Hardkill

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.

I absolutely don’t think this is magical thinking. I believe the truth is far more brutal: we’re in a horrible mess, and the price for getting out of it may very well be a crisis of some kind—one that shakes the system to its core and forces us to re-evaluate everything. The idea that something radical could come from chaos or upheaval isn’t some idealistic fantasy—it’s a brutal reality that history has shown time and again. Crises, while painful, have often been the catalysts for the most transformative change we’ve seen. For instance, after the 2008 financial crisis, the disastrous War on Terror, and the election of Obama, many of us thought that this moment would heal the country and usher in a new era of progress—like the New Deal Coalition of the mid-1900s. We believed that with Obama’s election, the U.S. would unite, address issues like economic inequality, and make strides toward social justice. Yet, instead of ushering in great progress, we saw the rise of Trumpism and a retreat to nationalism and authoritarianism. Similarly, after Trump’s defeat in 2020, many of us thought that Biden, the COVID crisis, and the greatest recession since the Great Depression would heal the country and lead to moderation and some reasonable progress for the coming years, if not decades. But, despite the crises, we still find ourselves in a deeply divided country, facing growing inequality and polarization. It seems like even the most significant crises don’t necessarily lead to the transformative change that many of us hoped for. At this point, it’s starting to feel like we might need a crisis or a series of crises that are even more severe than either the 2008 financial crisis or the 2020 recession. Those crises were monumental, but they didn’t fully disrupt the entrenched systems—capitalism, political polarization, and corporate power—that continue to perpetuate the status quo. I’m afraid that we might need something more drastic, something that forces a true reset of the system. We may need a crisis that’s so severe it shakes everything to its core, not just pushing back against entrenched interests but completely dislodging them. I’m not suggesting we wait passively for a catastrophic event to solve our problems, but I do think we have to acknowledge that some of the systemic issues we’re facing—whether it’s climate change, corporate control, or political dysfunction—are so entrenched that they may require a radical shock to finally force meaningful change. Without disruptions, we risk continuing down the same destructive path, stagnating while those in power maintain the status quo. While incremental change is necessary and often the most practical approach, I believe that, at times, crises do provide the necessary catalyst for pushing through the deep, systemic reforms we need. Yes, it’s harsh, and it’s not ideal, but if history teaches us anything, it’s that change often happens in moments of extreme difficulty, when the old systems collapse under the weight of their own flaws. That said, I understand where you’re coming from in terms of realism. It’s important to keep a balanced perspective and not simply rely on hope that something will suddenly “reset.” But I’d love to hear your thoughts on how we can push for transformation without waiting for a crisis, while also recognizing that we might be at a tipping point where a major disruption is the only way to break the grip of the current system.

The reality is that we sadly need another crisis on the level of an economic depression or World War to reset everything back to normal. At this point, while nobody can predict that far out ahead in the future I have a terrible feeling that we have to brace ourselves for dealing with another truly dark moment of extreme suffering around the world that we haven't seen in ages within the foreseeable future.

So, then would you say that you're both a mix of an enlightened centrist and an enlightened progressive?

These are valid questions. Some of them are pilot programs that Zohran is willing to try out only in certain parts of NYC. If say the idea of having city run grocery stores doesn't end up working at all then he will cancel it. If it works then he will continue that and gradually expand it. That being said he doesn't want to make ALL grocery stores in NYC be run by the city. FDR had a very similar mindset during the Great Depression, whereby he was very open to trying any bold new approaches even if they were socialistic.

I’ve actually had it analyze and judge my face pics, body pics, and dick pics. It works! 😂

Some are now worried that if Mamdani runs NYC, then it could potentially damage the Democratic party brand nationally:

Socialist/Communist regimes in the past or in countries like in Cuba or North Korea don’t allow for really any personal property.

Although, Democratic Socialism allows private ownership of personal property and small businesses.

Basically, the same as the Scandinavian way of running things. That being said, that doesn't necessarily mean that someone like Mamdani would be able to dramatically reform NYC if he becomes mayor because of the constraints of the political reality he would or will have to deal with including the lobbying against him during his time in office, how much resistance there will be from the more moderate to conservative-leaning members of New York's city council, how competent Mamdani turns out to be at his job, etc.

No, he's not a traditional socialist/communist. I used to think that leftists such as Bernie Sanders and AOC were for Socialism or Communism like in the old days of the Soviet Union because they are self-described socialists, I used to believe my parents who said that people like are naive radical left-wingers, was easily convinced by all of the propaganda out there that smeared DSAs and progressives as commies who have ideas that would never work in America, and I didn't really know much about politics before until I started to seriously learning and following it about a few years ago. However, I eventually learned what Democratic Socialism is and what exactly are the ideas and policy positions of DSAs are. Democratic socialism doesn’t aim to get rid of all private ownership, unlike the primitive authoritarian style of Socialism/Communism which does involve pushing for total state control over pretty much everything—including private property. Democratic Socialism is more about making sure things that are super important for everyone—like healthcare, education, and infrastructure—are run by the government or the community, rather than being profit-driven. But people can still own their own homes, small businesses, and stuff like that. The idea is to make sure wealth and power aren’t just in the hands of a few people, while still keeping things democratic and letting people own their personal property. Moreover, Bernie Sanders, AOC, Mamdani, and other DSAs aren't truly Democratic Socialists. When you look at their policies and ideas they are really Social Democrats, that are for the Nordic style or Canadian style governance and economy. I don't know why they've called themselves Democratic Socialists when they aren't exactly that and is a bad label from a marketing standpoint when trying to appeal to as broad of an electorate as possible. Yet, they just decided to call themselves that.

Incredible! It looks like it’s over for Cuomo! He even conceded that he lost tonight!

What about the people who do porn for a living? Even though every man watches it and a lot of women watch it too, I sometimes get concerned about the actors, especially the female pornstars, who do it.

What if she's also a thirsty horn-dog and really isn't looking for anything serious either?

It's also because of some other reasons that were discussed in this thread I made a while ago:

Although, some women say that they enjoy the no-strings-attached relationship and are sexually liberated, especially if the guy made it clear to her that he's not looking for any serious.

If they can build their nukes Deep underground, then how would or did the official inspectors in the US and around the world know whether or not Iran was secretly building their nukes underground when the Iran nuclear deal was in place? Do you think it's naive to ever trust Iran to ever hold up their end of a deal, especially given how primitive they still are and how much they've threatened the US and the rest of the Western world for decades? Also, what about the fact that Khamenei is the leader of a regime that sponsors terrorist organizations, has used proxy warfare to extend its power in the Middle East, and the government he controls has enabled terrorism abroad even though he doesn’t directly lead a terrorist group?

Trumpism never ceases to horrify me. More chaos, more destruction, more grief, more idiocy, more disasters, more failures, more betrayals, more darkness as usual…. God help us if this truly becomes Iraq 2.0.

Part of it is what @GroovyGuru just said especially with the rise of the internet, social media, partisan echo chambers, provocative messaging in this day and age being able to influence and amplify people's anger, frustrations, fear, and other negative emotions more than ever before. It's also because a lot of people are worried about our country possibly getting into another forever war by sending our military troops on the ground like Vietnam or the War on Terror in the Middle East. Not to mention the economic implications that would occur from such a wide regional war in the Middle East.

This is a serious question I’ve been wrestling with for months. It’s not just about Democrats, Trump, or 2028—it’s about the long-term viability of truth, rationality, and consciousness-based governance in a society where the information ecosystem may be too far gone. Leo, you’ve said many things in past posts that opened my eyes to this: In 2020, you warned that “half the country is stuck in a right-wing brainwashing alternative media echo chamber that has rotted their minds.” After the 2024 election, you cited social media epistemic rot, algorithms, and influencer/podcaster populism group-think as one of the two main reasons Trump won. You’ve compared Fox News brainwashing to what you saw growing up under the Soviet regime—and even said it wasn’t much better. That stuck with me. It helped me understand that what we’re dealing with isn’t just political disagreement—it’s epistemic collapse. But here’s where I’m now stuck, and where my deep concern comes from: If reality-based leaders—who oversee a stable economy, restore inflation, and pass progressive policies (like Biden/Harris did)—can still lose to someone like Trump… then how does truth ever win again? Inflation had been normalized for over a year and a half by late 2024. The economy was strong. Unemployment was low. Wages were up. The policy record was one of the most pro-worker agendas since LBJ, if not since FDR/Truman. And still—Democrats lost. Not just because of Kamala Harris being a mediocre candidate (which I get now), and not just because of lingering inflation pain. I believe the deeper problem is this: We now live in a media and emotional environment where truth, performance, and policy don’t determine public perception—narrative does. And the right-wing narrative machine is: Decades ahead Emotionally compelling Identity-reinforcing Constantly evolving through social media, TikTok, AM radio, influencers, podcasts, and outrage-driven YouTube content I used to think the growth of progressive- or Democrat-aligned media was a sign of hope. And yes, there has been some encouraging progress—more podcasts, YouTube channels, independent journalists, and cultural figures who are trying to push back against right-wing dominance. But the more I sit with it—and the more I see how many millions still enthusiastically support Trump or live entirely inside right-wing media bubbles—the more I worry that it may already be too late to catch up. The Left is so far behind in narrative infrastructure, cultural saturation, and emotional media literacy. And it takes years to build trust-based media ecosystems. I’m not sure the timeline of political reality matches the timeline of narrative repair. You’ve often said you can’t control free speech. That it "finds cracks like water." But this isn’t censorship. It’s voluntary informational capture. People are being propagandized not by force, but by choice, habit, and emotionally gratifying identity content. Yes, the Soviet Union was more repressive and top-down and ultimately couldn’t sustain the illusion forever. But what if the American right has created something more durable? More decentralized? More personalized? More emotionally effective? You also said that "without inflation, Kamala might have won." But I can’t help asking: Why did Truman win in 1948 after 20% inflation? Why did Reagan win in 1984 after peak 14% inflation? Why did Bush and Obama win re-election despite weaker economic conditions than Biden? In my view, the answer is that voters in the past were not as poisoned by social media outrage cycles and algorithmically distributed misinformation. They didn’t live in fully fractured, closed-loop info ecosystems. They could feel change more clearly. That’s why I’m so worried about 2028 and beyond. Not because I’m attached to “Team Blue.” But because I fear we’ve crossed into a new phase of mass consciousness where truth simply cannot travel, no matter how well someone governs. So my core question is this: What does a conscious, reality-based movement do when the population it’s trying to lead is living in a fabricated narrative, immunized against performance, and rewarded for tribal rage? How can someone like Newsom win the presidency in this rigged media environment? This feels bigger than politics. It feels existential for truth itself. I’m not looking for a comforting answer. I’m looking for clarity—on whether there's still a strategic path for reality-based movements in this new environment, or if the rules have changed too radically for truth to win again.

Yeah, it was one of the major factors that ruined American politics and destroyed countless lives in our country and around the world.

Oh wow, I didn't realize that you wrote that. That honestly was a very well-written article. Yeah, I agree with what you're saying here. It absolutely is going to take work massive work and devotion for years to stop this monstrosity.

Well, I am glad that Trump's parade turned out to be more pathetic and less scary than I thought it would be. I also applaud all of the people out there who were at the No Kings Protests throughout the country. I wish I could've attended one of them. This gave me some hope.

Yes, technically, it is simple and doable in America. The U.S. is undoubtedly the richest and largest economy in the world and has the resources and infrastructure to make it happen. I wish we had the kind of social safety nets and regulatory systems that countries like yours have. However, there just isn’t enough political will in America to support those changes—largely because of a number of deeply entrenched beliefs that many Americans still hold: Radical individualism over solidarity: America was founded on radical individualism and property rights, not social solidarity. Our “origin story” celebrates self-reliance, not the common good. These values dominated in the 1700s, the 1800s (except during the Civil War), again in the 1920s, and were revived in full force after the conservative resurgence of the late 1970s and early 1980s. Reagan’s 1980 election marked a turning point: with his exceptional charisma, he convinced Americans that Democrats had become extreme leftists trying to take away freedoms and destroy traditional values. His messaging emphasized private ownership and painted government intervention as dangerous overreach. Lack of a labor-based political tradition: The U.S. never had feudalism or a class-based uprising like Europe did. That means we never developed a strong labor party or a lasting socialist tradition. Instead, we’ve been left with two corporate-aligned parties. Throughout U.S. history, business and political leaders have often violently suppressed labor unions, especially during periods of heightened fear of socialism. Both major parties—especially the Democrats—have absorbed and neutralized anti-elite and working-class movements rather than championing them. Race as a wedge issue: America is the most racially diverse developed country in the world, and race has always been used to divide the working class. After the Civil War and into the late 1800s, many—including Republicans—believed they'd done enough for Black Americans. Helping poor people of any race was seen as a threat, because helping the underprivileged meant also helping the newly freed and severely disadvantaged Black population. The 1920s saw another wave of racial and xenophobic backlash. Public support for welfare, housing, and other social programs became deeply racialized starting in the Civil Rights era. Once Jim Crow ended, white resentment—especially in the South—surged. Nixon capitalized on that anger with the Southern Strategy, using “law and order” as a racist dog whistle. Reagan doubled down with coded language like “welfare queens,” fueling racial resentment and cementing the GOP’s shift to the right. Unlike Trump, Reagan even flipped a large number of Democrats into Republicans. Trump then took it further—weaponizing openly racist, xenophobic, and inflammatory rhetoric in ways no U.S. politician had done before. Money in politics: Big money dominates our political system more than in any other developed country. Campaigns are privately funded, lobbying is barely regulated, and both parties rely on wealthy donors and corporate PACs. Supreme Court decisions like Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Citizens United v. FEC (2010) made this worse. The financialization of the economy since the 1970s has concentrated wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands. Cultural definitions of fairness: Americans tend to define fairness through opportunity, personal effort, and individual freedom, while many other developed countries view fairness more in terms of equity, shared outcomes, and collective responsibility. That’s why phrases like “handouts,” “personal responsibility,” and “I got mine—you get yours” are so common in American political rhetoric. Even working-class Americans often resist welfare—not because they don’t need help, but because they don’t want others “getting something for nothing.” These beliefs date back to the founding era and reappeared strongly in the 1920s under Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. They resurfaced again under Reagan, continued into the 1990s and early 2000s, and returned in full force with the rise of the Tea Party and Trumpism in the 2010s. Faith in charity over public assistance: Many Americans—especially religious conservatives and moderates—believe that helping the poor should primarily come from private charity, community action, or faith-based groups, not the government. Libertarian and conservative narratives, both secular and religious, reinforce the idea that public social spending is immoral, while private charity is noble. Media polarization and propaganda: Since the late 1980s and early 1990s, media polarization—especially the rise of right-wing propaganda—has widened the trust gap. Millions of Americans now view any effort to expand the welfare state as “communism” or “government tyranny.” This has only gotten worse since the 2010s, with the explosion of conspiracy theories and misinformation. Gridlock Keeps Big Reforms from Happening: Even when there’s strong public support for ideas like universal healthcare, tuition-free public college, paid family leave, and stronger labor protections, Congress often fails to deliver due to partisan deadlock. This leads to widespread frustration and cynicism, reinforcing the belief that government can’t help you—so you’re better off fending for yourself. It feeds into the “you’re on your own” mindset that’s deeply embedded in American culture, rooted in the idea that no one else is coming. Tragically, the U.S. probably experiences the highest level of political dysfunction among developed countries. This stems largely from the institutional design of our system, which was built to restrain government power through checks and balances and separation of powers. That framework, when combined with extreme political polarization, has made effective governance incredibly difficult. The U.S. is also the only democratic country with both the filibuster and supermajority requirements in its legislature. Our winner-take-all electoral system discourages third parties, while divided government—far more common here than in parliamentary systems—often grinds progress to a halt. On top of that, gerrymandering has allowed politicians to entrench themselves in uncompetitive districts, shielding them from accountability and encouraging more extreme partisanship. Media bubbles and the rise of hyper-partisan outlets have created parallel realities, where Americans no longer share the same set of facts. And our calcified two-party system—propped up by outdated rules and private money—makes it nearly impossible for fresh political movements to gain traction or for consensus-driven leaders to rise through the ranks. Taken together, these forces create a political environment where even popular, broadly supported reforms struggle to survive—and where disillusionment with government only continues to deepen. Declining trust in career politicians and the political establishment: This has significantly fueled government dysfunction in the U.S. As more Americans grow cynical about traditional politics, they increasingly elect outsiders and hyper-partisan figures not for their ability to govern, but to “fight the system.” This worsens gridlock, reduces compromise, and leads to repeated crises like government shutdowns and debt ceiling standoffs. Voter disillusionment also lowers turnout, giving more influence to extremist factions and wealthy donors, while further eroding democratic accountability. As populist backlash grows—whether from the right (like Trump) or the left (like Sanders)—anger at the system often leads to deeper polarization rather than meaningful reform. At the same time, declining trust spreads to institutions like Congress, the courts, and even elections, fueling conspiracy theories and authoritarian temptations. Over time, this creates a feedback loop where dysfunction breeds more distrust, making it harder to pass reforms or maintain stable governance, especially in a system like the U.S.’s that already struggles with divided government and built-in checks. So yes, America could and should adopt something closer to the European model—but the political and cultural terrain is far more hostile. Most voters still back either pro-corporate Republicans or moderate Democrats who promise change but are constrained by donors, consultants, and party infrastructure. You’re 100% right that if we made bad jobs optional—by guaranteeing basic economic security—it would empower workers, raise wages, and make society healthier. But getting there in the U.S. feels like trying to hike uphill through centuries of cultural, racial, and corporate fog. That said, change has happened before. We ended slavery after the Civil War. We had the Progressive Era in the early 1900s, the New Deal and the liberal golden age in the mid-1900s, the liberal economic policies under Obama, and the progressive ones under Biden. Gradually, over decades, we’ve moved toward greater economic justice. Young Americans today are more pro-union, more open to socialism, and more skeptical of capitalism than older generations. But we’re still battling deeply embedded narratives about race, merit, and markets. And at this point, the Orwellian media environment—alongside Trumpism—is one of the main things that keeps me up at night.