Hardkill

Leo, I have a question about how you understand voters’ psychology around “change” in modern U.S. politics. In the last few election cycles, it feels like the winners have almost always been the candidate who best embodied “change” against the status quo: Obama 2008 & 2012 – “Hope and Change,” post-Bush, anti-Iraq, generational shift Trump 2016 – anti-establishment wrecking ball against both parties’ elites Biden 2020 – “return to normalcy,” a change away from chaos and Trump Trump 2024 – again framed as a change away from Biden and the current direction So on the surface, voters do seem to want “change” over and over. Yet at the same time, the public still doesn’t really go for genuinely progressive / systemic change when it’s offered in a more explicit way by people like: Bernie Sanders AOC Elizabeth Warren Zohran Mamdani, etc. These people are arguably the ones proposing the deepest structural reforms (on capitalism, healthcare, labor, oligarchy, etc.), but most voters don’t rally behind them the way they do behind more “safe” change candidates like Obama or Biden — or right-wing populists like Trump. So my question to you is: How do you explain this psychologically and spiritually? Why do voters repeatedly choose symbolic or surface-level “change” (Obama, Trump, Biden/2020, Trump/2024) while rejecting the more genuinely transformative progressive candidates who would actually challenge the system at a deeper level? More specifically, I’d love to hear your take on: Survival & fear: How much of this is just survival bias — people wanting “change” but only within a narrow safety zone that doesn’t threaten their ego, identity, or material security? Stage development (Spiral Dynamics): Are progressives like Bernie/AOC/Warren/Mamdani simply too far ahead of the median voter’s stage of development, so that even people who are dissatisfied still prefer ego-flattering, tribal, or nostalgic forms of “change” (like Trump or soft-liberal change) rather than true systemic reform? Comfort with institutions: Do most Democratic voters, for example, still trust the basic institutions enough that they’ll opt for “reformist” change (Obama/Biden) instead of “revolutionary” change (Bernie-style), whereas Republicans are more willing to embrace destructive change (Trump) because their distrust has gone much deeper? Media & narrative control: To what degree are people’s “change” preferences basically manufactured by media framing — so that the only acceptable “change” on offer is the kind that doesn’t threaten corporate or elite interests too much? Why does the collective ego keep saying it wants change, then rejecting the people who actually represent deeper change, and instead choosing candidates who either offer mild reform or outright reactionary backlash? I’m curious how you’d unpack this using your frameworks around consciousness, survival, ideological bias, and Spiral Dynamics.

I find that hard to believe what the OP saying unless he's talking about men who have masculine traits that are too extreme. Being a real man means to be brave, bold, strong, aggressive, unique, resolved, decisive, inspiring, and a visionary leader. There is a reason why women have always been attracted to such men. Straight women have never really been attracted to men who are cowardly, plays it too safe, weak, spineless, don't have their own thoughts/opinions, indecisive, boring, and have no real vision/purpose for himself or for others as a leader. Moreover, if you come off as too emotional like a woman on her period too often, especially when you haven't gotten intimate with her yet or not in a serious relationship with her yet, then the woman is going to think "this guy can't handle life and won't be able to protect me." That being said, I think one of the hardest parts of attracting women is being emotionally compelling and stimulating to women.

Americans have become increasingly dissatisfied with the political system. Trust in government, trust in democracy, trust in media, trust in institutions—all of it is near historic lows. Yet at the same time, the major structural barriers that prevent reform seem completely locked in. Here’s the contradiction I’m noticing, and I’m curious how others here think about it: 1. The public clearly wants systemic reform. Polls show: Huge majorities want limits on money in politics. Majorities think politicians don’t represent ordinary people. Confidence in democracy is falling year after year. People across the spectrum think the system is corrupt or captured. There’s a widespread feeling that “something is fundamentally broken.” 2. But the major choke points for reform aren’t moving. Citizens United and Buckley v. Valeo have effectively constitutionalized unlimited outside spending. The Supreme Court is nowhere near overturning them. Congress doesn’t have the votes for federal campaign-finance reform. Most state legislatures don’t either, especially in red or purple states. The donor class and large economic interests continue to dominate the political process. So the legal and political architecture that created the current system is essentially frozen. 3. This produces a weird pressure cooker dynamic. People feel the system is illegitimate, but the system has no viable institutional path to correct itself. In other words: Public dissatisfaction grows, but the reform channels remain blocked. Historically, when a political system has rising dissatisfaction and blocked reform pathways, the pressure tends to escape in other ways: Right-wing populism Demagogues Cynicism and apathy Lower democratic engagement Institutional distrust Localized flare-ups Attempts to “smash” the system rather than reform it Political nihilism (“both sides are corrupt so why vote?”) We’re already seeing many of these patterns in the U.S. 4. Politicians behave rationally within a broken structure. Even Democrats who privately dislike the influence of big donors still rely heavily on PACs, wealthy individuals, bundlers, and corporate money. And realistically, why wouldn’t they? In our current environment: If a candidate unilaterally swears off big money, they’re at a competitive disadvantage. Their opponent’s Super PACs will still spend millions. Congress/Supreme Court won’t fix the rules. Unilaterally “disarming” doesn’t change the system—it usually just gets you beaten. The few exceptions (AOC, Bernie, Mamdani, etc.) are structural outliers with unusually favorable conditions. So the behavior of most politicians reinforces stagnation, not because they’re evil, but because the incentive structure rewards conformity. 5. So here’s my core question: What happens to a society when the mass public grows more frustrated, more cynical, and more distrustful—while the structural mechanisms for reform stay shut? Does the system: Drift into a soft oligarchy? Become more populist and chaotic? Enter cycles of strongman politics? Fragment into local experiments of reform while the federal system decays? Or eventually face a legitimacy crisis big enough to force some kind of overhaul? I’m not asking from a partisan angle—I’m asking from a systems / consciousness / long-term societal development perspective. Where does a democracy go when the public is angry but reform is structurally impossible? What’s the “next stage” in a scenario like this? Would love to hear people’s thoughts, especially from a developmental psychology or systems-theory lens.

You feel more of that "hellish" burn from lifting moderate to heavy weights with 10+ reps than lifting even heavier weight with less than 8-10 reps.

Sadly, that is true. Republicans have no principles and Democrats have no spine. Although I will admit that getting Trump and the Republicans to agree with the Democrats in Congress to extend the ACA subsidies was always a long-shot, especially after Trump, Mike Johnson, and their entire party in Washington all made it very clear recently that they are an completely hard no on that. But I still think that all of the Democrats should've held the line for one more month. Also, I really don't like how those 8 Democrats in Senate who voted for the bill came off as feckless, weak, and defeated. hey all suck at communicating to the public Schumer himself comes off as a feeble weak leader who can't hold his entire caucus together anymore. He needs to be replaced.

I am worried about how much of a precedent that this will set....

This is another reason why Democratic leadership desperately needs to change. There are still too many Democrats who have no spine.

It's another very sad moment for our society.

I think that NYC under Mamdani will be a real-world sandbox for “Bernie-style” economic populism.

and yet half of the people in the country were willing to tolerate Trump being president again and not be held accountable for any of his crimes..... This world is so fucked up.

I honestly have found that just having good looks has really led to very underwhelming results with getting women. It's like how even Dr. Mike himself said in a video he did about steroids, where he explained that becoming super jacked from bodybuilding and taking steroids had led to him having very underwhelming results with getting women.

Last night was a really good night for Democrats and progressives! However, this war has only begun.....

Honestly, I hope that this thread ages terribly. Yes, yesterday was very good night for Democrats and the Left; however, we are still not close to being out of the woods yet. There is still a serious chance that Democrats may not win the midterms because of all of the extreme gerrymandering by the Republicans throughout the country. Trump and the MAGA Republicans are going to do everything they can to steal the 2026 midterms. Not to mention, that the Democratic party still has an even lower approval rating than Trump and his party does which is crazy. Plus, the next presidential election will be even much harder for the Democrats to win because presidential elections always have a much greater percentage of lower propensity, less engaged, and less informed voters than special elections, off year elections, and midterm elections do. Democrats are still far behind Trump and the Republicans in winning over lower propensity, less engaged, and less informed voters. Additionally, Trump and his party are of course going to do everything they can to try to steal the 2028 presidential election. That is why the Democratic party still desperately needs a stronger leadership with better communication strategies to save themselves and save the country. Btw, Chuck Schumer really needs to step down and let some other Democrat in the US Senate who is much younger, more fiery, and more talented of a communicator than he is be the new leader of the Senate Democrats in Congress.

I never thought that I would ever want a muslim who is also true Socialist to win, but I am actually so happy that Mamdani won the race. I also am very intrigued to see how a Democratic Socialist mayor of NYC will govern the city.

Even though Navalny completely failed, maybe enough people in Russia will one day be inspired to believe in his cause.