Like if your concern is nature preservation then the optimal land use for the planet is 5% copies of Tokyo, 5% vertical agriculture and other industrial use and 90% protected reserves, no rurals needed.

a) as other people have said, no, it's rural areas eating the planet and b) sprawling megamachine cities are good, actually.

She would be polling in first if she had any merchandise taking advantage of that pun.

one that comes to power in minority but then wins a massive landslide and one in the 70s that ultimately cannot obtain supply. Picking a fresh new leader with labor experience in 1983, the opposition wins another landslide and has been nationally competitive since.

This describes two countries.

After the formation of a pro-conscription unity government in 1917, the Liberals govern for most of the following seven decades, punctuated by three opposition governments: one that is ended by the Great Depression,

Depends on the speaker, I suppose, to me they're fairly distinct.

I get the impression this is true of self-ID socialists but self-ID communists are predominantly anarchist.

I would say 2 is usually good and 3 is always good.

The park should be decidedly secondary, though.

I mean, SF is not that big, the poor areas are just in the other counties.

In this case the bus line should probably be rationalized out of existence or have its route substantially changed, loop lines of this sort don't really work in the inner suburbs.

I would say the analogy that comes to mind here is a rich teenager whose friend convinces them to do a robbery/beat someone up/etc.; it is reasonable to say they were dragged into it by and perhaps should cut off that friend even as it doesn't meaningfully absolve them of blame.

I would guess most of the foreign policy establishment shares my interpretation of the withdrawal instead, though.

I feel like it's kind of inevitable, it's just a question of how it does so.

It is faster, which is no longer much of an asset given typing.

Sadly they flattened the curve and now it's not supposed to increase until mid-next month.

I do not want children to be liberated from their families, I want children to be liberated from having a family at all (at least if they want it), and while cultural change isn't the primary goal there it is both a natural consequence and something I do not understand seeing as inherently bad.

It would be rude and unwarranted to cast aspersions on yours, but in general I think that families of birth/adoption are better served by replacement with a combination of state childcare and fully intentional community, and many of the most vehement opponents of this would be its biggest reasons.

It's mostly instrumental, I want to break up families because families per se are a negative aspect of culture.

I think that if ICE transported undocumented immigrants to Manhattan, provided them with civilian housing and basic needs, and required them to receive a normal education or to do paid labor for the NYC government, that they would not be doing anything objectionable by that.

I think you can do most of it by lifestyle interventions (resettlement, breaking up families, etc.); to the extent that's not enough then I agree that not directly or indirectly killing people is more important.

Socially liberal as in left-wing (strongly opposed to the social positioning adopted by reactionaries), not socially liberal as in libertarian (believing that it is bad to interfere in how people approach social issues).

I would guess that if you isolated the densest part of Tokyo proper (the few million people in the inner western and northern suburbs) it would be substantially denser than this chunk of SF.

I'd say I read long-form fiction a moderate amount but it is not usually dystopian.

Surely their tendency to fudge is their most well-known characteristic.

I sometimes do think of my politics as Musk if he was compelled to be socially liberal; but I do not see a rebuttal to the underlying point that there are cases where both group A and group B are worse off than if everyone was compelled to be in group B (which I do think is most obviously this one).

I'm not saying it is appropriate to enforce Everything Must Be Exactly The Same, but some high-level stuff like people living outside of cities is weakness and hurts everyone, yes.

Religious trauma.

I am fairly sure she is insofar as economic policy.

I do not think I'd put her into either of those categories.