Hardkill

I get what you guys are saying. America is still better than most countries on the planet, including every least developed country and every developing country in the world. However, I don't think the USA is necessarily better than other developed countries in the world like Canada, UK, France, Australia, Scandinivia, Japan, or Israel, and other developed countries out there in the world. Also, I worry that America may no longer become a great country.

DId you vote for Trump?

I hope so. Although, like Leo said before, the right-wing much more easily unites their party nominee in an election, regardless of the circumstances, than the left-wing does.

@Ulax You’re right about how idealistic and naive Green can be. Though we need a healthy amount of green to keep pushing societies towards greater progress. What do you suggest those in stage Green should do?

Oh, cool. Our country could definitely use graphic designers like you to help clearly illustrate American politics. For someone who isn’t an activist, pundit, or professional political expert, your Substack—and your writing on U.S. politics—seems really impressive!

Thanks for his post. Are you actually a professional political activist?

Allan Lichtman actually recently published his latest book "Conservatism at the Core" which talks about what true American conservatism is and how corrupt it has been for over 100 years. I haven't gotten his book yet, but I definitely want to buy it and read it eventually.

What if Democrats lose again in 2026 in 2028 because either Trump and his party cancel those elections or because too many people stay home and not vote in large enough numbers for the Democrats because of how toxic their party brand is as well?

They only needed a simple majority in both chambers of Congress to pass this bill via budget reconciliation in the Senate and they got it done with razor-thin majorities in both the US Senate and US House.

I hope you're right. Though I don't see the light at the end of tunnel right now. There's no clear viable strategy at this point to save itself, let alone save the country.

According to the consensus of numerous Independent experts, it's the worst bill ever enacted since the mid to late 1800s. The Democrats better fucking figure out how to use this as major ammunition for the 2025 off-year elections, 2026 midterms, 2027 off-year elections, and the 2028 presidential election year. However, I fear that Trump and his party could steal or cancel all elections starting in 2026. I also fear that the Democrats and progressives will bungle it up again, especially in 2028.

Yeah, I was thinking that too. I actually didn't realize until recently that Bush was responsible for the PEPFAR program which saved over 25 million lives around the world.

The Bush administration's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were no doubt unmitigated disasters that cost over 6,000 American lives and trillions of dollars, failed to achieve lasting peace or stability, and left both countries in worse condition than before in many respects. Moreover, Bush ended his presidency with the worst recession since the Great Depression. However, do you think that all of the things that happened during the administration of Trump's 1st term including how he governed, eroded our democracy, and the historic amount of hard right judges he appointed on the federal level courts, what he's currently doing and more of what he will do during his 2nd term presidency all not worse than what Bush or any other past Republican president ever did?

But the policies of Trump/MAGA are more destructive to the country than even the policies of Reagan/Bush type of Republicans. The Republicans during presidencies of Eisenhower and Nixon had really good policies for the country some of which moderate if not progressive leaning for the country before the party shifted more and more to the far right.

I thought that was good, but I still worry about him being easily perceived as a woke urban coastal elite from San Francisco, especially with dominance of the right-wing media being able to magnify that,

Yeah, I agree with those points you made, but what are Democrats going to do to figure out there messaging and optics issue? How are they going to be able to agree enough as a whole that the Democratic Party is moderate to traditional leaning on social issues, but economically populist on economic issues instead of just having many Democrats on one side of the party who are too left wing on both social and economic issues on one side of the party and then having too many Democrats on the other side of the party who play it too safe by trying to present themselves as being ideologically to the “center” or being a “me too Republican”?

He undoubtedly won the Democratic nomination in a landslide.

That's very true. A mixed economy is the best way a society can function and thrive. It. also makes sure that neither the government nor big businesses become too powerful by having the public sector and private sector check and balance each other. However, I think more things need to be nationalized including: More of the healthcare industry being owned by the government. Having a parallel public option within the grocery system and publicly supported grocery stores in food deserts. Fully funded, fare-free public transit that’s reliable, safe, and green. More social housing or publicly owned housing, alongside some rent control and tenant protections. End private prisons and have all incarceration handled by the public sector. Public funding for independent journalism or publicly-owned platforms free from algorithm-driven profit models. Public broadband networks, especially in underserved rural or poor urban areas. Public banks at city/state/federal levels and a public postal banking system. Public ownership of electric utilities, or publicly-owned renewable energy companies. Ideally, this would more or less lead to: Universal single-payer insurance such as Medicare for All, but hospitals/doctors remain private or mixed Public utilities as options, public green energy investment, anti-monopoly reforms Public or postal banking coexisting with private banks Municipal broadband in underserved areas, with private ISPs still allowed Massive expansion of social/public housing, but private ownership remains More fare-free, publicly run mass transit, infrastructure investment Public grocery stores in food deserts alongside private stores Public drug manufacturing for essential meds only End private prisons, fully public control over incarceration (this is full control here

Yeah, that is certainly a real concern. Anything with the label socialism/communism is usually a killer for any candidate in American politics. Then again, Bernie and AOC have become successful members of Congress, even though Sanders in 2016 and 2020 in great part because he calls himself a socialist. We really have to see how this whole thing goes. Exactly! It really doesn't take that much more of a tax increase for the government and the people to get the funding they desperately need.

I really appreciate the depth and clarity you bring to a wide range of topics, particularly when it comes to political ideologies and societal transformation. I’ve noticed that you often discuss the importance of compromise, moderation, and personal development, but you also emphasize the need for bold change in areas like social justice, economic reform, and climate action. This got me thinking: when you reflect on your views, do you see yourself as more of an enlightened centrist or as an enlightened progressive? Specifically: Do you see radical, systemic change (like universal healthcare or climate action) as something that’s necessary but must be implemented gradually through compromise and pragmatic solutions, which is more in line with centrism? Or do you consider yourself more aligned with progressive ideals, advocating for transformative, bold reforms even if they require pushing against the status quo? I understand that these labels can be limiting, but I’d love to hear your thoughts on how you navigate this balance between the moderate, pragmatic side and the more radical, progressive ideals. I'd like to know for my own edification. Thanks for everything you do!

Well, it is closer to the old-style socialism/communism, but still not nearly close it. Democratic Socialism still allows for more freedoms and voting rights compared to original socialism/communist states. It emphasizes a democratic political framework where people have the right to vote and participate in decision-making processes. While it advocates for public or collective control of key industries and services, it maintains a multi-party democracy, with free and fair elections, civil liberties, and individual freedoms. The goal is to shift economic power toward the people through democratic governance, which means that citizens still have a say in how the country is run. Historically, communist states like the Soviet Union, Maoist China, and others have been authoritarian, with single-party rule and no real political freedoms. These states would frequently suppress opposition, restrict freedoms of speech, assembly, and press, and really curtail individual rights to maintain control over the economy and society. The political system in these states was highly centralized, with leaders exercising near total control over political and economic life, and elections, if they existed, were often a mere formality with no real democratic choice.

"Yeah! Everything is okay! Nothing to see here, folks!" "The American Dream is alive and well!" "If you don't have a job, then it's your fault. You have to take personal responsibility."

What dark secrets are you hiding?

That’s a valid point. However, we are right now in such an unchartered territory of darkness and the worst hasn’t even come anywhere close to happening yet.

Prepare for bread lines in many parts of the world.