Hardkill

You're not wrong about how damaged both the Democratic brand and the reputation of establishment Democrats. I honestly am still not sure if Newsom would be the best Democratic candidate for president. AOC right now is arguably the most electrifying Democrat in the country and currently has the strongest and clearest messaging compared to virtually every other Democrat in the country. That being said, I no longer see a woman of color ever becoming president for the foreseeable future. How is AOC going to be able to allay the fears of the majority of Americans that she doesn't believe in Cuban style Socialism/Communism when she's far leftist who already calls herself a Socialist? Moreover, it's still too hard for women and colored people even in modern America to aggressively push for economic populism on a nationwide scale. If a woman president came off as "too aggressive," even for the right reasons, she would likely face a double standard that male leaders are rarely held to. Voters, media, and opponents might say she’s: “Cold,” “harsh,” “shrill,” “Overly ambitious,” “trying too hard to prove herself," “too emotional,” or “unstable.” If a woman of color became president and was perceived as “too aggressive,” the backlash would likely be even more intense and layered than it would be for a white woman — due to the intersection of racial and gender stereotypes. We need an alpha male who's white, has traditional social values, but is a true economic class warrior like TR or FDR.

Of course, the police are supposed to enforce immigration laws, but what Trump is doing is totally unconstitutional. I pray that maybe this cause a major backlash on him and his party one day. Then again, maybe we are getting closer to some kind of real war.

Dude, have you met and talked to many people who are about age 40 and older in the South and asked them what they think about Bernie Sanders? Have you talked to many people who are about age 40 and older in Middle America and asked them what they think about Bernie Sanders? Remember, more than 66% of voters throughout the whole country are middle-aged to senior age, including most black voters, most brown voters, and most white voters in the USA. I bet if you ask most Democratic voters in the South and Middle America what they think about Bernie Sanders, most of them will tell you how crazy or extreme he is because he calls himself a socialist, doesn't seem to believe in God or Judeo-Christian values, can't relate well to them culturally, and doesn't even really visit their areas often like more moderate or center-left Democrats do. Hell, even my parents who are older than 75 years old, have been lifelong Democratic voters, and have only ever voted for Democrats up and down the ballot, have said that they don't like Bernie Sanders.

I just watched Roland Martin call out Bernie supporters for how they talk about Black voters—some of it borderline racist. He made strong points about how progressives often overlook the lived realities of African-American communities. I really respect Roland’s sensible take on politics, especially when it comes to race and power in America. He brings clarity most progressives seem to miss. Curious what others here think—why do you think Bernie never won most Black voters, even with his policies?

Although many women under 24 have bfs or stay in long-term relationships for many years. In any case, unfortunately, younger women, especially younger attractive women, have lost all sense of what it means to be a feminine woman who shows compliance and respect to men, especially to masculine men. That's another reason why most women these days end up settling for beta males. They don't know how to handle a real man who has sex appeal and has traits of Grounded Masculine Energy including integrity, competence, physical and mental resilience, being the leader, being emotionally centered, disciplined with Physical Health & Fitness, etc.

Brad Pitt was an alpha male in his prime. Also, at the height of his sex appeal he looked like a Greek god with a lot of muscle and definition. After I watched the movie with my mom she was like "ohhh...my god...he looked so unbelievably handsome! So gorgeous! He really was so divine!" Henry Cavill, Chris Hemsworth, and other attractive-looking male celebrity actors like them are very muscular and lean and are worldwide sex symbols. That being said, being extremely muscular and ripped like Arnold in his prime or the Rock is really unnecessary. In fact, most women will think that you just look like a steroid freak.

The political system in the USA has really failed. I envy all the other developed countries in the world—each of them has a much better system than the U.S. for filtering out the worst kinds of candidates, both in terms of personality and qualifications. They also appear to experience less political gridlock and dysfunction than the American system.

Let’s kill the illusion: The modern Republican Party and American Right have never truly believed in freedom. What they believe in is control — control over who gets to live freely, and who doesn’t. They scream about “freedom” while: Controlling women’s bodies Banning books Censoring teachers Outlawing drag shows and gender expression Letting cops act as an occupying force Building a surveillance state in the name of “law and order” Flooding corporate America with subsidies and tax cuts while calling food stamps “socialism” That’s not liberty. That’s authoritarianism in red, white, and blue. They talk about “small government,” but they: Expand military budgets endlessly Use the state to impose religious morality Dictate what history can and can’t be taught Ban medical care for trans people Criminalize abortion even in cases of rape The truth is, they don’t hate government. They just hate a government that helps people they don’t like. The Right’s version of “freedom” is freedom for me, not for thee: Corporations can pollute the planet, but you can’t decide what happens in your uterus. Billionaires can dodge taxes, but you can’t read The Bluest Eye in school. Cops can beat you down in the street, but God forbid a drag queen reads a story to kids. This isn’t about liberty. It’s about preserving a hierarchy where power stays with: Rich white Christian men Corporations The status quo You know what's hilarious? The same people who’ve spent years whining about “cancel culture” — crying about how the Left is “silencing them” — are now openly fantasizing about jailing their political enemies, banning books, controlling classrooms, and shoving right-wing ideology down the throat of every institution in America. Trump and MAGA aren’t even trying to hide it anymore: He’s been talking about mass deportations Using the military on American soil via the Insurrection Act Purging the government of “disloyal” bureaucrats Investigating media outlets that “disrespect” him And empowering states to crush dissent and minority rights This isn’t “anti-woke.” This isn’t “free speech.” This is authoritarianism with a cheap reality TV veneer. Let’s be real: the Right has never been against cancel culture. They’ve just always wanted their own version — where they’re the ones doing the canceling. And now that they are in power again? They’re not canceling college professors or comedians — they’re canceling entire groups of people: Women who want control over their bodies Teachers who teach real history LGBTQ+ people who dare to exist publicly Scientists, journalists, civil servants — anyone who won’t kneel to MAGA orthodoxy Trump’s movement is no longer “conservative” in any traditional sense. It’s a cult of raw power, driven by fear, resentment, and fantasy grievances. And the louder they scream “free speech,” the more aggressively they work to criminalize dissent and purge nonconformity. How about Elon Musk? He claimed he was going to “restore free speech” to the platform. Instead, he: Boosted far-right conspiracy theorists Reinstated white nationalists and fascist accounts Suspended journalists who criticized him Censored content in foreign countries to please authoritarian regimes Amplified his own tweets with an algorithm rigged in his favor Mass fired moderation teams while the platform flooded with hate speech That’s not free speech. That’s a vanity project for a billionaire with a messiah complex who thinks his wealth makes him the arbiter of truth. This is what fascism actually looks like in the 21st century: Not blackshirts or goose-steps — But a narcissistic billionaire demagogue, a base hopped up on culture war delusions, and an army of keyboard warriors screaming about “wokeness” while cheering for real oppression. So the next time someone from the Right cries about cancel culture, ask them this: "If you really cared about freedom, why are you so obsessed with punishing everyone who disagrees with you?" The answer, of course, is that they don’t want freedom. They want dominance — and a country where everyone who doesn’t think, look, or believe like them is silenced. It’s never been about “freedom” vs “big government.” It’s about who gets crushed, and who gets to keep their boot on everyone else’s neck.

I remember watching this totally crazy prank years ago of the Scandinavian pranskter approaching girls completely naked in public in Europe and in the US: He got phone numbers from girls and tons of laughs from both girls and guys. None of this means that he got dates or got laid from doing this, right?

Trump has said that every conservative judge including all of the ones he appointed during his first presidential term are radical left or liberals who need to be impeached. He called Leonard Leo "a 'real ‘sleazebag' and 'bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America.'" 🤣🤣🤣 @Zen LaCroix You definitely called it! I didn't think that it would happen this soon though.

It wasn't 100% pre-planned or staged. The parts of the vids that were spontaneous: Freddy walked up to random girls. He started talking, flirting, even taking off his clothes. Girls laughed, reacted, sometimes gave a number or flirted back. spontaneous social experiment or ballsy prank. The parts that might've been pre-planned or controlled: He revealed afterward that it was a prank or social experiment, and the women gave verbal or written consent to appear in the video after the fact. Camera crew was perhaps positioned safely to avoid legal blowback No angry blowups, police arrests, or actual chaos are shown. Perhaps edited out any serious consequences He actually chose areas where I guess nudity is more okay. Norway (generally relaxed attitudes) San Francisco (nudity in protests and public events is common)

Oh yeah, you're right. I just realized that clicking on those I just posted on here doesn't take you to either of those vids on YT. Both of the vids are on the YT channel, FreddyFairhair. One of the vids is "Naked Guy Picking Up Girls" and the other one is "Naked Guy Picking Up Girls in USA (TEASER)". Freddy approached the girls naked mostly during the daytime. Btw, I would never do something like this. The point I am making is that I can't believe this guy was able to get away with it without having any of the girls calling him a complete freak or pervert, without any of them calling the cops on him, without him getting arrested, and actually getting genuine laughs and some phone numbers from young girls including some who looked cute.

Yeah, look — sure, that Freddy guy technically got away with it. But let’s not confuse shock stunts with real game. Walking up to girls naked isn’t seduction — it’s performance art mixed with a gamble. He wasn’t building attraction. He was hijacking attention. That’s a huge difference. You can get reactions doing anything wild — doesn’t mean it works as a repeatable seduction strategy. Let’s be real: the only reason he wasn’t arrested on the spot is because he’s good-looking, had a camera crew, and probably did this in liberal, party-heavy areas with tolerant social vibes. Try that in most parts of the U.S. or even Europe and you’ll get cuffed, canceled, or punched. Even hot guys don’t get immunity from being labeled a weirdo if they destroy the social frame. Leo and Aurum are right: this kind of “flash game” spooks women, not seduces them. Even if you’re attractive, the second a woman thinks, “He might be unhinged or unsafe,” you’ve lost the frame completely. No comfort = no attraction. A girl might flirt with a confident guy who’s edgy. But she’ll only sleep with the guy she feels is sexually in control, not socially off the rails. Be bold. Be different. But be calibrated. Freddy’s stuff makes good YouTube clips, but it’s not game — it’s a liability. @Raze Yeah, that's what I thought too. Those girls who gave him their numbers were probably thinking "God, I really hope he doesn't call or text me. I only gave him my number just to be polite, avoid awkwardness, and play along with him."

I didn't realize until today that Elon Musk is a major drug addict: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/30/elon-musk-trump-drug-use Though, I can't say that I am surprised.

Not at all too late. In fact, 26 years old is around the age when I began to make so many major improvements in my life mentally and physically year after year after year. Got my 2nd degree black belt in Hapkido at 27 years old. I became the strongest and most muscular I've ever been when I was 29 years old. Around age 30, I got my first real girlfriend ever in my life. Ran my first half-marathon ever at 31 years old and ran it well under 2 hours. About a month later I got my 3rd degree black belt in Hapkido. Around 33, I had already gotten my Master's in Education, and by 34-35 years old I got accepted into two top-tier DPT program. I am 37 years old and I will be graduating from the DPT program I am in next year. Also, over the past 4 years, I've learned about US History and Politics, world affairs, and economics way more than most people in America do. I also started learning some basics in finances last year. I could go on and on. However, it also depends on what your problems are and what exactly you are looking to achieve.

True, but Anand Giridharadas in that vid said that he's very disappointed with the fact that there are still too many Democrats in the party who have not really taken a deep, honest, and potentially uncomfortable self-examination on how the hell they lost to Trump and MAGA again in 2024 after almost losing in 2020 and lost in 2016. He and the other commentators in that vid are saying that despite initial promises of introspection and reform following the 2024 electoral defeat has largely failed to engage in meaningful self-examination or implement substantive changes. They talk about how the Democratic Party lost the 2024 election to Trump not just because of voter misinformation or Republican dirty tricks, but because of real internal failures—messaging flaws, elitism, strategic missteps, and a disconnect from working-class voters. The Democrats really have not come up with a message that clearly defines who they are and what they stand for and MUST take a page from Bernie and AOC on how to message the people on economic populism.

I often keep thinking about that, but the approval rating of the Democratic party is at such a historic low. What if the voters, including moderate and independent voters as well as progressive and Democratic voters just decide in 2028 to just stay home and not vote for either presidential candidate or either party? I thought or was hoping that the party was currently making a good amount of progress on this matter, but clearly not. Also, the best messengers for the Democratic party have been AOC and Sanders. They may not be electable at the presidential level, but unlike most of the spineless Democrats out there who don't clearly state what they stand for, progressives like them don't play it too safe, aren't too afraid of being deemed as partisan, excel at moral clarity in messaging, and using strong, simple, and unifying rooted in economic populism.

This is very sickening:

Yep. All because of Trump's idiocy, ego, and insanity. You know, if he really wanted to add more tariffs, then he should've done them more incrementally to begin with, kinda like he did during his first term.

This might seem like a dumb or crazy question—especially considering your political beliefs and mine—but if the country elects Trump 2.0 and embraces neoliberalism on steroids in 2024, with America still stuck in toxic Stage Orange mania, what then? Do you think the Democratic Party should start supporting more and more of Trump’s and the GOP’s policies—like more tax cuts for the rich, further deregulation of the financial system and environmental protections, and cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and so on? Or is that not what you are saying or suggesting?

Those Damn emojis....... But hey, there's nothing wrong with the bullet-point style format. It makes statements more organized and readable.

One thing that I don't think anybody has really been talking about is the fact that the Left has ceded the narrative of religion and God to the right-wing and Republicans way too much for far too long. Even the most religiously expressive Democrats, like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden still have never leaned into religion nearly as much as Republicans and the Right have. Democrats Lean In More Cautiously Because: 1. Their Coalition Is Religiously Diverse Includes seculars, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, and atheists. Leaning heavily into one religious tradition risks alienating others. 2. They Embrace Pluralism and Church-State Separation Even religious Democrats tend to be uncomfortable politicizing religion the way the GOP does. Democratic leaders prefer moral language rooted in compassion, justice, and inclusion, rather than invoking divine authority. 3. Their Activist and Academic Base Is Mostly Secular Many leading voices in progressive activism, media, and education view religion with skepticism or even hostility. 4. Democrats Think: “America’s Becoming Secular — Why Bother?” However, I now think that the Democratic party and progressives pulling back from visible, values-based religious messaging — especially after the 1990s — has become a costly mistake for them both electorally and culturally. 1. Ceded the Moral Narrative to the Right The GOP successfully framed itself as the party of “faith, family, and freedom”, especially to white Christians. Meanwhile, Democrats often sounded like the party of policy and rights, but not moral conviction. That opened the door for Christian nationalism to grow unchallenged in moral language, with Democrats mostly reacting, not reframing. “If Democrats won’t speak in moral terms, we’ll do it for them — our way.” 2. Lost Key Religious Voter Groups White evangelicals became solidly Republican. Mainline Protestants drifted right. Even Latino Catholics and Pentecostals have trended more conservative in recent cycles. Only Black Protestants and liberal Catholics have stayed reliably Democratic — and even there, turnout has fluctuated. 3. Missed Opportunities for Bridge-Building Faith communities care about: Poverty Healthcare Immigration Racial justice Climate stewardship These are Democratic-aligned issues, but Democrats rarely frame them as moral imperatives rooted in faith — leaving religious voters unengaged or unconvinced. 4. Allowed the Left to Be Branded as Anti-Faith Even though Democrats have many religious members and leaders, the lack of consistent public messaging made it easier for Republicans to portray the entire party as secular, elitist, or even hostile to religion. 5. Even in this current era, most Americans are still religious: Approx. two-thirds of Americans still identify as Christian Approx. 2 percent of Americans identify as Jewish Approx. 10 percent of Americans identify as belonging to some other kind of religion Only less than 25% of Americans identify as not being affiliated with any religion If Democrats combined the modern Jimmy Carter–style approach with a call for moral education rooted in the wisdom of religious traditions (especially Abrahamic ones), while being clear that this is about learning from religion, not enforcing it, they could: 1. Reclaim Moral Leadership By linking values like discipline, compassion, integrity, and courage to religious teachings, Democrats could show that faith traditions have long supported the very ideals they fight for — social justice, inclusion, and dignity. “We’re not telling kids what to believe — we’re showing them what generations before us believed about honor, service, and the common good.” 2. Respond to the Crisis of Meaning Among Young People Many young Americans today feel: Disconnected from tradition or community Overwhelmed by anxiety, digital overload, and political division Starved for a sense of purpose bigger than themselves Teaching about faith traditions (without preaching) could help offer roots, narrative, and community values — tools for anchoring their lives. 3. Bridge Divides Across Generations and Faiths Older Americans might feel heard when Democrats say: “We know our children are missing something. They deserve to learn not just how to succeed — but how to live.” Immigrant and minority religious communities would likely respond positively, seeing their traditions valued, not erased. Even secular voters could support this if framed as values education, not religious indoctrination. What This Message Must Be Careful To Do: ✅ Emphasize: Learning from religion, not practicing it “We’re not here to preach. We’re here to teach. About how different faiths, especially the Abrahamic ones, helped shape the ideas of service, duty, and compassion that built this country.” Frame it as inclusive and pluralistic. Include discussions of: Christianity, Judaism, Islam Humanism, secular ethics, Eastern traditions Moral questions like: What do I owe others? What gives life meaning? How should I treat people I disagree with? ✅ Tie it to civic purpose “We want young people to know they matter — not just to themselves, but to their neighbors, their communities, and their country.” Moreover, Democrats would need "cultural depth" to make that kind of religious-values message credible and not come off as just pandering. They would have to embed it authentically within their broader cultural, political, and moral identity, rather than just dropping a one-off talking point. Here’s how they could add cultural depth to a message encouraging voluntary religious participation for people: 1. Show Long-Term Engagement with Faith Communities Not just a campaign slogan — but consistent outreach and partnership with: Churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples Faith-based nonprofits (soup kitchens, youth programs, refugee aid) Interfaith coalitions working on housing, climate, and justice If Democrats are already working with faith leaders on issues like poverty, addiction, and education, then a message about “faith and moral formation” feels grounded — not opportunistic. 2. Highlight Faith-Based Democratic Voices Instead of vague nods to “faith,” platform devout Democrats who live their values: Black pastors supporting economic justice Catholic activists working on immigration reform Muslim leaders promoting civic engagement Jewish Democrats advancing civil rights Let them speak for the party — not just in religious language, but in moral, community-based terms that align with core Democratic values. 3. Tie Religious Values to Universal Democratic Goals Make the case that faith-based upbringing supports goals like: Empathy and compassion → social justice Discipline and responsibility → strong families and education Charity and service → anti-poverty programs “Whether you draw strength from scripture or conscience, what matters is that we raise children to care for others and work for justice.” 4. Include Pluralism and Secular Morality in the Message Balance the religious tone by: Affirming that secular Americans also raise moral, civic-minded kids Framing faith as one valuable path, not the only one Emphasizing mutual respect and shared public values “This isn’t about forcing belief — it’s about honoring the many ways Americans raise children to be compassionate, curious, and courageous.” They should also like Jimmy Carter make a strong call for moral education rooted in the wisdom of religious traditions (especially Abrahamic ones), while being clear that this is about learning from religion, not enforcing it. If they did then they could: 1. Reclaim Moral Leadership By linking values like discipline, compassion, integrity, and courage to religious teachings, Democrats could show that faith traditions have long supported the very ideals they fight for — social justice, inclusion, and dignity. “We’re not telling kids what to believe — we’re showing them what generations before us believed about honor, service, and the common good.” 2. Respond to the Crisis of Meaning Among Young People Many young Americans today feel: Disconnected from tradition or community Overwhelmed by anxiety, digital overload, and political division Starved for a sense of purpose bigger than themselves Teaching about faith traditions (without preaching) could help offer roots, narrative, and community values — tools for anchoring their lives. 3. Bridge Divides Across Generations and Faiths Older Americans might feel heard when Democrats say: “We know our children are missing something. They deserve to learn not just how to succeed — but how to live.” Immigrant and minority religious communities would likely respond positively, seeing their traditions valued, not erased. Even secular voters could support this if framed as values education, not religious indoctrination. What This Message Must Be Careful To Do: ✅ Emphasize: Learning from religion, not practicing it “We’re not here to preach. We’re here to teach. About how different faiths, especially the Abrahamic ones, helped shape the ideas of service, duty, and compassion that built this country.” ✅ Frame it as inclusive and pluralistic Include discussions of: Christianity, Judaism, Islam Humanism, secular ethics, Eastern traditions Moral questions like: What do I owe others? What gives life meaning? How should I treat people I disagree with? ✅ Tie it to civic purpose “We want young people to know they matter — not just to themselves, but to their neighbors, their communities, and their country.”

Yeah, economic issues are supposed to be bipartisan and unifying issues, but apparently too many Americans seem to prioritize or get too distracted by culture wars like Trans and queers vs. anti-Trans and anti-queer, gays and lesbians vs. straight people, white people vs. racial minorities, Immigrants vs. native-born Americans, men vs. women, religion vs. secularism, nationalism vs. globalism, pro-abortion vs. pro-life, and on and on and on. Okay, you got me. Some of what I posted on my original post was from using Chat GPT, but not all of it was. In fact, it took a lot of time to refine the kinds of responses and texts that I was looking for.