy is something to emphasize heavily, at least not in a broad or generic way. If you want to highlight specific things maybe that'll work, but polling indicates that this isn't a winning message - only 44% of dems think that the economy is good right now, compared to 57% of the overall population in 2020. To me this feels a lot like Biden pivoting to slamming Republicans on immigration - it feels good to point out the hypocrisy, but when you're bringing up a point that the other group is considered strong at you're likely just going to lose the conversation while making the conversation about things they're better at. 

9 hours ago, DMC said:

....Like, assuring the constituency that the economy is on the right track under your watch?

No, not like that! Because that's not the existential hope that people need going forward. We're talking about giving hope that the US will be a functional republic. That the world will not be burning. That wars aren't going to be crushing refugees left and right. I'm sure that a whole lot of people in the US don't really care about those things as far as their primary choices - I said as much above - but for the youth voting, the voting bloc that Dems really need to vote for them - those are the things that they need to see. And they're not seeing it. Saying that the economy is slightly getting better just rings hollow when they're looking at no savings, no long-term jobs, no careers, no housing or wealth building and a world that is in a late-stage capitalist collapse. 

Edited March 13 by Kalbear

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Ran said:

Yeah, they're not trying to shut down TikTok, they're just trying to mandate that it no longer be owned by a Chinese company. I liked Matthew Yglesias's analogy in a recent post at Slow Boring:

I think that's fair and also largely meaningless as far as TikTok goes. That would make a lot more sense if China wasn't an absurdly large economic partner of the US; there are a whole lot of actions we could be taking to do something about China's influence around the world that we should be considering before doing something like this. 

To me this feels like a ridiculously big own goal that also ignores all the actual data harvesting, targeting behaviors and influence actions that exist on social media right now and have been successful since 2015. TikTok in theory could be more harmful (though it would be VERY obvious very quickly of it getting enshittified in that way) but Facebook, Instagram, X and the like are already being used like that. That it almost certainly will alienate younger voters and energize Republican voters is icing on the cake.

 

[Ran]

23 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That it almost certainly will alienate younger voters and energize Republican voters is icing on the cake.

What do users care about the ownership of the company? What special love are they supposed to have for ByteDance? I would suggest they have none. I would also suggest that the idea that the algorithm weights towards CCP talking points (as Yglesias anecdotally shows when he searched "Ugyhur") is concerning. 

Now, if the idea is that rather than sell TikTok will simply leave the US market... well, I think Yglesias is right, people will bitch and then they'll move on to the TikTok-alikes from Meta or whoever. Moreover, I would say that the refusal to divest and choice to leave the US market kind of proves the point that China sees a big propaganda upside on Chinese ownership of the company and would rather leave the market than let go of its control.

And to be clear, if they leave the US market rather than sell, the EU is almost certainly going to make similar demands, and presumably ByteDance will then leave the EU market as well.

The US would not allow Meta to become majoirty-owned by China or Russia. It wouldn't allow X to be.

Edited March 13 by Ran

[Ormond]

16 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Too fucking funny:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/12/politics/house-gop-retreat/index.html

 

I see the retreat is at the Greenbrier. One of my great-grandfathers and several of my mother's cousins worked there years ago. President Eisenhower used to golf there and it was the site of the bomb shelter the Congress would have been evacuated to if we had had a nuclear attack back in the day.  I see that Jim Justice, millionaire present governor of West Virginia who will probably be the Republican replacing Joe Manchin in the US Senate in 2025, has owned the Greenbrier since it almost went bankrupt in 2009.  Personally I'd love to spend a weekend in that hotel -- as long as I didn't have to go to a retreat with a bunch of Republican House members.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greenbrier

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Ran said:

What do users care about the ownership of the company? What special love are they supposed to have for ByteDance? I would suggest they have none. I would also suggest that the idea that the algorithm weights towards CCP talking points (as Yglesias anecdotally shows when he searched "Ugyhur") 

Now, if the idea is that rather than sell TikTok will simply leave the US market... well, I think Yglesias is right, people will bitch and then they'll move on to the TikTok-alikes from Meta or whoever. Moreover, I would say that the refusal to divest and choice to leave the US market kind of proves the point that China sees a big propaganda upside on Chinese ownership of the company and would rather leave the market than let go of its control.

I think that TikTok will likely try and sell and the people that should want to buy it will...not. Because it's just better for them to not buy it, let it die, and then get their users (like was said before). People will bitch and will remember who signed it into law, and be unhappy right as an election is happening. 

Also, as I pointed out above giving more power to Meta and X is not exactly the big win for privacy, influence operations or behaviors that you might want to protect US consumers from that you think it is. 

Finally, the idea that if they don't divest it proves the point of the law is ridiculous; there are a whole lot of reasons that a company may not want to divest, the least of all being that they can't get a reasonable return on their investment. They already explored selling TikTok off a couple years back and they found that it wasn't a good deal for them - and it had nothing to do with needing Chinese-controlled. 

As to Uyghur - TikTok has been downgrading ALL political content as of late, in response to criticism that their audience actually skewed pro-Palestinian. Searching for Ugyhur and getting 4 total hits is not a statistical analysis or particularly useful. For a better test, try searching for Palestine and see how skewed the results are. Or try the same test on Meta to see what actually comes up. 

6 minutes ago, Ran said:

And to be clear, if they leave the US market rather than sell, the EU is almost certainly going to make similar demands, and presumably ByteDance will then leave the EU market as well.

I don't know that that's the case; Europe seems to have a very different relationship with Chinese systems compared to the US. 

6 minutes ago, Ran said:

The US would not allow Meta to become majoirty-owned by China or Russia. It wouldn't allow X to be.

And there's the real rub - what does it matter? Elon Musk owning X and Trump owning Truth Social are both significant dangers to US governance and power, and are being used to cause damage already. Same with Meta. Regulation needs to happen regardless of ownership. Killing Tiktok in the US won't solve that problem, and killing Tiktok now doesn't solve any actual problems. 

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I see the retreat is at the Greenbrier. One of my great-grandfathers and several of my mother's cousins worked there years ago. President Eisenhower used to golf there and it was the site of the bomb shelter the Congress would have been evacuated to if we had had a nuclear attack back in the day.  I see that Jim Justice, millionaire present governor of West Virginia who will probably be the Republican replacing Joe Manchin in the US Senate in 2025, has owned the Greenbrier since it almost went bankrupt in 2009.  Personally I'd love to spend a weekend in that hotel -- as long as I didn't have to go to a retreat with a bunch of Republican House members.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greenbrier

My wife's father worked there for 30 years as their primary electrician, and knew all sorts of interesting things about it. We have a bunch of merch from there too. Apparently it's about as awesome and horrible as you would think. It is also not a great hotel any more, at least by modernist standards. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

29 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

My wife's father worked there for 30 years as their primary electrician, and knew all sorts of interesting things about it. We have a bunch of merch from there too. Apparently it's about as awesome and horrible as you would think. It is also not a great hotel any more, at least by modernist standards. 

Idk, I still think it looks pretty awesome. The Republicans not attending aren't doing so because the beds aren't nice enough. 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

It's not irrelevant in cities in very blue states - it's cities in ALL states, and since the majority of cities are blue that kind of matters when dealing with swing states. It's more true in San Francisco and Seattle, and that's fair, but it's also accurate in Philadelphia and Milwaukee and Phoenix and Atlanta and Detroit and Las Vegas. 

...Except, of course, you're having your cake and eating it too with the numbers.  First, in that of course the baseline in ALL cities is fundamentally higher than any overall metric.  And, second, where it's "more true" absolutely matters based on the logic of your own argument that this should only matter in "areas where Dem need votes."  It's bullshit analysis to ONLY focus on the negative when it comes to cities too.

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

No, you said "the Joe Biden Economy is something to run on!  The economic news continues to be entirely positive at the macro-level." 

....uh, yeah, those aren't the same.  And I spent, like, a dozen posts explaining why.  No point in trying to explain basic nuance to someone that plainly doesn't want to listen!

As for the polling you're using, here's one from Pew that's similar to your numbers.  Only 28% say the economy is "excellent good."  Sounds horrible right?!?  Except...another 41 percent describe the economy as "only fair."  Meaning nearly 70 percent of Pew respondents would at least be potentially receptive to an optimistic argument on the economy.

[Kalbear]

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

...Except, of course, you're having your cake and eating it too with the numbers.  First, in that of course the baseline in ALL cities is fundamentally higher than any overall metric.  And, second, where it's "more true" absolutely matters based on the logic of your own argument that this should only matter in "areas where Dem need votes."  It's bullshit analysis to ONLY focus on the negative when it comes to cities too.

I don't understand this at all - is this similar to the idea that you should look at all the games to figure out where you're weakest by analyzing strong games? 

The numbers on housing in general are really bad in every urban area, and significantly worse than the averages for rent and ownership. This isn't new to Biden, but it is a lot more pronounced thanks to the cost of money. Saying that it's exceptionally bad in the bluest states ignores that it's a bad thing in places that dems need to win a lot of votes, and that will be harder to do. It'll be especially hard to do if you're saying that things are doing well or improving because it doesn't feel true - and it turns out for those cases it really isn't true. It's just not getting worse as fast. 

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

....uh, yeah, those aren't the same.  And I spent, like, a dozen posts explaining why.  No point in trying to explain basic nuance to someone that plainly doesn't want to listen!

I think you lack charity in reading my posts and expect charity in reading your posts. 

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

As for the polling you're using, here's one from Pew that's similar to your numbers.  Only 28% say the economy is "excellent good."  Sounds horrible right?!?  Except...another 41 percent describe the economy as "only fair."  Meaning nearly 70 percent of Pew respondents would at least be potentially receptive to an optimistic argument on the economy.

I don't see that tracks (and amusing to me that's the same thing I linked, which means you didn't bother reading it), especially because that very same poll indicates that only about 30% of people think that the economy is going to be better later. Telling the people that think it's fair - the second lowest value - that it's going to be better when most people don't think that is likely not going to resonate - at least not without significant action. 

Mostly, though, I think this is a major rabbit hole that isn't that valuable; when approval ratings are as low as Biden's (33% by that same poll) your only hope is to attack the other person, which is what I said before. Unless Biden can deliver some big wins and turn people around significantly - which so far he has not been able to publicize or take credit for in any substantially successful way - he's better off not running on things that people have rejected and should instead run on the other guy being absolutely terrible. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The numbers on housing in general are really bad in every urban area, and significantly worse than the averages for rent and ownership.

....So don't talk about housing?  When have I argued that the housing numbers - overall - aren't bad?  And why does this negate the links I've already provided that emphasize rent - again, in the 100 largest cities in the US - is going down or at least leveling off?

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

and amusing to me that's the same thing I linked, which means you didn't bother reading it

Uh, you didn't link anything in that response, just gave me the numbers.  Sorry for trying to find something that aligned with your numbers to be fair?

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

especially because that very same poll indicates that only about 30% of people think that the economy is going to be better later.

...And about 40 percent of people think the economy will be "about the same."  You're argument you can't influence these people by a positive argument defies basic common sense.

[Guy Kilmore]

3 hours ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

Yeah, that's awful.  Nothing that horrific, but my little brother is 17 and it's been a nightmare trying to get him to unlearn a bunch of the shit pouring out of the right wing toxic masculinity Andrew Tate aligned crowd that he's come across through gaming and gaming discord. 

 

I'd be negligent if I didn't point out though, that it's tiktok that's being targeted by the ban. Not any of the apps or services mentioned in the linked Wapo piece.  

This has been going on for so long.  I have worked over 20 years in children's mental health and I was trying to ring a bell about stuff like this like over 10 years ago.  No one is really ready to deal with it.

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

....So don't talk about housing?  When have I argued that the housing numbers - overall - aren't bad?  And why does this negate the links I've already provided that emphasize rent - again, in the 100 largest cities in the US - is going down or at least leveling off?

Because even with rent leveling off, that's still not good enough. Same with inflation leveling off. Saying things are getting better is just going to make them look at things and see how they're not going great. 

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Uh, you didn't link anything in that response, just gave me the numbers.  Sorry for trying to find something that aligned with your numbers to be fair?

Lol, oops! 

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

...And about 40 percent of people think the economy will be "about the same."  You're argument you can't influence these people by a positive argument defies basic common sense.

I don't think that they're going to be influenced by arguments, no. I think they'll be influenced by actions. And if you're not able to take actual actions (which as far as I can tell the government is almost entirely incapable of doing right now) making the argument things are going to get better is not going to be very helpful. 

I'd also say that for the most part the people who think things are going to be fine are not the ones you'll need to convince to vote for you. They'll likely be okay. It's the 30% of people who think things suck that are the ones you're most in danger of losing, and to them telling them things are going to be better will, IMO, turn them further away; it'll land like McCain's 'the economy is fundamentally sound' in 2008. 

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Same with inflation leveling off. Saying things are getting better is just going to make them look at things and see how they're not going great. 

Well, agree to disagree.

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think they'll be influenced by actions. And if you're not able to take actual actions (which as far as I can tell the government is almost entirely incapable of doing right now) making the argument things are going to get better is not going to be very helpful. 

The Biden administration could obviously emphasize recent actions -- including, again, getting the Republican House to pass a bill that extended the child tax credit just last month.  Presidential incumbents never run on "actions" they're doing right now -- for the simple fact DC doesn't do anything for the last eight months of a presidential election cycle.

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's the 30% of people who think things suck that are the ones you're most in danger of losing

Well, most of that 30% that think things suck are predominately Trump voters.  At least according to that link you or I provided.    The ones that are running lower and potential Biden voters are, indeed, younger people.  And if you think you can't influence them...

Edited March 13 by DMC

[Kalbear]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, most of that 30% that think things suck are predominately Trump voters.  At least according to that link you or I provided.    The ones that are running lower and potential Biden voters are, indeed, younger people.  And if you think you can't influence them...

I think you'll not be able to influence them by arguments. I certainly don't think that Biden is going to be able to. I think that if he wants those viewpoints to change he'll have to actually do some things. Per that poll it's not overwhelmingly Trump voters, either:

Quote

Younger Democrats are much less likely than older Democrats to view current economic conditions in positive terms. Among Democrats under 30, a quarter view the economy positively. This share rises to 34% among those ages 30 to 49, 56% among those 50 to 64, and 70% among those 65 and older.

and

Quote

Young adults are negative about Biden’s job performance. Biden’s job rating is low across all age groups, including young adults. Just 27% of adults ages 18 to 29 approve of the way Biden is handling his job as president, while 71% disapprove.

Again, it's only one poll so take it with some grain of salts here, but this is pretty consistent with other sources of data I've seen and is the basis for my viewpoints here. In particular those young voters have been told a bunch of things by Biden that did not come to pass - student loan forgiveness, climate improvement, behavior of foreign allies, economic and inflation - and a lot of it landed with exceptional compromise or simply didn't affect them at all. Or actually got worse (like with Israel and Gaza). Trying to convince them after 4 years of these statements that no, really, things are going to be better with another 4 years is not something I think is going to win them over. Convincing them that as bad as things are they're going to be WAY WORSE under Trump I think might work. 

Edited March 13 by Kalbear

[A Horse Named Stranger]

3 hours ago, LongRider said:

Ugh.

ATLANTA (AP) — The judge overseeing the Georgia election interference case on Wednesday dismissed some of the charges against former President Donald Trump, but many other counts in the indictment remain.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee wrote in an order that six of the counts in the indictment must be quashed, including three against Trump, the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee. But the order leaves intact other charges, and the judge wrote that prosecutors could seek a new indictment on the charges he dismissed.

Judge for Georgia election case dismisses some charges against Trump | AP News

Apparently not that big a deal.

She can re-file the charges she lost, or can appeal it.

What I gathered is, it's about solicitating officials to violate their oath of office. And the indictment did not specify which (parts) of the oath of offices. Indictment as a whole stays intact, and Willis could walk back to a grandjury with a fixed indictment and get those six counts back in. At least my understanding.

Not great but not a disaster either.

 

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think you'll not be able to influence them by arguments.

Except...you are simply suggesting another argument:

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Convincing them that as bad as things are they're going to be WAY WORSE under Trump I think might work. 

 

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Per that poll it's not overwhelmingly Trump voters, either:

I just mentioned the young voters, so glad we're in agreement there.  But, er, yeah it is overwhelmingly Trump voters.  Scroll down!

Quote

Across Republican groups, economic assessments vary less drastically. Republicans overwhelmingly rate the economy negatively: Just 15% or less across demographic groups say national economic conditions are good or excellent.

However, there are some differences in how negative GOP assessments are. For instance, upper-income Republicans are more likely to say the economy is doing only fair (48%) rather than poorly (36%), while lower-income Republicans are more likely to say poor (49%) rather than only fair (38%).

I see you stopped changing your name.  Allow me to suggest a new one:  KalEngine.  As in the little engine that can't.  "I think I can't, I think I can't, I think I can't...."

 

[Ormond]

In terms of rents and perceptions of the economy--

from what I've been seeing, the recent fall in rents is much more pronounced in the Sunbelt, esepcaoilly in the West, than it is in the North.  In terms of the now "Big Six" swing states, lower rents would be most factoring in to people's perceptions of the economy in Nevada and Arizona, but not much in WIsconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania.

I also saw one report that said rents are for the most part only going down for brand new leases -- people who are renewing a lease on a place where they've already been living are still seeing rents go up some on the average. 

Falling rents in many Sunbelt cities are related to a big chunk of brand new multifamily dwellings coming on to the market this year. 

It seems that a lot of experts are expecting prices of houses to begin falling in many Sunbelt areas this year also -- especially in Florida. Florida evidently has multiple problems that ironically are forcing many people to sell their homes because they can't afford them anymore. This is because of the huge increase in homeowner's insurance rates in Florida combined with property taxes. Fees for those who lived in communities with Homeowners' Associations are also going up. And all of this is much worse for condominiums than detached houses -- Condo Association fees are having astronomical increases, not only because of the insurance problem and general inflation, but because new laws the state has passed because of the Surfside condo collapse are forcing condo associations to both perform a lot of deferred maintenance they should have done years ago and to greatly increase the amount of cash they have on hand to deal with future emergency repairs. So many people on fixed incomes who now own Florida condos are going to be putting them on the market because they won't be able to afford them any longer. -- And then on top of that the short term AirB&B-like rental phenomenon which has boomed in the last decade and contributed to the increase in housing costs everywhere is also starting to falter. 

So renters in Florida may be happy but homeowners unhappy because of changes coming soon in housing there. Will that help Democrats or Republicans more, or just be a wash? 

Edited March 13 by Ormond
spelling

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

Except...you are simply suggesting another argument:

I think this is just pedantry and I appreciate that! So I'll state it more clearly: I do not think that telling young voters that things are going to be better under Biden is a winning argument. I don't think that focusing on Biden at all is going to be a winning argument. Instead, I would advocate arguing against Trump as the only real way forward that will work. I don't have a ton of faith that'll work either, mind you, but I think it's more likely to work than getting someone young people view as not energetic, not in touch and doing a bad job to convince them that THIS TIME he'll do better will.

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

I just mentioned the young voters, so glad we're in agreement there.  But, er, yeah it is overwhelmingly Trump voters.  Scroll down!

I did - but it is still 70% of young voters (which break heavily for dems). That's not great! More importantly, I think that any argument that tells those people that things are going to be better and good without actual concrete action will make it more likely that those 70% do not vote. 

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

I see you stopped changing your name.  Allow me to suggest a new one:  KalEngine.  As in the little engine that can't.  "I think I can't, I think I can't, I think I can't...."

Oh man, that's so lame. This is making me rethink the prophecy.