Tuesday, April 14, 2026

WTF did Donald get us into?

 So, I just saw this Kyle Kulinski clip talking about the Iran war, and how this is representing a major geopolitical shift in the world that is showing the weakness of the US to the rest of the world, as well as possibly the ascent of Iran as a minor world power. 

And...idk, I've been thinking about something along these lines recently too. I don't know, at this stage of the game, how we can reasonably back out of this Iran war. Iran is throwing demands around. We can't realistically meet a lot of the demands without great costs to ourselves and the world economy. And uh, if they dont wanna back down and sign for peace without the demands, then that means we're gonna have to fight them. And while I have no doubt we CAN beat them in an outright slug match, it's not a fight I'd want to take on. It's a lot like NCR beating Mr. House. Sure, if the NCR was fully dedicated to going to war with Mr. House in New Vegas, it could win, but House's strategy was to make doing so costly enough where the NCR wouldn't want to, and then he uses that fact to get concessions out of the NCR. What I'm saying is that we're NCR and Iran is Mr. House here. 

We could invade and occupy Iran, but it's a country 4x as large as Iraq or Afghanistan, with a decentralized government at this point. We can't open the Strait of Hormuz without overwhelming military force that would lead to lots of casualties for us. Iran wants to charge ships to go through so that they can get like half a trillion every year in tax revenue for basically owning a toll road, which goes against the principles of the current global economy. Trump knows this, which is why he's melting down. He just wanted to go in, break some things, declare victory, and get out, but now we're stuck in a quagmire. And yeah. It's like we're screwed. 

if we fight the war, we might start drafting people to get the manpower. That's gonna be very costly in terms of lives and dollars, but it might also ensure that Trump loses by supermajority numbers. If he does peace, it's gonna involve making concessions to Iran, which will empower them and weaken us. And yeah, he opened Pandora's box with this war. This was a monumentally stupid decision. And our military itself is governed by absolute morons. Trump wanted "Hitler's Generals", and he got them. He got brown nosers like Pete Kegsbreath running everything and they have NO FRICKING CLUE what they're doing. None at all. His attempts to install mindlessly loyal people has caused massive brain drain, and we're losing expertise like crazy. Of course, anyone sane would've told him not to go to war in the first place, but this is Trump we're talking about. He's the twitter reel president. He wants to see cool videos of things blowing up to post on truth social at 2 AM. And that's how we got here...

I really don't know what the answer is. All I hope is Iran chills a bit by the time we get the next administration in, and they can offer some compromises to make them happy, while helping us maintain power. I wouldn't be opposed to, for example, normalizing relations with them, apologizing for past misconduct, and maybe some reasonable level of reparations. But some of these demands are just...no gos. Like, they're asking too much, and their demands aren't fully reasonable.  We're never gonna close down all military bases in the middle east, we're not gonna go along with their toll idea, while we can normalize relationships now, I suspect a future republican administration would tear it up again since the moron problem goes well beyond trump on that side of the aisle. And...uh...yeah. Trump just completely and utterly screwed us. This isn't good. 

Monday, April 13, 2026

Discussing AOC and purity testing

 Mmmm, leftist infighting controversy....

 So it seems like AOC is kinda reluctant to do a 2028 run because of leftist infighting and purity testing and feeling like the left doesn't really have her back. And I kinda get that. She gets A LOT of open hostility from leftists, and even I ain't afraid to throw down with her on ideology at times (although I do that with everyone). 

But unlike with me, she gets a lot of confrontation DIRECTLY. like people showing up to her town hall calling her a sell out. Her getting in an online spat with Ana Kasperian recently, which is what I think triggered this, and Ana today reacting to this by being overtly hostile

As far as Ana goes, I'm just gonna tell her to chill TF out. It's fine to have policy and ideological disagreements with her. But honestly, I'm over the far left's Israel-Palestine purity testing. THey're just not gonna let go that she voted for the Iron Dome funding that one time. And for me, who cares. Again, my own take is that I generally dont care about israel, I'm only caring more now because they're costing us elections and inserting themselves into our foreign policy to an uncomfortable degree and I'd kinda like them to F off. But yeah. I dont really side with israel, I dont really side with palestine. I recognize both factions are genocidal religious maniacs, and while I did see Israel as a lesser evil in a "Tenpenny in Tenpenny Tower" kind of way (with the palestinians being Roy Phillips, yeah I'm on a roll with fallout comparisons today), honestly, their recent actions have cost them reputation/karma with me to put it in a fallout kind of way and they're now "shunned" by me if that makes sense. But a lot of leftists are far more fanatical than me over it, and while Ana and TYT are often more moderate and reasonable these days, chastising the "max left" for purity tests on other issues, man, they turn into the Max Left on palestine. Really, they do. 

Honestly, i think it's easier for me to accept AOC's voting on the topic. I mean, i dont have strong opinions on the topic, and Im only dragged kicking and screaming to develop stronger opinions because Israel is interfering with our politics in ways I view negative and dragging us into unproductive forever wars I want nothing to do with. I dont care if she funded the iron dome, and prior to the last 2-3 years, I'd be more sympathetic toward them.  It's like whatever. 

Now, that's not to say I don't have disagreements. I was VERY critical of her in 2024 when she did the whole "work had dignity" crap in promoting a harris presidency. I still stand by that and think it is a black mark against her, but to be fair my own politics are niche enough I have trouble finding anyone I'm NOT gonna chastise on THAT one, so...whatever.

And that's...at the end of the day, how I view 2028. Sure, I'd like someone better than AOC, but who? Who is in a position to run? Who is gonna have the right ideals? The right ideology? The only one who comes to mind is Andrew yang, and he's horribly flawed in other ways. 

I mean, if the democrats are NCR, then AOC is at least the version of the NCR I would probably be more sympathetic to than house. Because she aint perfect, but she wants to do SOME good, and at least she's not entirely fricking useless. I understand that politicians in office kind of have to make decisions and sometimes these decisions are sub optimal or dont make everyone happy. But at the end of the day, the real question is, do they do a good enough job to keep supporting? 

When I look at a 2028 AOC run, I have to ask, okay, if not her, then who? And that's the thing about AOC. She's one of the best positioned people to run. She has the best progressive credentials just about of anyone running, and we can criticize her for the next 2.5 years, but at the end of the day, do you have someone better? And for me, I dont care about israel/palestine, so that doesnt motivate me. Again, my big thing is UBI and moving away from this dumb work fetishization thing we got going. And AOC aint gonna deliver THAT, but she's gonna do a lot of good. Sometimes you gotta support what's available, and if you dont like your options, maybe run yourself. I probably wont do that because hey, I cant see myself having the mental fortitude to put up with the rigors of campaigning and governing, so I just pick fights from the sidelines, but hey, at least Im honest about it, and at least I'm willing to say "okay, this is the next best thing" when I dont get what I want.

AOC is the "next best thing" right now. Again, anyone have a problem with her, name someone better. If they're someone I find agreeable, I'll support them. I mean, we could argue Ro Khanna. We can argue Andrew yang. I know I saw some dude on reddit asking policy advice recently who was thinking of running on FDR's economic bill of rights (they were for UBI but seemed to drop it which disappointed me). I mean....again. At the end of the day, we gotta find someone and push for them. They might not be everything we want. We're ALL making sacrifices here. And if I can put aside whatever grievances I have over work fetishization to support AOC...well....the way I see it, leftists should suck it up about palestine. 

I know, I know, democracy belongs to the voters, we can't force people to support AOC, but then on a personal level, I'll say this. if you get TOO obnoxiously purity testy, you're never gonna find anyone, youre never gonna be happy, and no one is ever gonna try to appeal to you or listen to you ever. You're kinda giving more ammo to the centrist wing of the party that suggests ignoring leftists because they're never satisfied and instead tries to appeal to suburban moderates. 

So...your choice. As I see it, given the alternatives to AOC right now are the likes of harris, buttigieg, or newsom....come on, can we all admit that AOC is worlds better here? She's probably the best shot progressives have, even if she's not all things to all people all at once.  

Discussing NCR vs Mr House again (Vegas Factions Part 2)

 So...I decided to start a new vegas playthrough after a friend of mine started playing the game. And this time, I wanna do things a bit differently. Last time we discussed this topic, we eliminated two of the factions as the best new vegas had to offer, but I was still rather mixed on the other two, and still am conflicted. We can agree, the Legion is too grotesque to be a good faction. And while I'm typically a left libertarian "Yes man" ending type...well...we kinda saw the consequences of that outcome in the TV show. And it didnt end well. The strip was unable to defend itself from a deathclaw attack as it seemed like House's securiton army seemed to disappear. And that's the problem with the Yes man ending. The courier had no interest in governing, he kinda just screwed off after the credits of New Vegas, leaving the region in a state of disarray. Yes man went offline, and the securitron army just...never did anything to do the bare minimum to keep order.

Mr House 

With that said, in this play through, we're left with the other two factions to choose between. Mr House and NCR. Both factions represent competing ideologies. Mr House is basically the ideal right libertarian. Vegas is his little homestead, his "property." He maintains his own monopoly on force in defending it. He does F all for the people of vegas, but he does largely leave them alone. Some would argue he did go out and kill other factions that got in his way. But...they also got in his way. A lot of people hate him because he refused to sign a peace deal with the BoS, but the BoS is itself a techno-fascist organization that believes technology is dangerous and no one should have it but them. And given Mr House wields a huge robot army, well, you can see the conflict. And people also hate him for killing off the kings in some of the endings, but let's face it, the kings are basically a raider gang who themselves kinda strike me the wrong way. Like they're like "this water pump is property of the king." Like, who tf put you in charge? You could also ask, who put house in charge, but he was there since before the war, and he did save vegas from annhilation.

A lot of criticism of house also comes from the fact that he recruited the 3 families and those guys are themselves raider gangs. But...to be fair, after having conversations with him in game about it, it was a power play. He needed their muscle to offset NCR aggression, given the NCR is...well....not very nice either all things considered. I'll get to them. But yeah, there is a negative there. The white gloves are cannibals. The omertas are mobsters who do a lot of prostitution and sex trafficking. The chairmen of the tops are pretty decent though in my book. Probably the most family friendly casino on the strip. But yeah, they're not angels, and mr house knows that. He just made do with the people at his disposal, which were a bunch of raider gangs who he "civilized" somewhat. Sometimes a lot of our discussions of power are wrapped up in the language of "civilized vs uncivilized." It's easy to bash the "uncivilized", but to give a pass to the "civilized." While I would argue there can be a moral difference at times, as the "civilized" tend to have political theory to somewhat justify their claims, the uncivilized tend to be far more up front. It really does keep coming down to starfield's emissary or hunter. One tends to rely on pretexts and the other relies on just force. IN this case, both Mr House and NCR are emissaries of their own choosing, with their own vision. One with their ideas rooted in old world democracy, and the other in basically being a right libertarian 23rd century equivalent of seasteading.

In a way, Mr House is attractive to me given my libertarian leanings. Back when I played the game for the first time, i WAS a right libertarian. Now I'm a left libertarian, but yeah, that libertarian streak is kinda vibing with house again if the yes man ending is truly a bad option. Because he's the minarchist option. He's the dude who establishes his property, and otherwise leaves you alone. He's not interested in governing the affairs of peoples' lives, just in ruling the strip, making money off of the NCR, who he sees as his customers, and ultimately, bringing back technology and exploring the stars. But otherwise he leaves you alone. And it's kinda like the yes man ending, but this guy rules his little area and as long as you dont interfere, he's not likely to bug you. Sure, he represents capitalism's excesses at times. He's the "job creator" who "saves" people from poverty by offering them work and caps and luxuries, but without him, there are no luxuries. In a way, his vision for society is one where his anarcho capitalism basically works and stands out from the blight of the rest of the wasteland.

And unlike actual capitalism, it's not really forced on everyone. Like, I kinda have to consider like, Widerquist's big casino here. Ya know, we heard the story, what if nevada as a "big casino" full of small casinos and you HAVE to participate in the "big casino" in some form, because they occupy all land. That's the source of unfreedom in modern day society. Capitalism was a system imposed on us where everyone had to work, and cant even go anywhere where the system isnt implemented. With mr house, you dont have a "big casino" that spans the entire mojave. You have a "small casino" that you can ignore if you dont like it. Its existence is a net positive over its nonexistence. I mean, omertas suck, but would you rather deathclaws occupying gomorrah as shown in the TV show? Yeah...

Now, there's one final issue here we should discuss before moving onto the NCR and that's the fact that...this guy is somewhat amenable to NCR existing. He has no huge quarrel with the NCR, he just wants to be the top dog in the region as far as force goes. He sees NCR as his customers. And sure, he is kinda predatory in that regard, securing hoover dam and charging high rates for water and power, but he also needs the power for his strip as well. And we saw how well house fared when he had no power. Remember how in the show he needed cold fusion to power himself again? Yeah...

And that's also another thing. In the show he was kinda scummy as well with the nueralink type stuff (hello elon musk comparison), but he also was very interested in saving humanity from the bombs, and he IS really intelligent. Even if taken out of the picture, he's not really dead because he digitized himself as a contingency. Dude really is a genius who thinks of everything. So idk. I mean, Mr House aint perfect, none of the factions are. People accuse him of being a despot, but he's also kinda just homesteading the vegas strip and controlling hoover dam, doing stuff with it, and mostly leaving everyone else alone. He doesnt help them, sure, but unless youre a threat to him, he's not inclined to hurt you either. He's as close to a yes man ending that you're gonna get, without the actual downsides of the yes man ending. He kinda represents the status quo as shown in the game. NCR to the west, legion to the east, he serves as a buffer zone while being somewhat amenable to the NCR and liking them as customers. But yeah. Just a business guy who wants to do his own thing. He does the bare minimum to keep order around the strip. But otherwise leaves people alone. Again, he's not Widerquist's "big casino", he's a "little casino", and if you dont like his rules, go LITERALLY ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WASTELAND. I mean, in his ending, it's open. You can go to goodsprings, primm, novac, etc and he's likely to leave you alone. Quite frankly, if I weren't mr house's super special employee, I'd probably just live in novac if I were in the new vegas universe. 

 NCR

 So...this brings us to the NCR. And...idk, the NCR is a faction I WANNA like, but I DONT like. Basically, they're trying to bring back old world law and order to the wasteland. They're democratic, they have human rights. What bring law and order, I mean, what's not to like? A lot...actually...

The NCR is basically the strongest endorsement of Ronald Reagan's words about big government. Government doesn't work, the worst words in the english language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." The NCR is deeply flawed. it's very bureaucratic. it's very inept, and the fact that they need a courier's help at all is, IMO, a great stain on their reputation. When you deal with the NCR, you kinda have to do EVERYTHING for them. Powder gangers on the loose? Well we cant stop them, we're spread too thin. But gee, you can do it if you want, we'll pay you. Btw, can we just talk about the powder gangers for a sec? These guys are NCR convicts bought into Eastern California/Western Nevada to be like a chain gang working in the quarry junction area to mine stuff for the NCR. So basically, it is slave labor, but to be fair, it's after conviction for a crime. And let's face it, we have that in our real world too (see the 13th amendment...). But yeah, they get free, start running rampant, and they can't do F all to stop the powder gangers. So they bring these prisoners in, but can't do anything to stop them when they break out. So they terrorize the wasteland, causing problems for goodsprings and primm. So much for making the roads safe....

Like, seriously. You had ONE JOB. And that's why I kinda hate the NCR even if I vibe with their ideals in the real world. They are SO hopelessly incompetent. They cant do anything, they need to hire the courier as an outsider "independent contractor" so to speak just to make the system work, because they're drowning in their own bureaucracies and ineptitude. I havent done EVERYTHING with the NCR this play through. but here's a list of things that I have.

I had to investigate Nipton because the soldiers had orders to stay at their little I15 gateway in the south west of the map. 

I had to fix their helios one power plant issue because they hired a guy with "a theoretical degree in physics" who has no idea what he's doing. 

I had to basically attack nelson by myself, which was easy enough. Sure they give you 3 guys, but because I just went in there and massacred all the legion people because the legion declared war on me, it was easy enough. 

I had to deal with the boomers, the kings, the great khans. Btw, more in the khans later when I wax about libertarian political philosophy later and the whole big vs small casino distinction. 

I mean, I gotta do EVERYTHING for these people. Because all their people are subject to crappy rules that dont work, and I'm not. Im an outsider who does whatever I want. And I get results. Unlike them...and their rules...and bureaucracies. I mean, Mr House needs you too, but hes 200 years old and obviously cant do everything with robots, so what's their excuse? They got people, but they can't do like ANYTHING for themselves.

And idk. I guess that's the BIG reason I'm left with a bad taste in my mouth whenever i play new vegas. They are so inept they can't even deliver on the basic premises that justify their existence, namely, security. Even if i wanna sympathize with them, it's like, they're just so F-ed up I can't. And given the history of the mojave diverges from the IRL world in a lot of ways...idk. Im not as sympathetic to them.

Like...to go into more theory now...if we trace the history of states, we basically have a long history of tribes turning into civilizations, the civilizations being evil and imperialistic, and then, over time, reforming themselves through democracies and rights and the rule of law stuff to be better. It's an iterative process, and in my real world politics, I'm working from the current point in time with the current issues. As I always say, I feel like we're stuck in an era where we have an "old book" problem, and my 21st century vision is intended to be an iterative shift toward something better.

But...let's face it, nuclear apocalypse throws everything out the window and you kinda need a new book just for that. The NCR is an attempt to resurrect the old world, but is the old world was is really needed? In the TV show, lucy put it like this, one side (the legion) is raping and murdering people, and the other is "vaguely problematic." And I get that if you're choosing between a duopoly, the NCR is better, but there are FOUR options in new vegas, not 2. And keep in mind, I hate just voting for lesser evils I dont vibe with. I might do it in the real world because the republican party is literally turning into some weird mix of mr house's worst elements and the legion, and the democrats are well...they're NCR....but as you know, I HATE the democrats. And likewise, I'd only support a faction as bad as the NCR if I had no other choice. Like if it was them, or the legion, I'd go for them. But because third options are possible, I'm weighing them instead.

At this point, after seeing how a truly independent new vegas went, I'd be inclined to support NCR over that. So they're in the top 2. But are they really better than Mr House?

I mean, in theory, they provide more stability. They're democratic. But they're also imperialistic. They are clearly overextended, leading to the problems they regularly have. Im not sure they can properly hold the new vegas area based on their state in the game. I mean, again, they're failing to provide security. But they still want their taxes I take it.

And that's the thing. A lot of the vaguely problematic stuff comes from taxes and just...their expansionist nature. While in the game, people often vote to be protected by the NCR (see primm), it's far from the only choice. You can find different forms of law from others if you want too. Again, it seems like most people in new vegas are just useless without the courier. Like you gotta do everything for everyone. I guess that's the point of an RPG, but yeah, we see how far this can go with like the minutemen in 4 too. "Another settlement needs your help." Yeah. I refuse to even do anything with the minutemen after my first play through because of that stuff. 

Idk. Anyway...back to the expansionism. There's an argument that the NCR is just as bad as the other factions but they justify it with their grand old world moral theories. When you play as them, youre acting like a CIA hitman just taking out anyone who threatens their power, just like mr house. They care little about the feelings of some who oppose them in their territory. I aint even talking full blown raider gangs, but also the more grey area ones like the great khans. Remember bitter springs? yeah. Of course, bitter springs was somewhat justified because, again, raider gang, but yeah. Idk. It kind of serves as a talking point. As moral as the NCR portrays themselves, they're just as thuggish as anyone else push comes to shove and really lack the moral high ground.

And a big issue I have is they ARE the big casino. If they take over the mojave, it's gonna be annexed. Everyone is gonna have to pay taxes, get jobs, they're gonna adjudicate who gets what, and they'll use legal violence to do so. Ultimately, the wasteland will become civilized, with no part of it left untouched. And then everyone will be subjected to their bureaucracy.

And honestly, that's a question I have to ask, do I want to bring the old world back, given how flawed this iteration of it is? Idk. I mean, again, in the real world, a lot of my views on democracy and rule of law are from my socialization. I legitimately believe that stuff regardless, but I am aware of the flaws. And I also am aware of our history as a species. Im aware that to get to this point, we had to genocide the native americans, enslave black people. Conquest. Enslavement. That's ultimately our legacy. We call ourselves civilized now, and we tend to retroactively apply these ideals that work within our current context to the past. But honestly, if I lived in the distant past, I could see myself opposing "civilization." I wouldnt want the rules, the bureaucracy, the coercion to work, especially if I lived in an alternative tribal society that was just socialized differently. So idk. Again, NCR is the BIG casino from widerquist's analogy, not the SMALL casino. The difference being the ability to escape and live a different way, as opposed to a system in which we all live the same way. 

So idk. Maybe I just find the idea of bringing back the old world in the fallout world to be unattractive? And then as a courier who does have all this agency, and watches all the NPCs have none, I start developing more conservative attitudes of "I can make something of myself, why can't you?" And that's part of it too. My life experiences in my current life make me liberal, living in a more "late stage" civilized world where government is a certainty, it's just a matter of what we get and what it looks like. Given that certainty, I'm fine with advocating for a system where we all have a say in how we're ruled and we're all given both economic and physical security that allows us to pursue our own happiness. Im fine with pushing my ideals from within civilization and government. 

But that's not the fallout world. And given choosing the NCR is totally voluntary, and given how the legion is NOT the only alternative, idk. Again, maybe if the NCR wasn't so F-ed up, I would be more sympathetic to them. But all I'm seeing is all of the burdens that come with civilization, and none of the benefits. if we could argue that the NCR made people safer that would be one thing. but they very much don't. And given the burdens of civilization, well, sometimes that can put people in dangerous situations too. We love to ignore state violence via compulsion in these instances. Someone has to be patrolling the mojave. Someone has to fight the legion. Someone has to clear out quarry junction. And if it isnt you, it's gonna be a bunch of people who are just ordered to their deaths. I mean, if you listen to the people in the NCR the whole game, there's a lot of complaints. A lot of low morale. A lot of talk about how they fear dying. A lot of suicidal ideation. These guys are NOT okay. And maybe defeating the legion will restore morale and things will get better. Idk. To me it seems like their internal contradictions are so great that idk, whatever benefits they purport to have just ain't it. 

Decision time

This brings me to the final point: NCR or House? Last time I leaned NCR based on democracy and rule of law vs libertarian autocracy, but after replaying the game, and really thinking about it, I REALLY dont like the NCR. I mean, again, I'm a yes man guy at heart, I support an independent vegas, but I also want a tad more security than the independent vegas would offer. Basically, I would rather have a status quo than a revolutionary change to the wasteland. On paper, the NCR should be the best faction, but idk, they're just so unlikeable, and in this environment, I kinda operate closer to my previous right wing conservative ideals of small government and minarchy rather than supporting the big bloated and ineffective government of the NCR. While real world circumstances shifted me left in the real world, in the video game universe, you can see me reverting to more conservative thinking here. Like, ya know, thinking a real world elon musk is preferable to a corrupt and inept government. But again, it's just how exaggeratedly bad the NCR really is here that puts me off I think. Like it's all the faults of a bloated and inept government, and not even the most basic of benefits. Again, they cant even keep the roads safe from raiders in their own territory. They just let the legion and powder gangers run amok. Idk. Honestly, if I dont feel like I'm getting anything out of government, what's the point of it existing? And the courier definitely needs no government. The whole point of the courier is he's the main character who isnt subject to the NCR's rules and has the flexibility to do everything for them.

Heck, that's the whole point of you being the pivotal variable in deciding who controls vegas. All of the factions have their faults, and all are bogged down in their own respective ways. It literally just takes a guy who puts his mind to something and isnt subject to those same limitations to make it happen. And that's you, the main character. 

I guess, in a way, it's the way new vegas is written that makes me feel so negatively about NCR then. I mean, yeah, they're better than the legion, but that's like saying the democrats are better than republicans, and i HATE the democrats. And just because one option is bad, doesnt mean the other is good. The NCR is, very much, a lesser evil in a dualistic kinda way. And that's my response to lucy and her "vaguely problematic" line. Yeah, in a vacuum, the NCR is superior to the people who wanna rape, enslave, and murder everyone horribly. That's not saying much though. That's the bare minimum. If legion control was a certainty and supporting a "third party" was "throwing away our vote", and it really did come down to me, yeah, NCR I guess. Kinda like trump's fascism is making me HAVE to support the dems, whether I like them or not (I really, REALLY don't). 

But....with house being a viable third option? And my previous third option (none of the above, anarchy) not being viable because of the problematic implications in the TV show....yeah, I'd give Mr House a chance I think. He's mostly interested in just turning vegas into his little ancap corporate micro state and has few ambitions beyond it. And he actually does promise to use his rule to do good like bring back civilization in his own ways, while mostly leaving people alone. I aint saying he's perfect. He's not. As others have pointed out, the game is written where there isnt an easy good ending. And outside of legion, which is the definite bad option, the others are relative. And until recently, yes man seemed decent too. 

So idk. I think I'll go with Mr House as the best of the three options. I feel like if he remained in control of the strip, the worst aspects of the TV show's yes man ending would've been avoided, without changing much else. And who knows, given the other pre war elements at work like the enclave, he could be a useful ally, since house IS thinking much bigger than most people would. Even the courier. And he IS aware of the pre war world and the likes of the enclave and could serve as a useful future buffer not just against legion and NCR expansionism, but also the enclave doing crap too. House is smart in that regard. I mean, he would fight anyone who threatened him or vegas. And is he enclave decided to mess with him, he would go to war against the enclave, and while i doubt he could win on his own, by being able to rout both the NCR and legion, he shows that he's willing to put up a fight.

Maybe a House victory here isn't eternal. Maybe it would give the NCR the punch in the nose they need to improve over 20 years where by the time the TV show happens, he can work with the NCR against the enclave. After all, he's not inherently hostile to NCR existing. he just wants to remain in control of the mojave and not have to be subjected to their bureaucratic nonsense. As he would say, "why would i hate the NCR, they're my best customers!" So yeah. Idk. I think I'll go house this time. Back to my 2010 thinking again...

How much should a next gen console cost?

 So...again. I honestly think gaming is at a crisis point in terms of pricing. Underlying this crisis point is the death of affordable computing, and the destruction of the low end market over the past few years. It's what's driving the whole "peak gaming" thing I mentioned. Again, it's like peak oil, but for gaming. With peak oil, basically, oil production fails to keep up with rising demand due to supply limitations, driving up cost. Kinda like now, but less "Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz" and more "we literally can't get enough out of the ground to sustain economic growth at the rate we used to in the past." In a sane economy, we would simply grow less, and use the period of stagnation to reorient our society away from growth toward other optimizations like working less, having a better distribution of wealth, etc. Ya know, those good old humanistic capitalist ideals that I support on this blog.

But...ideological capitalism is like a mental illness. It thinks infinite growth on a finite planet is possible, and keeps trying to push boundaries, even though the boundaries are very clearly pushing back with obvious price signals suggesting that this isn't sustainable. This is the crisis we face now, as we seem to be expecting a new generation of consoles soon despite the hardware that powers a PS5 or Xbox Series X being relatively expensive, and actually getting more expensive. Normally during a console's lifespan, price goes DOWN. A console releases at, say, $500, it goes down to like $250 or even less by the time it reaches the end of its lifespan. These days the opposite is happening. The PS5 is going UP to $650. The 10 year old switch 1 is going UP to $330. The Xbox Series X has already gone UP to around $600-650 too. And then there's talk of them releasing new consoles NEXT YEAR. 

Honestly, with RAMpocalypse causing hardware prices to go wild, and with it spiraling out to affect GPUs, SSDs, etc., I don't even wanna HEAR about a next gen console next year. There is debate over release, some suggest we're still on for 2027, although some suggest a later 2028-2030 time window to allow this current crisis to blow over, which I think is wise. I mean, with tech advancing so slowly, and with it being so expensive, I don't think think it's economically realistic to release a next gen console any time soon. Because let's face it. Let's discuss what, barring RAMpocalypse, the prices should be for a console.

Nintendo

Nintendo already released their next gen console, the switch 2, at $450. I consider this eyewatering given Nintendo is the "cheap" option. I mean, historically, they've charged $200-300, even well into the modern era. And while you get worse hardware, that's to be expected. People who buy Nintendo should know what they get: an underpowered console that's cheap, has great first party support, but poor third party support due to the specs disparity with the other consoles. I mean, if we go by inflation calculator, here are some suggested price points:

Gamecube- $200 ($373)

GBA-  $100 ($186)

DS- $150 ($262)

Wii- $250 ($409)

3DS- $170 (going by discount since it sold poorly at $250) ($250)

Wii U-  $300 (once again going by discount) ($431)

Switch- $300 ($404)

Obviously, I'd prefer to keep the price lower, but honestly, it looks like if you go handheld, the highest acceptable price is around $250, and for a console, around $400. At $450, the switch 2 is a little overpriced. I'd honestly prefer to keep it lower, especially given it IS a handheld more or less, albeit a clunky one. Speaking of which a huge criticism I have of the switch 2 is that it is basically like both a weak and underpowered console AND a big, bulky, overpriced handheld. It's trying to do both, it does them poorly, and yeah, huge reason I'm not a fan. I'd rather see a $250 handheld, or a $400 console. Not a $450-500 hybrid. But I digress. 

With that said, let's focus on the other consoles.

Playstation and Xbox

So let's go by the pricing over the past few generations.

Playstation 2- $300 ($575)

Xbox- $300 ($560)

Playstation 3- $600 (overpriced)- $982

Xbox 360- $400 ($676)

Playstation 4- $400 ($567)

Xbox One X- $500 ($708)

Playstation 5- $500 ($637)

Xbox One X- $500 ($637)

Xbox One S-  $300 ($382)

All in all, even with inflation, the MAXIMUM we can realistically sustain is a $700 next gen console. That's the MAXIMUM suggested price. I'd probably be more inclined to go $600-650. 

But...again, this is what CURRENT GEN HARDWARE still costs. And it's only gone up.

We're seeing talk of the equivalent steam machine being close to $900-1000, and that was before RAMpocalypse. And that thing has around PS5/Xbox Series X capabilities. 

I mean, to build a similar PC, we're talking around $1k, even before RAMpocalypse, we were still talking around $700-800 or so. 

How the everloving fudge are we gonna be seeing next gen consoles next year at an affordable price? And what are PC gamers like myself gonna have to pay to play on par with these machines? It literally took 2-3 years into the current gen's hardware cycle just for prices to normalize from COVID.  

Honestly, again, if the market was sane, I'd just suggest putting it off a few years. Currently, to get an equivalent PS5/Xbox Series X level GPU, it costs around $300 by itself. That's what a 5050 costs right now. Alternatively you can buy a 6650 XT which is...quite literally, about what's in the PS5 exactly. And those are the cheapest GPUs worth buying in the current market. You can maybe get by with a cheaper 3050, but the 3050 quite frankly sucks and is worse than current gen consoles. 

RAM, 16 GB is currently like $200 and 32 GB is like $400. This is why current gen is getting more expensive. Are we really gonna be pushing for an upgrade to what exists in the current market?

Thankfully, a console like CPU is cheap AF, i mean, something like a ryzen 5500 for like $100 probably does the job. But given the platform costs associated with it, that's where the money is.

And next gen is apparently supposed to use like a 12 core X3D CPU so i'm imagining like a 9900 X3D or something, something most PC gamers dont have. The GPU is expected to be 3x the PS5's, so...let's go 3x a 6650 XT. We're talking something like a 5080 or 4090 here. That's a fricking $1k+ card by itself. 

Again, is it just me, or is this BANANAS?!

Like wtf, how can we actually sustain a next gen console price wise? The current generation has 6 year old hardware, and the price has gone UP to what a next gen console should cost, not DOWN. 6 years into a console's lifespan, they should be practically giving these things away for $250, while being able to replicate a console 6-8x as powerful as the previous one's at the previous one's general MSRP. That's the pattern of growth we saw in the past.

But again, things aren't growing like in the past. We've hit a wall. We've hit "peak gaming" or "peak computing" or whatever you wanna call it. And these nutcases keep trying to push boundaries further. Oh, we need BETTER games, that require BETTER (more expensive hardware to run), are MORE EXPENSIVE to make, TAKE LONGER due to the complexity involved, and probably COST MORE too. And, because of the income disparity in this country, someone will pay it. This consumerist society of ours is falling apart at the seams. I mean, we call it the K shaped economy, but let's talk about what that means. It means the wealthy are doing very well, and everyone else isn't. And that's the problem. We used to have the middle class be the main consumers of these goods and services. Consoles would be the envy of every middle class household. But let's talk about what middle class was always like.

It meant having ONE of the two to four competitors' consoles. Maybe one handheld. And you'd get maybe 10-15 games over the lifespan of a console. That's what life was like for most of us gamers growing up. And then, in the late 2000s/early 2010s, stuff became increasingly affordable to some degree, but now it's getting more expensive in the 2020s, where we're regressing back to the 90s and earlier when gaming was a lot more exclusive and increasingly a more upper class thing. And yeah. 

Anyway, I wanted to make this because I ran into the "but but inflation" morons again online, and wanted to actually explain my thoughts on it. As it stands, I really would rather see the current generation be extended a few more years. Maybe even to 2030, depending on how things go. We're NOT in a good state for a next gen console. Current gen hardware has NEVER gone down in price, and the next generation is inevitably just going to be more expensive outright.

I think...in the current environment, the next generation should cost around as much as what the current gen does NOW. So...we're talking $650ish for a PS6 or Xbox 5, and I think the switch 2 should go down to around $400ish. 

If we release a next gen console for $1000, it's LITERALLY gonna be "$599 US dollars" all over again. Those of us who are in our 30s and gamers will know what I'm referencing there (PS3, E3, 2006...the price flopped, to say the least, and it drove people to xbox instead). And yeah, with inflation, that's what it is. That $400 price point back then is closer to $600-700 now. And yeah. I say, no more than $700. And ideally, I'd like to see $600-650ish. 

And keep in mind, I'm not a console gamer myself, but as a PC gamer who tends to upgrade my hardware generally once a console generation, and who generally likes to target at least that gen's hardware, if not a bit above it to account for optimization, I gotta be able to build affordably. 

CPU wise....well CPUs arent bad, but a 12 core zen 6 X3D CPU is gonna be pushing it. That's probably $450 minimum given what the 9800X3D costs now. RAM....don't even go there, but hypothetically let's say I can reuse my 32 GB DDR5 for that. Okay. 

GPU wise...again....that's the kicker. How the everloving fudge is a 40 Tflop GPU gonna be affordable to average consumers given a 12 Tflop PS5 tier GPU STILL costs $300? I mean, this is just unworkable. Even before RAMpocalypse, $300 was like....a 5060 which is 50% more performance. Maybe for $400 you could get a 9060 XT with 16 GB RAM. But yeah. Even that's kinda pushing boundaries on price.

Honestly, I say, let it ride. Current gen is fine. Let it ride until 2030ish. We used to release consoles every 4-5 years. Now even 7 is seeming too short. I welcome a 10 year console standard. It's the only way we can account for the market as it is without just being like "lol F middle class consumers, let's release something only rich people can buy." 

Saturday, April 11, 2026

Reminder: the idea that our social contract works as expected is the bare minimum

 So, this is somewhat related to the topic yesterday about AIPAC and the democrats being moderate wimps. Vaush also had a few segments on this, and on this, I'm mostly responding to the section where Elissa Slotkin was speaking and Vaush was dunking on her. This is more economic in nature. Basically, Slotkin didn't come off too bad here, for a democrat I mean, but I have relatively low expectations of democrats. Vaush came out swinging though, and he was dunking on her for pushing the same old liberal BS and stuff. 

I mean, I get it, but....democrats be democrats, right? I like vaush starting to sound like past me on this. I'm only more moderate sounding because...again...with the bar being so low it's literally "just stop the fascism" at this point, I'm kind of looking the other way on stuff. But I did want to reiterate a point I made in a few other posts over the years.

Liberals have this idea of a social contract. They think, well, you put in the time and work the appropriate number of hours a week, and we'll make sure you're taken care of. We act like this is a super progressive position given the alternative in recent decades is basically "we dont care how much to work, if you don't earn enough to live then screw you, have you tried not being poor?" And no, given the touchy political environment, I'm not gonna touch the warehouse fire guy. I mean, I don't support that sort of crap obviously. But I do think, when that bare minimum isn't met, then, well, people sometimes radicalize and that's how you get ACTUAL terrorists. Just an FYI to any FBI agents who might be reading this because I'm on Trump's NSPM-7 craplist. You might wanna focus on like, ACTUAL terrorists here. Not just watching anyone who dares speak out against das fuhrer like you're the pre crime division from the minority report. Ya know, I actually studied criminology before, right? Yeah...so I feel justified in giving an opinion here. If you care about terrorism, go after actual terrorists, not just random people who dare express their political opinions on the internet. 

Anyway, I don't endorse that guy. But I do want to talk about this liberal social contract thing. So...liberals have this idea of a social contract. You work, you get taken care of. Much better than, you work, and screw you anyway, but yeah. Again, it's kind of the bare minimum position, ya know? I mean, you put in the time, you get the benefits back and can afford a comfortable life. If anything, it's a bit quaint at this point. People might wonder, well, what do you suggest, we just give people stuff for not working? ....yes?

I mean, here's my argument. if it's absolutely essential for people to be working all of the time, that's one thing. But, we literally have an economic where the main political debate for most of my life has been "creating jobs." like, we literally talk about creating work and coming up for stuff for people to do, so they can earn a paycheck. Why? because we always did things that way and you dont want free stuff do you? Like, liberals do that a lot. "We don't hate hard work." I do. "We don't want it easy." I do. "We want free stuff." I do! I mean, I'm tired of acting like these are radical statements. This job thing never appealed to me. It's always been like, "okay, if things HAVE to be this way for society to function, that's one thing." but for me, it feels almost 80s Sovietesque. ya know...."I pretend to work and they pretend to pay me"? Like the whole thing is just a farce we still do. It doesn't work, it never actually worked. FDR might've made it kinda sorta work as a huge band aid on capitalism to preserve the system, but as I know, we didn't have to go that way either. 

And that's the thing. As technology improves economic efficiency...maybe instead of obsessing over "job creation", we focus on, ya know, working less? or making work more voluntary? I mean, I've discussed all of this before. And given the K shaped economy, the fact that what Andrew Yang warned us about is happening, how our society seems to be coming apart at the seams...well...yeah. Maybe we need a new social contract for a new century. Maybe that involves UBI. Maybe it involves working less. Maybe both. Either way, I would agree, just insisting on the bare minimum social contract isn't good enough IMO. It's not gonna solve the problems we have. It's not gonna fix society. Maybe it will allow us to keep hobbling on while the fascists keep making ground, because let's face it, their rise to power is ANOTHER cry for help in this sick and dysfunctional society we're living in. But yeah.

Here's what I fear from the dems. We go into 2026 and 2028, win big simply due to being the opposition party. Then...we lose again in 2030 and 2032. And then the fascists come back. And they're worse next time. Because they're the real radical threat that this country is facing. They're the real terrorists. Ya know? And maybe they actually succeed in turning us into a dictatorship for good, putting political opposition in camps, yada yada.

So...my message for those running in 2028 in particular....we gotta do better. We gotta pull a new New Deal out of our butts here and FAST. our own "Project 2029" if you will, which yes, Slotkin talked about and I liked that language. But again, rather than just trying to restore this flawed and broken social contract...I say we write a new one that works with our modern reality. As I see it, the modern economy and the modern job is no longer working. Job creation aint working. Our idea of the economy is fundamentally broken. We gotta rewrite the rules entirely. This doesn't mean abolishing capitalism, fyi, just evolving it. UBI, shorter work weeks, those are still capitalism, just a new form of progressive capitalism centered around updating things for a new century. 

Or we can stick to the same old ideas and watch society sink like the Titanic, which is what the past 10 years have felt like to me. *puts on Celine Dion out of pure 90s nostalgia* 

What happened to the libertarians?

 So...this is a question someone asked, and it is a question that I think is worth discussing. I actually have a few theories myself. For the record, I'm talking RIGHT libertarians here. ya know, the Ron Paul stans who were popular around 2008-2012 but seem to have gotten far less active since then. Anyway, here's some ideas of mine.

1) They were never that big of a faction, just vocal

 If you look at the actual voting share of the population, libertarians typically were around 1% of all voters. At least the ones who voted for the libertarian party. Sure there might have been more libertarians within the republicans, but they've always been a minority. They were more vocal online, ya know, like UBI supporters like me, rather than a force to be reckoned with. 

That said, they arguably still exist. They still vote third party. Heck, they even ended up ruffling the feathers of Trumpers in 2020 when they lost, with some lobbing the same attacks the blue MAGA types lob at progressives and how they didn't fall in line and vote republican. And these guys would just be like "earn our votes." 

2) They aged out

Libertarianism has always been that kind of ideology that sounds nice in theory but doesnt work in practice. It's always appealed exclusively to like white conservative college students and as someone who WAS one of them, I very clearly left the movement after the Tea Party started taking over and I turned on all of conservatism. Speaking of which...

3) Another casualty of 2016

In a way, the final legacy of the libertarian movement of the 2000s and early 2010s was always the Tea party. It was about getting conservatives back to their roots. it was the whole Reagan idea of "government is the problem and markets are the solution" taken to an extreme and it always represented this more pure version of constitutional conservatism that was trendy at the time. Basically, libertarianism was a consequence of Reaganism, when Reaganism went out of style, so did libertarianism. So it only really made sense as a zeitgeist for the time, and society shifted, people moved on. 

4) They're MAGA now

Honestly, I think most of these guys just became MAGA. There's been talk of a libertarianism to fascism pipeline, and I think that this is actually a huge reason why they disappeared. A lot of these guys ALWAYS had a disdain for democracy. And they always, despite the name, had an authoritarian streak. And as they see it, the left threatens their "rights", and they are willing to use force and anti democratic measures to protect their rights. Basically, libertarians loop back around to supporting far right authoritarianism, which is why many of them ended up becoming monarchists, or fascists, or all kinds of weird loopy authoritarian types. And, as we're finding out in Trump's second term, with the likes of DOGE, the "dark enlightenment" people, the elon musk and palantir tech bro crap, smaller government often ends up just meaning returning to authoritarianism. 

5) Alternatively: they're "liberals" now

I think there's a smaller group of people who instead transitioned to liberalism. But unlike me, who actually became a liberal/left libertarian, they ended up becoming the Lincoln project types where they were displaced by the republican party's fascist takeover, and are making their way to the democrats as these weird moderate neocon types. There aren't many of them, but the democrats seem deadset on bringing over disaffected conservatives into the movement, and these guys are prime targets. So a lot of these guys might just call themselves "independents". They might be part of Lincoln Project or "Forward", and yeah, they're kinda taking over the democrats as well as they seem to kiss up to corporate moderates at the expensive of their left flank. 

I dont think there's many of them. but to be fair, there weren't that many libertarians to begin with. I mean, Ron Paul voters were always only like 5-10% of the republican base. And again, if most of them were absorbed back into the base and became MAGA, well, yeah, you're talking like minute amounts of voters here. 

6) What about me?

So...I WAS one of these guys once. To summarize my own political journey, I'll say this.

2004-2006ish- My fundie Christian days. Basically one of the Christian nationalist nuts who are still a huge part of the party.

2006-2007- Moderating due to going to college, become more libertarian.

2008-2010- Conservative/libertarian- Huge ron paul stan. Was also like a 20-22 year old college student at the time. 

2011-2012- Kinda realized something was wrong with conservatism as my entire worldview shifted from Christianity toward New Atheism. Caused me to become very progressive left.

2012-2014- Rebuilding my own ideology. Became a social libertarian. Think proto-Yang gang but with more populist/bernie impulses. 

2014-present- Been some version of that since. There's been moments where I've identified as more "leftist" (2017-2019 for example), there have been times I identified as more moderate, but ultimately, my views have mostly been my views. And if I go back and read what I wrote 10 years ago, I still agree with like 95% of it. I had SOME bad takes once in a while, but eh, at this point it's evolution and not revolution.

Given I AM a social libertarian, can I say my former libertarian phase had an impact in that? Sure. I mean, in a way, I'm still a libertarian, I just evolved. And I do think that some former libertarians were Yang gang in 2020. However, I also dont think this is most people. I honestly am most inclined to say that most of them probably became MAGA of some kind, or they still exist, they're just less vocal given the MAGA direction of the party. Like as a block I dont think they shrank much. I mean, in 2024 they seemed to lose like half to two thirds their normal supporters, but to be fair, third party votes ebb and flow depending on how tied people feel to the party duopoly, and to be fair, they also might've been RFK supporters this time around too. Ya know a lot of third party voters actually voted for RFK despite him dropping out and endorsing trump. Yeah....

So....I guess they're mostly MAGA? Yeah, they're probably mostly MAGA now. That's my final answer.  

Democrats have to shape up or we're gonna lose our democracy

 So this was covered by a few outlets, but TYT was the last one i watched so they get the citation. So...we gotta talk about Israel again. I know, I know, I hate discussing Israel, but they seem to be, for better or for worse, at the forefront of our politics, and have been burning bridges with democratic voters like myself in recent years. And this time, there was a vote among DNC people regarding accepting donations from PACS like AIPAC, and several potential 2028 contenders got it shot down because...well...they wanna take money from this people. 

*inhales*

 *sighs*

Look. I used to be pro Israel. I wasnt pro Israel because someone was paying me, it was because I legitimately thought that they were the one liberal democracy in the middle east, and they had the moral high ground against the genocidal maniacs in Hamas. But...then they outed themselves as genocidal maniacs themselves. And then they started manipulating our politics to disgusting degrees. And then we lost the 2024 election in part because the whole Palestinian genocide thing really does matter with voters. And as it turns out, like 80% of democrats HATE israel at this point, because of this manipulation, including myself. And...as it turns out, we're in this war in Iran, in part because of fricking Israel. So it seems like Israel is a big fricking problem right now. And they've burned their bridges with the American people. Especially the left. And the democratic voters HATE them. And then the politicians are like "nah, F the voters, they'll vote for us anyway, let's take their money and do their bidding."

This is the problem the democrats have had for ten years. And at this point, it's getting scary. Back in 2016, you could give the republicans the benefit of the doubt. Yeah, they suck, yeah, they're insane, but they still respect our democracy, rule of law, and constitutional rights mostly. I mean, remember when the republicans were the "constitutionalists" who cares so much about the constitution they would attempt to procedure police us on LITERALLY EVERYTHING that didnt align with their weird idea how things were in 1789? Whatever happened to that? The modern GOP is openly fascist. They're setting up the groundwork for undermining the midterm elections. They're forming databases on their political critics, including random people who criticize them online apparently (hello, FBI), and potentially might take action against them in the future. They're trying to consolidate power in the executive branch, destroy democracy, and the first amendment. These aren't normal times, and the modern republican party has reached a level of evil where they need to be stopped, period. 

But...here's the thing. It's like the democrats don't care. They have this attitude of F the voters, they better vote for us or else. But at the end of the day, democracy, as long as it exists, still belongs to those voters. It is up to the voters whether politicians and parties get elected or reelected, and this isn't just a moral claim, but a pragmatic one. Most election cycles democrats lose in, are the ones where they fail to motivate their base. 2010, 2014, 2016, 2024. The democrats have a morale problem. And rather than meet the voters where they are, they ignore them, lecture them, berate them, and bully them, but never actually appeal to them. 

At this point, the standards aren't even very high. They're literally in the fricking basement. Even I'm 'vote blue no matter who" and am willing to put up with rather mediocre dems just to stop the GOP. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to "hold their feet to the fire" in advocating for my political ideals, but honestly, it's like...gee....let's get rid of this fascist threat first, ya know? my own political strategy kinda relies on the continuation of democracy to be effective. if we're one election from just backsliding into full on authoritarianism where we lose our democracy, our freedom of speech, our constitutional rights, then all is fricking lost. And we're kinda at that threat level now. And I wish the democrats would take this threat as seriously as I am. Because at the end of the day these guys are gonna be sent to the same camps as the rest of us. 

Israel is fundamentally unpopular with democratic voters. Seriously, this faction grew when Biden was still in office, and with Biden gone, and Israel's worst impulses just flat out being out in the open, support is virtually nonexistent. So why keep kissing up to them? Why insist on the same third way nonsense that's cost them every election they've lost since 2016? Seriously. No one likes this stuff, but it's like no matter how much voters make their view clear, these guys just conveniently act like they didn't get the memo. Like the video above mentioned them tabling the democratic autopsy. Gee, I wonder why? because it basically told them that they lost because of Israel, and because of all the crap I've been railing about on this blog for ten years now

Look, the democrats are the opposition party to the republicans. It is up to them to stop these fascists trying to destroy our government and way of life. And history tells me a pretty consistent narrative on this. Strong liberalism is the antidote to fascism. If you wanna stop fascism before it becomes a stage 4 cancer that threatens the downfall of our free society, you need a strong unapologetic liberalism that listens to the people. FDR faced these same challenges 90 years ago. And he rose above them. I may not agree with him on everything he did, but he at least saved the country and restored peoples' trust in it again. 

On the other hand, a common refrain is that weak liberalism causes fascism to happen. When the social democrats failed in Germany, it allowed Hitler's Nazi party to come in and break the system, ending democracy until a world war happened that liberates people from them. If the democrats fail here, the same thing is gonna happen. It might already be too late. Its possible that the real test was 2024, and we failed it and now all we can do is watch while the fascists take over. However, as long as our democracy still stands, and at this moment it still does, we can mount a comeback. And the democrats need to be using their time, and using it wisely to come up with a counter strategy to Trumpism. But that involves leaning into a strong vision of democratic leadership a la FDR, not this weak crap we got with Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, and fricking Elissa Slotkin, who the dems keep putting out there as if they're setting her up to be the next leader of the party for some reason. 

And they need to stop doing stupid stuff, like letting neocons come into our "big tent", and then lecturing us telling us that "leftists" aren't welcome in said tent. No, republicans should go back to their own party and fix it, not come in and ruin ours. If they wanna temporarily join with democrats to beat trump and restore liberal democracy, I welcome that. BUT, in the long term, they gotta go back and pick up the pieces in the republican party, restoring it to its pre fascist state. Otherwise we're stuck with this crap for the next several decades. Someone sane has to lead those lunatics, or they're gonna run the asylum, which is how we got here in the first place. 

Honestly, the democrats gotta shape up. They gotta cut ties with israel, they gotta stop listening to the donor class and start listening to the people. Or we're gonna lose our democracy to the MAGA faction. Even if we win in 2026 and 2028, if the democrats cannot keep power and restore the American peoples' faith in them to govern, then MAGA is just gonna be back in 2030 and 2032. Just as, just because we were successful in 2018 and 2020 doesnt mean that Biden saved democracy. In some ways, he might've condemned it. Democrats gotta get off their butts and govern properly, take the next few years seriously, and win over the will of the American people to an acceptable degree to stave off the fascist threat. or things are gonna keep going like this until the GOP breaks things enough that we CANT come back from this. Their choice.