socaltownie said:

---

Well I will kick things off.

Has anyone read "Abundance" yet? I downloaded it on Audible yesterday and excited to make it part of my "go for a run" playlist.

It absolutely resonates with my feelings that a big challenge for the democratic party is how (and this maybe true of ALL long-standing political parties) gives way too many people "veto gates" that essentially preclude much of ANYTHING getting done. That becomes a real problem when a core message is that you are the party of change and progress.

And of course close to CMS we have a great example - the actions of the Panoramic Hill people (and the tree sitter) which arguably torpedoed the chances of the Bears for breaking through and really having a transformative set of seasons. Of course that is "just" football but you see it in so many cases.

And I might argue that these vetogates will ultimately cause the demise of the Trumpian project. The courts (acting on the law) have absolutely slowed his efforts and unless he keeps both houses it is likely that everything will grind to a halt.

---

I partly agree and disagree with you. I haven't read Abundance so I don't have a strong opinion about it. I do believe there are too many veto-gates. The courts have too much power in this country and legislate too much.

The Abundance talk I've heard is twofold. 1) rural broadband - My view on that is rural people want the rural broadband market to be private and don't want government funding for it so the govt should just stop.

2) Housing. I think housing should be viewed as another asset. All assets are expensive right now. Stocks, bonds, real estate. The answer to that is to tax wealth and probably put limitations on foreign / corporate / investor ownership of housing. I think residents of a community should be able to control the development of their community with regulation (zoning). I also think the state should fund affordable housing.

bearister said:

---

I have always said that Trump is a very lucky person but he has habitually pressed his luck his entire life (as people that aren't very bright have a tendency to do). Well…..

I think Trump's spiritual and psychological advisor, the deeply disturbed Stephen Miller, is the one who has Trump's ear and has him taking many irrational positions that are exceeding the comfort level of patrons like the oligarchs and the Federalist Society. This does not bode well for Trump.

---

Hard for me to understand the oligarchs and Federalist Society being uncomfortable not boding well for Trump. They are his cucks. They'll do what they're told. The only controls on Trump are the capital markets and the 2026 elections. The courts may slow Trump but he'll ignore what he feels strongly about.

Rural broadband is an issue of per mile per customer math. Just not profitable to seve those customers. Legit debate whether than is a cost of country living but market ain't building fiber when you have 3 people per square mile.

Housing. Poppycock. We have horribly underbuilt. The math is so telling. In San doego where I do my work 1 net new home for every 2.4 net new job over past decade. No surprise prices have risen.

socaltownie said:

---

Rural broadband is an issue of per mile per customer math. Just not profitable to seve those customers. Legit debate whether than is a cost of country living but market ain't building fiber when you have 3 people per square mile.

Housing. Poppycock. We have horribly underbuilt. The math is so telling. In San doego where I do my work 1 net new home for every 2.4 net new job over past decade. No surprise prices have risen.

---

On these two points:

1. I think rural people (like most people) just want the broadband thing to work. They don't care much who does it. The problem is that the government's plan didn't happen and Elon Musk had an immediate solution.

2. I tend to agree that more housing supply would control pricing more than anything else. Who owns the buildings is just chipping around the margins; at some point you just run up against "too many people and not enough houses." Solution: build more houses.

I haven't read Abundance yet, but I have listened to Klein and Thompson speak about the ideas on several shows and I find their arguments compelling. Democrats just need to make the government actually do things and build things again. I think there is a thirst for it, and the Republicans certainly aren't delivering either.

socaltownie said:

---

Well I will kick things off.

Has anyone read "Abundance" yet? I downloaded it on Audible yesterday and excited to make it part of my "go for a run" playlist.

It absolutely resonates with my feelings that a big challenge for the democratic party is how (and this maybe true of ALL long-standing political parties) gives way too many people "veto gates" that essentially preclude much of ANYTHING getting done. That becomes a real problem when a core message is that you are the party of change and progress.

And of course close to CMS we have a great example - the actions of the Panoramic Hill people (and the tree sitter) which arguably torpedoed the chances of the Bears for breaking through and really having a transformative set of seasons. Of course that is "just" football but you see it in so many cases.

And I might argue that these vetogates will ultimately cause the demise of the Trumpian project. The courts (acting on the law) have absolutely slowed his efforts and unless he keeps both houses it is likely that everything will grind to a halt.

---

The endless lawsuits to block the stadium remodel were, in retrospect, the canary in the coal mine for where we are now. The perfect encapsulation for how you can prevent a school from building what it wants on its own land, not based on any real legitimate argument of harm to anyone else, but because the legal system allows for so many avenues to gum up the works. Then we saw it again a few years ago with guys like Phil Bokovoy using lawsuits to block new student housing on the University's own land. Fortunately that was a bridge too far for even the current Democratic state leadership and they passed laws to end that nonsense real quick. But the underlying structural problems remain.

IMO the Trumpian project will fall apart because they are pretty incompetent at governance and won't actually do anything to help improve the lives of Americans. If Trump's stupid tariff plan crashes the economy it's basically over for him; there's a reason actual authoritarian dictators try to avoid economic collapse above all else. But whoever takes over next still needs to build real stuff that benefits people; it's not enough to just be less bad than Trump.

sycasey said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Rural broadband is an issue of per mile per customer math. Just not profitable to seve those customers. Legit debate whether than is a cost of country living but market ain't building fiber when you have 3 people per square mile.

Housing. Poppycock. We have horribly underbuilt. The math is so telling. In San doego where I do my work 1 net new home for every 2.4 net new job over past decade. No surprise prices have risen.

---

On these two points:

1. I think rural people (like most people) just want the broadband thing to work. They don't care much who does it. The problem is that the government's plan didn't happen and Elon Musk had an immediate solution.

2. I tend to agree that more housing supply would control pricing more than anything else. Who owns the buildings is just chipping around the margins; at some point you just run up against "too many people and not enough houses." Solution: build more houses.

I haven't read Abundance yet, but I have listened to Klein and Thompson speak about the ideas on several shows and I find their arguments compelling. Democrats just need to make the government actually do things and build things again. I think there is a thirst for it, and the Republicans certainly aren't delivering either.

---

Rural people have consistently voted against government funding of rural broadband. I don't know why Democrats insist on spending money to give it to them.

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Rural broadband is an issue of per mile per customer math. Just not profitable to seve those customers. Legit debate whether than is a cost of country living but market ain't building fiber when you have 3 people per square mile.

Housing. Poppycock. We have horribly underbuilt. The math is so telling. In San doego where I do my work 1 net new home for every 2.4 net new job over past decade. No surprise prices have risen.

---

On these two points:

1. I think rural people (like most people) just want the broadband thing to work. They don't care much who does it. The problem is that the government's plan didn't happen and Elon Musk had an immediate solution.

2. I tend to agree that more housing supply would control pricing more than anything else. Who owns the buildings is just chipping around the margins; at some point you just run up against "too many people and not enough houses." Solution: build more houses.

I haven't read Abundance yet, but I have listened to Klein and Thompson speak about the ideas on several shows and I find their arguments compelling. Democrats just need to make the government actually do things and build things again. I think there is a thirst for it, and the Republicans certainly aren't delivering either.

---

Rural people have consistently voted against government funding of rural broadband. I don't know why Democrats insist on spending money to give it to them.

---

Can you elaborate on the claim? Were there ballot initiatives to get broadband and rural people voted them down? Or you mean they vote Republican?

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Rural broadband is an issue of per mile per customer math. Just not profitable to seve those customers. Legit debate whether than is a cost of country living but market ain't building fiber when you have 3 people per square mile.

Housing. Poppycock. We have horribly underbuilt. The math is so telling. In San doego where I do my work 1 net new home for every 2.4 net new job over past decade. No surprise prices have risen.

---

On these two points:

1. I think rural people (like most people) just want the broadband thing to work. They don't care much who does it. The problem is that the government's plan didn't happen and Elon Musk had an immediate solution.

2. I tend to agree that more housing supply would control pricing more than anything else. Who owns the buildings is just chipping around the margins; at some point you just run up against "too many people and not enough houses." Solution: build more houses.

I haven't read Abundance yet, but I have listened to Klein and Thompson speak about the ideas on several shows and I find their arguments compelling. Democrats just need to make the government actually do things and build things again. I think there is a thirst for it, and the Republicans certainly aren't delivering either.

---

Rural people have consistently voted against government funding of rural broadband. I don't know why Democrats insist on spending money to give it to them.

---

Can you elaborate on the claim? Were there ballot initiatives to get broadband and rural people voted them down? Or you mean they vote Republican?

---

They vote for politicians who are against it. Dems try to give it to them anyway and get attacked. Just let rural people have what they want and stop spending money on them.

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Rural broadband is an issue of per mile per customer math. Just not profitable to seve those customers. Legit debate whether than is a cost of country living but market ain't building fiber when you have 3 people per square mile.

Housing. Poppycock. We have horribly underbuilt. The math is so telling. In San doego where I do my work 1 net new home for every 2.4 net new job over past decade. No surprise prices have risen.

---

On these two points:

1. I think rural people (like most people) just want the broadband thing to work. They don't care much who does it. The problem is that the government's plan didn't happen and Elon Musk had an immediate solution.

2. I tend to agree that more housing supply would control pricing more than anything else. Who owns the buildings is just chipping around the margins; at some point you just run up against "too many people and not enough houses." Solution: build more houses.

I haven't read Abundance yet, but I have listened to Klein and Thompson speak about the ideas on several shows and I find their arguments compelling. Democrats just need to make the government actually do things and build things again. I think there is a thirst for it, and the Republicans certainly aren't delivering either.

---

Rural people have consistently voted against government funding of rural broadband. I don't know why Democrats insist on spending money to give it to them.

---

Can you elaborate on the claim? Were there ballot initiatives to get broadband and rural people voted them down? Or you mean they vote Republican?

---

They vote for politicians who are against it. Dems try to give it to them anyway and get attacked. Just let rural people have what they want and stop spending money on them.

---

That isn't true (at all)

This is just one example of the LEGION of GOP politicians that love rural broadband when it comes. They speak out of both sides of their mouth.

Broadband is vital for the success of our rural communities and for our entire economy.

Great to see Alabama receive crucial funds to boost ongoing broadband efforts. https://t.co/bLvQlSS3LH

— Coach Tommy Tuberville (@SenTuberville) June 27, 2023

And really it isn't about rural individual customers as much as it is about providers like rural hospitals or farm cooperatives or schools who want that connectivity.

https://kpfa.org/episode/letters-and-politics-april-14-2025/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/13/trump-populists-human-nature-economic-growth

socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Rural broadband is an issue of per mile per customer math. Just not profitable to seve those customers. Legit debate whether than is a cost of country living but market ain't building fiber when you have 3 people per square mile.

Housing. Poppycock. We have horribly underbuilt. The math is so telling. In San doego where I do my work 1 net new home for every 2.4 net new job over past decade. No surprise prices have risen.

---

On these two points:

1. I think rural people (like most people) just want the broadband thing to work. They don't care much who does it. The problem is that the government's plan didn't happen and Elon Musk had an immediate solution.

2. I tend to agree that more housing supply would control pricing more than anything else. Who owns the buildings is just chipping around the margins; at some point you just run up against "too many people and not enough houses." Solution: build more houses.

I haven't read Abundance yet, but I have listened to Klein and Thompson speak about the ideas on several shows and I find their arguments compelling. Democrats just need to make the government actually do things and build things again. I think there is a thirst for it, and the Republicans certainly aren't delivering either.

---

Rural people have consistently voted against government funding of rural broadband. I don't know why Democrats insist on spending money to give it to them.

---

Can you elaborate on the claim? Were there ballot initiatives to get broadband and rural people voted them down? Or you mean they vote Republican?

---

They vote for politicians who are against it. Dems try to give it to them anyway and get attacked. Just let rural people have what they want and stop spending money on them.

---

That isn't true (at all)

This is just one example of the LEGION of GOP politicians that love rural broadband when it comes. They speak out of both sides of their mouth.

Broadband is vital for the success of our rural communities and for our entire economy.

Great to see Alabama receive crucial funds to boost ongoing broadband efforts. https://t.co/bLvQlSS3LH

— Coach Tommy Tuberville (@SenTuberville) June 27, 2023

And really it isn't about rural individual customers as much as it is about providers like rural hospitals or farm cooperatives or schools who want that connectivity.

---

My point is that if rural communities want broadband they should support candidates that campaign on it and deliver it. Politicians they oppose don't need to spend taxpayer money on it.

dajo9 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Rural broadband is an issue of per mile per customer math. Just not profitable to seve those customers. Legit debate whether than is a cost of country living but market ain't building fiber when you have 3 people per square mile.

Housing. Poppycock. We have horribly underbuilt. The math is so telling. In San doego where I do my work 1 net new home for every 2.4 net new job over past decade. No surprise prices have risen.

---

On these two points:

1. I think rural people (like most people) just want the broadband thing to work. They don't care much who does it. The problem is that the government's plan didn't happen and Elon Musk had an immediate solution.

2. I tend to agree that more housing supply would control pricing more than anything else. Who owns the buildings is just chipping around the margins; at some point you just run up against "too many people and not enough houses." Solution: build more houses.

I haven't read Abundance yet, but I have listened to Klein and Thompson speak about the ideas on several shows and I find their arguments compelling. Democrats just need to make the government actually do things and build things again. I think there is a thirst for it, and the Republicans certainly aren't delivering either.

---

Rural people have consistently voted against government funding of rural broadband. I don't know why Democrats insist on spending money to give it to them.

---

Can you elaborate on the claim? Were there ballot initiatives to get broadband and rural people voted them down? Or you mean they vote Republican?

---

They vote for politicians who are against it. Dems try to give it to them anyway and get attacked. Just let rural people have what they want and stop spending money on them.

---

That isn't true (at all)

This is just one example of the LEGION of GOP politicians that love rural broadband when it comes. They speak out of both sides of their mouth.

Broadband is vital for the success of our rural communities and for our entire economy.

Great to see Alabama receive crucial funds to boost ongoing broadband efforts. https://t.co/bLvQlSS3LH

— Coach Tommy Tuberville (@SenTuberville) June 27, 2023

And really it isn't about rural individual customers as much as it is about providers like rural hospitals or farm cooperatives or schools who want that connectivity.

---

My point is that if rural communities want broadband they should support candidates that campaign on it and deliver it. Politicians they oppose don't need to spend taxpayer money on it.

---

Part of that is that most voters are not that informed. Lots of political science research on it.

BTW - 1/2 of the way through abundance (it is really good) they haven't mentioned Broadband once. They have talked about the really awful state of housing supply in CA and the importance of nuclear energy as a simple math equation of reducing carbon footprint.

Quote:

---

Abundance is a nonfiction book by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson published by Avid Reader Press in March 2025. The book examines the reasons behind the lack of progress on ambitious projects in the United States, including those related to affordable housing, infrastructure, and climate change.

---

Aren't "climate change" policies one of the main impediments for infrastructure and housing projects?

Cal88 said:

---

Quote:

---

Abundance is a nonfiction book by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson published by Avid Reader Press in March 2025. The book examines the reasons behind the lack of progress on ambitious projects in the United States, including those related to affordable housing, infrastructure, and climate change.

---

Aren't "climate change" policies one of the main impediments for infrastructure and housing projects?

---

"Environmental reviews" are. It's debatable how much those actually have to do with climate change.

socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Rural broadband is an issue of per mile per customer math. Just not profitable to seve those customers. Legit debate whether than is a cost of country living but market ain't building fiber when you have 3 people per square mile.

Housing. Poppycock. We have horribly underbuilt. The math is so telling. In San doego where I do my work 1 net new home for every 2.4 net new job over past decade. No surprise prices have risen.

---

On these two points:

1. I think rural people (like most people) just want the broadband thing to work. They don't care much who does it. The problem is that the government's plan didn't happen and Elon Musk had an immediate solution.

2. I tend to agree that more housing supply would control pricing more than anything else. Who owns the buildings is just chipping around the margins; at some point you just run up against "too many people and not enough houses." Solution: build more houses.

I haven't read Abundance yet, but I have listened to Klein and Thompson speak about the ideas on several shows and I find their arguments compelling. Democrats just need to make the government actually do things and build things again. I think there is a thirst for it, and the Republicans certainly aren't delivering either.

---

Rural people have consistently voted against government funding of rural broadband. I don't know why Democrats insist on spending money to give it to them.

---

Can you elaborate on the claim? Were there ballot initiatives to get broadband and rural people voted them down? Or you mean they vote Republican?

---

They vote for politicians who are against it. Dems try to give it to them anyway and get attacked. Just let rural people have what they want and stop spending money on them.

---

That isn't true (at all)

This is just one example of the LEGION of GOP politicians that love rural broadband when it comes. They speak out of both sides of their mouth.

Broadband is vital for the success of our rural communities and for our entire economy.

Great to see Alabama receive crucial funds to boost ongoing broadband efforts. https://t.co/bLvQlSS3LH

— Coach Tommy Tuberville (@SenTuberville) June 27, 2023

And really it isn't about rural individual customers as much as it is about providers like rural hospitals or farm cooperatives or schools who want that connectivity.

---

My point is that if rural communities want broadband they should support candidates that campaign on it and deliver it. Politicians they oppose don't need to spend taxpayer money on it.

---

Part of that is that most voters are not that informed. Lots of political science research on it.

BTW - 1/2 of the way through abundance (it is really good) they haven't mentioned Broadband once. They have talked about the really awful state of housing supply in CA and the importance of nuclear energy as a simple math equation of reducing carbon footprint.

---

Rural broadband has been brought up by Ezra Klein in interviews he has done. As I said, I haven't read the book. To me, uninformed voters is not a viable excuse - it's an admission of guilt. Being uninformed can leave you behind. That's democracy.

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Quote:

---

Abundance is a nonfiction book by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson published by Avid Reader Press in March 2025. The book examines the reasons behind the lack of progress on ambitious projects in the United States, including those related to affordable housing, infrastructure, and climate change.

---

Aren't "climate change" policies one of the main impediments for infrastructure and housing projects?

---

"Environmental reviews" are. It's debatable how much those actually have to do with climate change.

---

Remember the Memorial Stadium remodel and the tree sitters, their main argument for blocking the project was that cutting a couple of dozen oak trees was going to aggravate climate.

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Quote:

---

Abundance is a nonfiction book by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson published by Avid Reader Press in March 2025. The book examines the reasons behind the lack of progress on ambitious projects in the United States, including those related to affordable housing, infrastructure, and climate change.

---

Aren't "climate change" policies one of the main impediments for infrastructure and housing projects?

---

"Environmental reviews" are. It's debatable how much those actually have to do with climate change.

---

Remember the Memorial Stadium remodel and the tree sitters, their main argument for blocking the project was that cutting a couple of dozen oak trees was going to aggravate climate.

---

For the loony tree-sitters yes, but the real argument in the lawsuits was from the Hill people over noise and traffic.

Hi sycasey, obviously you can respond to whomever you like. I have just made the simple request that in this thread we don't engage with the fascists. There are numerous other threads in which you can discuss this issue with fascist Cal88. I'd even be willing to start a new thread with a link to his comment for you to continue the conversation. It's just a request.

Fascist Steve Bannon clearly laid out the strategy in 2021, that they would "flood the zone with ****". And that is what they've done across the media landscape including this board. That is why this board has generally become a pile of ***** I am requesting one thread in which we don't allow the zone to be flooded with ***** Obviously it is up to you if you participate.

The section (so far) on climate change is the extent to which slowing ghg requires building at a scale almost unimaginable. For example (and why he falls on the side of nuclear) the largest solar plant in us is 2000 acres. To fully electrify we would have to build 2 a month every month for next 30 years

socaltownie said:

---

The section (so far) on climate change is the extent to which slowing ghg requires building at a scale almost unimaginable. For example (and why he falls on the side of nuclear) the largest solar plant in us is 2000 acres. To fully electrify we would have to build 2 a month every month for next 30 years

---

There isn't a voting constituency for investing to build energy at scale. The problem of being able to build things exists but to me that seems way downstream from the more immediate problem that Americans don't want that.

dajo9 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Rural broadband is an issue of per mile per customer math. Just not profitable to seve those customers. Legit debate whether than is a cost of country living but market ain't building fiber when you have 3 people per square mile.

Housing. Poppycock. We have horribly underbuilt. The math is so telling. In San doego where I do my work 1 net new home for every 2.4 net new job over past decade. No surprise prices have risen.

---

On these two points:

1. I think rural people (like most people) just want the broadband thing to work. They don't care much who does it. The problem is that the government's plan didn't happen and Elon Musk had an immediate solution.

2. I tend to agree that more housing supply would control pricing more than anything else. Who owns the buildings is just chipping around the margins; at some point you just run up against "too many people and not enough houses." Solution: build more houses.

I haven't read Abundance yet, but I have listened to Klein and Thompson speak about the ideas on several shows and I find their arguments compelling. Democrats just need to make the government actually do things and build things again. I think there is a thirst for it, and the Republicans certainly aren't delivering either.

---

Rural people have consistently voted against government funding of rural broadband. I don't know why Democrats insist on spending money to give it to them.

---

Can you elaborate on the claim? Were there ballot initiatives to get broadband and rural people voted them down? Or you mean they vote Republican?

---

They vote for politicians who are against it. Dems try to give it to them anyway and get attacked. Just let rural people have what they want and stop spending money on them.

---

That isn't true (at all)

This is just one example of the LEGION of GOP politicians that love rural broadband when it comes. They speak out of both sides of their mouth.

Broadband is vital for the success of our rural communities and for our entire economy.

Great to see Alabama receive crucial funds to boost ongoing broadband efforts. https://t.co/bLvQlSS3LH

— Coach Tommy Tuberville (@SenTuberville) June 27, 2023

And really it isn't about rural individual customers as much as it is about providers like rural hospitals or farm cooperatives or schools who want that connectivity.

---

My point is that if rural communities want broadband they should support candidates that campaign on it and deliver it. Politicians they oppose don't need to spend taxpayer money on it.

---

Part of that is that most voters are not that informed. Lots of political science research on it.

BTW - 1/2 of the way through abundance (it is really good) they haven't mentioned Broadband once. They have talked about the really awful state of housing supply in CA and the importance of nuclear energy as a simple math equation of reducing carbon footprint.

---

Rural broadband has been brought up by Ezra Klein in interviews he has done. As I said, I haven't read the book. To me, uninformed voters is not a viable excuse - it's an admission of guilt. Being uninformed can leave you behind. That's democracy.

---

At some point your argument just boils down to "leave those people to rot." Except they are still around and they still vote, so I'm not sure that is an option, unless you plan to have urban states secede from the country. Democrats need an argument that actually sells. Being able to actually build things that tangibly help those communities might do it.