There is really no way to fix the problem though. The problem with Dallas and cities like it is not one of management or ruling political party. It is simply a problem of urban design. Low-density sprawl doesn’t pay for its own maintenance. You have a “city” full of people that expects city-level services with rural population densities. There just isn’t a big enough tax base to cover the infrastructure and services that people expect. Elect Republicans. Elect Democrats. Elect DSA. Elect the Klan. It makes no difference. You can’t vote your way out of math.

You can keep the low-density game going for awhile by propping things up with growth. The initial infrastructure buildout gets paid for by developers, and that cost gets rolled into the purchase price of everyone’s homes. But the property taxes people can afford to pay just aren’t anywhere near what is needed to keep a low-density city like that going. But eventually you can’t grow anymore. Cities like Dallas will either have to substantially densify or face bankruptcy and collapse. They may have to kick certain particularly low-density neighborhoods out of the city entirely in order to shore up finances.

To get a feel for the size of budget hole we’re talking about, imagine this. Imagine if once every 30 years your city put a levy on your home equal to 50% of its value. Every 30 years each homeowner would have to take on a second mortgage to pay these levies. That’s about what a city would actually have to charge to truly cover the cost of suburban infrastructure and to keep everything properly maintained.

I mean, you could fit in there two…just not all at once.

Toilet paper in public places doesn’t suck because every building and business owner is a cheapskate. Toilet paper in public restrooms sucks because if it doesn’t, people steal it.

What if I manufacture a blunderbuss right now, in the Year of Our Lord 2026? Is that a firearm?

Probably a felon that doesn’t want to end up back in jail?

You have poor reading comprehension.

Collecting all the Infinity Stones just seems like too much effort. How many do I need to just be able to alter people’s sexual orientation as a prank or act of vengeance?

What is even the connection between those things at all? This is bizarre. Facebook and instagram have their own real problems, but spending time using online services requires less resources than virtually any other form of entertainment out there.

The United States is not and has never been a democracy for the poorest 90% of the population. It’s been scientifically studied, and the opinions of the bottom 90% have no bearing on the outcome of legislation that is actually passed. Democracy only exists for the wealthiest 10% of the US population.

Why are you calling people trash when 90% of them don’t live in a democracy at all?

I mean, to be fair, we have no idea what Washington’s opinions on trans rights would have been. Louis XIV on the other hand…

Think you responded to the wrong person.

I would argue HRT changes your sex.

Frankly I prefer that to the wishy washy language around gender.

You don’t know the meaning of the word.

Frankly, as a trans person, I’m not a fan of the term. I didn’t get treatment to “affirm my gender.” I changed my sex. I literally changed my sex. I didn’t get “gender affirming treatment” or whatever the new entry on the euphemism treadmill is we’re supposed to use this year.

This has big “only trans people have gender identity” energy.

I think you’re an AI, as I don’t think any human that stupid can figure out how to keep breathing.

You’re a very silly person.

Why do you like performative pointless measures so much? What exactly do you hope to accomplish by impeaching the fucker a third time?

No absolutely correct. Impeachment at this point is literally just virtue signalling. It’s bandied about by Democrats who want to seem like they’re doing something, but don’t want to use the actual tools they have to rein Trump in.

There’s zero chance Trump will be removed from office by an impeachment. Republicans are slaves to Trump. They won’t vote to convict him. There is literally no point in impeaching Trump beyond throwing red meat to the Democratic base.

If Democrats gain control of Congress, they need to be fully prepared to use the full power of the purse to stop the bastard. That includes shutting down the entire government if necessary. That includes denying funding to the military if necessary. That includes completely cutting off funding from ICE and Trump’s surveillance state. But a lot of these necessary actions are politically difficult for Democrats because they hurt the corporate donors that feed the party.

They like impeachment because it allows them to seem like they’re doing something without actually having to do anything. They can impeach Trump, and their donors will know that nothing concrete will actually come from it. A Democratic Congress can bring Trump to heel, but that will require a willingness to actually fight some very powerful and entrenched corporate interests. And that’s generally where Democrats perform the worst.

So no, it is in fact you that are absolutely wrong.