Leftists stop resorting to identity politics when called out for bad arguments challenge: impossible

Yes, the popular former two-time president and one-time leader of a party who held 60 Senate seats knows how to identify electable people. You’re correct!

He absolutely used those words together, such as when he said “I am not defunding the police. I am not running to defund the police." Then he reappointed the popular police commissioner! He obviously understand his prior support for defund to be a political weakness and took pains to shore it up.

This is getting tiring. You agree the real argument I mentioned, which is literally the focus of multiple chapters of Abundance, is not a truism. I agree that the fake statements that you made up and attributed to Abundance are truisms. Do you have any real examples of Abundance truisms to discuss?

In fact, I see more truisms from anti-YIMBYs. All candidates for Cambridge City Council tout support for affordable housing, but NIMBYs are vague on how they’ll encourage it, while signaling via “community input”, “parking”, and “neighborhood character” that they don’t *actually* want more housing.

What are we talking about? YIMBYs make all sorts of real claims which are actively disputed by our factional opponents. “The way to make housing more affordable in blue cities is land-use reform, not demand-side subsidies and rent control” is substantive and controversial (and in my view, correct)

The last refuge of anti-abundance/anti-YIMBY leftists is to completely concede that Abundance/YIMBY types are correct on their core supply-side arguments, and then simultaneously argue that those arguments are banal and already accepted. It tells me they have never tried getting something new built.