Hardkill

You really are so naive, aren’t you? You actually believe that Trump is going to put an end to the war himself? Only, Russia and Ukraine will decide when the war will end.

As much as I think that Hasan Piker often comes off as an obnoxious blowhard like Cenk, I have to say that in this interview he did with Jon Lovett he gave really good commentary, in a reasonable manner, on how Democrats need to communicate to the voters better and how they need to fight corporate greed even harder for the working-class, middle class, and working poor:

For decades, Democrats have been so much worse at messaging than the Republicans have been! This cannot be overstated! The Democratic Party must revamp its messaging strategy to counter the Republicans' effective use of emotional appeals and simplistic messaging. They also MUST adapt and evolve their messaging strategy to effectively utilize the latest digital platforms, social media, and communication technologies like the Republicans/conservatives have. Democrats can no longer rely on the mainstream media as their main source of messaging to the voters: https://www.messageboxnews.com/p/do-dems-need-to-break-up-with-the Otherwise, Democracy will truly die in darkness in America.

According to this Newsweek article: "Between when Harris officially became the Democratic nominee on August 1 and November 2, Trump held a total of 46 rallies and other large-scale events in 15 states across the country. Harris held 39 rallies and other large-scale events in 11 states." https://abcnews.go.com/538/trump-holding-campaign-events-harris/story?id=114567436 So, he didn't do that much more than rallies and events than she did by the end. However, he came off as increasingly fatigued and showed more signs of dementia because of his age and poor health. Harris came off much more lively and young than he did. I don't know where you got information on JD Vance being more popular than Tim Walz. Every pundit and strategist thought that Vance was such an unlikeable and uncharismatic candidate. https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/jd-vance-unpopularity-vice-presidential-debate-b2622275.html Tim Walz, on the other hand, was arguably the most popular and charismatic VP candidate since Teddy Roosevelt in 1900. In fact, he turned out to be more popular than either Vance, Trump, or Harris. https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/10/01/tim-walz-is-the-most-popular-candidate-on-either-ticket I am getting sick and tired of people who say that Democrats trying to cover up Biden’s cognitive decline was a scandal. That wasn't a crime like how Trump raped E. Jean Carroll, how he tried to overturn the 2020 election, how he incited the capitol riot insurrection, how he willingly stole classified documents and not fully cooperating with law enforcement to give them back after left office, how he committed business fraud countless times, or the election interference case involving Trump paying off that pornstar to keep quiet about it. Biden and the Democrats committed no crimes that broke any laws and didn't do anything that was an impeachable offense. Biden didn't even involve himself in any kind of wrongdoing such as having an extramarital affair during his time as president. I again acknowledge that he did a much better job of using the media environment to his strategy than Harris did, but that was the only thing he did that was really good for his campaign.

Donald Trump's presidential campaign was the most racist, xenophobic, and misogynistic in history. Kamala Harris decisively defeated him in their debate, showcasing her superior leadership skills and policy knowledge. As a matter of fact, Trump's debate performance was so atrocious that historians, political strategists, campaign experts, and pundits universally regarded it as the worst in US history. Trump's campaign was also notable for his limited public appearances, a significant decrease from his 2016 and 2020 campaigns. His speeches often featured slurred words, and he frequently confused prominent figures like Nancy Pelosi with Nikki Haley. Trump's choice of running mate was widely panned as one of the least appealing in history. Throughout his campaign, Trump was embroiled in an unprecedented number of scandals, which severely damaged his credibility. He failed to propose any serious or popular policies, leaving voters without a practical and rational plan for his vision for the country's future. Furthermore, Trump was heavily implicated in Project 2025, which raised even more concerns about his fitness for office. Trump's campaign was marred by numerous other missteps, including his divisive rhetoric, lack of transparency, and questionable judgment. These factors combined to make his campaign one of the most disastrous in recent memory. The only thing that worked for his campaign was that he had a much better media strategy than Harris. That's actually a major part of how he won.

Yeah, I am very upset with the fact that massive fundraising advantage Harris and the Democrats still lost. Trump actually ran the worst presidential campaign ever in the history of the country. The unprecedented explosion of misinformation and the dominance of the right-wing propaganda deceived the majority of voters into believing that Biden, Harris, and the Democrats ruined the whole country, which is a damn lie. A majority of Americans mistakenly believed that inflation was still getting worse and that we were in a severe recession or depression. A majority of voters believed in the lie that the Biden-Harris administration was 100% at fault for the immigration surge issue over the past few years. A majority of voters were told by all of the propagandists and conspiracy theorists on the right that Ukraine was responsible for being invaded by Russia. The mainstream media also let our country down with their woefully inadequate coverage of the dangers of Trump and MAGA. Contrary to the decades-long whining and bitching from the right-wing and Republicans about how the legacy media has always been on the side of the Democrats and the left-wing, the mainstream media has never been on the side of Democrats. Except for MSNBC, all of the mainstream media have been neutral and still, to this day, cannot seem to stop their relentless bothsidesism. Democrats and liberals do not have a media ecosystem that is anywhere close to rivaling that of the right-wing media ecosystem. All in all:

Yes, I firmly believe that. Now, 90% of the whole world is completely fucked for God knows how long! If Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and every other great president in US history were alive to see what's happening today, they would be appalled by the threat of real tyranny facing our nation.

I don't know who are you. What matters is how we fight against the whole scum of the earth and make sure that they pay for their crimes.

All of these low-life assholes have no idea what kind of hell they are going to pay.... In the end, they are going to lose everything!!!

We did have a better type of system during the mid 1900s. We had social democracy going on for over decades back then. The western European nations have a better economic system than we do. Oh well..... I guess everybody that's not in the top 10% is now fucked until we've all passed away.

I hope that all of these monsters suffer in the end. From now on, we need to celebrate every time each of these bastards fail at something or every time we see themselves tear themselves apart. I am glad that Elon is not happy about his son being a transgender. If that brings him suffering then we should take that as a win. Trump also needs to be trolled non-stop during his presidency until he gets so angry that he suffers a massive heart attack that ends him.

How do you know that neoliberalism will continue to dominate for the next 100 years? No order lasts forever. Before neoliberalism, we had a New Deal type of economy during the mid-1900s. I don't think anybody could've predicted back that neoliberalism would take over by around the 1980s. Even though the bad things that we predict to happen will probably happen in the foreseeable future, nobody can really predict what will actually happen 50 to 100 years from now. How can we even know what kind of economic order we'll be in 20 to 30 years from now?

At the same time, the working class, middle class, and working poor in western societies have become increasingly angry and resentful about their financial situation and their country's economies, especially in the US. Carter was actually the very first neoliberal US president, but Reagan really took the rise of neoliberalism into overdrive and every president after him has followed suit. Obama was the least neoliberal president we had before Biden. Biden actually became the most left-wing president ever since LBJ in the 1960s. He really had our economy transitioning away from neoliberalism into more of a social democracy. Now, we are really going to be in a second Gilded Age, and the working class, middle class, and working poor in western societies have become increasingly angry and resentful about their financial situation and the economies they are in. We probably are going to have another severe recession as bad the 2008 financial crisis or COVID-19 recession were within the next 10 years. I actually wouldn't be surprised if in the next 10 to 20 years, we have an economic depression that is as bad as the Long Depression during the late 1800s was or as bad as the Great Depression of the 1930s was. Years-long violent labor strikes and historic civil unrest across the country will happen within the next 30 years.

I don't think the neoliberalism of today is the same as it was from the late 70s/early 80s to the 2010s We are now in a new age of unchecked capitalism that involves a resurgence of a certain amount of protectionism and the rise of technofeudalism in the Western world, particularly in America.

So, I've been contemplating about that YouTube vid you did years ago called 'How Society Evolves.' From what I understood, you said that a society evolves by developing various key factors, including infrastructure, economy, population density, education, technology, etc. Once these factors are sufficiently developed, then that society can become more free, just, and tolerant of diversity. At that point, it can also better accommodate people from different backgrounds, races, ethnicities, genders, religions, and more. However, what you didn't mention in that video, but have said before on this forum is that real progress in government often requires a catalyst, and unfortunately, that catalyst is usually a major crisis or disaster that occurs under the watch of a conservative-led administration. This is because most voters tend to be reactive and less intelligent, only demanding change when they're directly impacted by a problem. Until then, they generally don't think critically about the long-term consequences of their decisions. Furthermore, I've noticed that a lot of times when America is actually in a time of peace, prosperity, and stability the country goes back to electing conservatives into power such as the election of Bush in the year 2000, the election of Trump in 2016, and in some ways with Trump and MAGA regaining power after this 2024 election. So, just to make sure I understand this. Is it not enough for a society to develop a strong foundation in areas such as its infrastructure, economy, and level of education? Does significant social progress, particularly in the way of liberalism, also require the catalyst of a crisis or disaster, to occur and be exacerbated by conservative policies or leadership? Does it also movement require a movement that shows how much those who have been victims of some kind of injustice have been suffering?

Very sad.... We really are living in a Second Gilded Age.

All of these TechBros should terrify everybody. They could all ruin the whole world.

I see what you're saying. All of these factors ultimately determine how and when there will be setbacks, stagnation, or progress. So, it is that sometimes progress happens from a society developing various key factors, including its infrastructure, economy, population density, education, technology, etc. and other times progress can come from disasters or crises under the watch of conservative rule? Or sometimes due to current media trends and ideologies? Or due to any combination of the above factors? Could a right-wing media ecosystem that perpetually dominates the entire media landscape cause all progress to stop forever by influencing the masses to no longer vote for liberalism/progressivism ever again? Or is that truly impossible?

I fear that the Washington Post is already on its way to being corrupted by Jeff Bezos just like how X was massively corrupted by Musk.

As if things weren't bad enough right now. If right-wing billionaires buy all of the mainstream media then all of truth will be gone and if that happens, then democracy will truly die in America.

Oh.....Wait, I think I got it. So when the conservative party is in charge and the country is in a serious crisis, the people will get desperate enough to prioritize stability over ideology by electing competent liberals like Obama or Biden into power, even if most voters are normally moderate or lean conservative. Is that how it goes?

So, what exactly does it take to cause an uprising against the rich and the corporations like what happened with the labor movement during the end of the Gilded Ages or what happened with the labor movement during the New Deal era? Another economic depression? The major economic inequality we have in our country cannot continue forever. Otherwise, the whole country will fall apart really badly.

Do you think that most Americans hate rich people and corporations in this day and age with the rise of populism? Or are they still so conflicted about them?

Even progressives such as FDR and LBJ had to make compromises with lobbyists. It's just corporate lobbyists have had too much influence in politics since the 1970s, especially ever since the 2010 Citizen United case.

Yeah, and of course every time they lose they always blame the mainstream media for not providing them fair media coverage, which I don't see is true. Other times they would say that it was because their progressive candidate wasn't enough of a firebreather or just wasn't a strong enough progressive candidate. And of course, they blame the corporate donors for giving corporate Democrats an unfair advantage in the race, which is true. Though, I think that kind of explanation is too simplistic.