Hardkill

What? Why would we ever want to go back to being forced to live a Judeo-Christian life? Also, why has the past 80 years of liberalism been more responsible than hyper capitalism, neoliberalism, and the right-wing media are for the mess we are in?

Conservatives, right-wing libertarians, and Republicans are the ones who haven't wanted any regulations on free speech for decades. Reagan and Republicans were the ones who got rid of the fairness doctrine. Liberals, progressives, moderates, and Independents actually want reasonable regulations on freedom speech in order to prevent such misinformation, to have real meaningful discourse on policies, find common ground, and have a more effective governance. Btw, why 80 years?

Watch how Tim Walz rips both Trump and Vance to shreds:

Well, this media environment is clearly not working for us. It's caused too much chaos and division in our society. Besides, we can't keep letting the conservatives win the messaging war. We already had conservatism dominate US politics since the election of Reagan in the 80s. The election of Obama in 2008 or the emergence of the progressive movement since 2016 were supposed to usher in a new era of liberal/progressive politics like in the early 1900s progressive era or like during the mid 1900s.

I wish we could go back to the good old days when the traditional non-partisan mainstream media outlets were the dominant sources of news and political commentary in our country.

Hey, what do you guys think about the idea of having the fairness doctrine reinstated? Positive effects: Increased diversity of perspectives: Media outlets would need to present balanced coverage, exposing audiences to a wider range of viewpoints. Reduced polarization: By presenting contrasting views, media could help bridge the ideological divide and foster more nuanced discussions. Improved critical thinking: Audiences would be encouraged to engage critically with different perspectives, promoting media literacy and informed decision-making. Enhanced credibility: Media outlets might regain credibility by demonstrating a commitment to balanced reporting and diverse perspectives. Challenges and potential drawbacks: Regulatory complexities: Reinstating the doctrine would require significant regulatory updates and enforcement mechanisms. First Amendment concerns: Some argue that the doctrine could infringe upon freedom of speech and press, as it might compel media outlets to present views they disagree with. Practical challenges: Implementing the doctrine could be difficult, especially in today's digital media landscape with numerous outlets and platforms. Potential for tokenism: Media outlets might fulfill the doctrine's requirements by presenting token opposing views, rather than genuinely engaging with diverse perspectives. Impact on opinion-driven content: The doctrine might affect the viability of opinion-driven shows, podcasts, or commentary, potentially limiting their ability to express a clear viewpoint. Unintended consequences: Over-regulation: Excessive regulation could lead to a chilling effect on free speech, driving controversial or innovative content underground. Media homogenization: The doctrine might inadvertently encourage media outlets to adopt a "safe" middle ground, suppressing unique perspectives and innovative content. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would require careful consideration of these factors to ensure that it promotes balanced coverage and diverse perspectives without infringing upon freedom of expression or stifling innovation.

Even though moderates are always a necessary part a society, I a lot times get very worried about centrists becoming easily swayed by the radical right or doing too “both sideism.” In fact, if you look at many points in world history, authoritarians have been able to rise to power by easily manipulating moderates into believing that they are no worse than those on the other side of the issues. Particularly during times of major crises or even when enough people perceive something to be a serious crisis even if there is no real crisis such as “the white replacement theory.”

Even though the US has become the most politically divided it has been since the antebellum of the Civil War, what if the polarization in the US has really been largely confined to the political elites, such as candidates, donors, and activists, rather than the general public? Abortion: Despite being considered a highly polarizing issue, a significant majority (60-67%) of Americans believe abortion should be available, indicating broad consensus. Immigration: Most Americans support a balanced approach that includes both border security and comprehensive reform with a pathway to citizenship, rather than being strictly divided on the issue. Gun control: A majority of Americans favor reasonable measures like universal background checks and red flag laws, showing that public opinion is more nuanced than polarized. I think we need to highlight the importance of distinguishing between elite-level polarization and public opinion. While political leaders and activists may hold strongly divergent views, the broader public may be more open to compromise and consensus. This perspective could encourage us to look beyond the noise of partisan politics and focus on finding common ground. Then again, why have the results of many big elections since the 2010s been much closer than they should be?

Mearsheimer says that they can't because otherwise the Israeli lobbying will go after Harris and the Democrats by totally smearing them as traitors to Israel, which could destroy her and her party's chances of winning in 2024. Plus, many Jewish and pro-Israeli voters in America may be very upset by that. Money in politics will be the death of us all!

It's very depressing that Biden and Harris can't stop or even threaten to withhold more funding and aid to Israel like Reagan did in the past with Menachem Begin. Damn AIPAC and damn the money in politics and damn our unchecked support for Israel!

I know there's nothing wrong with wanting casual sex with a woman, but when does trying to get just casual sex with her make her feel objectified?

More Republicans for Harris:

I gotcha. So, I gotta make her feel comfortable, form at least a superficial level of an emotional connection with her, and get her excited about me to be interested in having casual sexual with me. Thanks.

Alright, thanks for all of the advice guys.

So, how did you make her feel less objectified or how did she make herself feel like her body wasn't just used as sex object?

Yeah, but then why you feel like certain women sometimes enjoy having a one night stand or having a fuck buddy without feeling objectified?

So, even when it comes to casual sex I have to build enough of an emotional connection with her to not make feel her like I just wanted to use her body as an object for sex.

Oh, so it only comes off as desperate if she seems too uncomfortable with what I am doing or saying to her, right?

But how do I know if I am coming off as too desperate when I try doing mode #1?

Then, why are some women okay with being seduced into just having casual sex?

I think that centrism or moderates in America are stage Orange because the current center of gravity in terms of stage of development in America is Orange (Achievement) and a majority of Americans are moderates. Most Americans still prioritize these values which are stage Orange: Focus on individual success, economic growth, and progress Support for policies that promote social mobility, education, and innovation Emphasis on pragmatism, compromise, and finding common ground Valuing expertise, data-driven decision making, and incremental change

Mearsheimer says that Israel wants a war with Iran in order to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities and to have a bigger opportunity to ethnically cleanse Gaza and the West Bank. Also, they know that they would be able to drag the US into such a war with them because the US will always support Israel militarily no matter what. Yet, if Israel does go to war with Iran then their country's economy and development would be devastated, which would be politically suicidal. So, is Israel waiting for some kind of pretext for starting a real war with Iran?

We need to massively educate them a lot better somehow. Also:

So, it's because all of these factors which have caused this level of polarization have caused most voters to feel like they have no choice but to choose the candidate that they perceive closer to their ideology even if that candidate happens to be extreme? Also, how do you think Democrats can dominate the messaging war in the terrible media environment we are in?

I know, but Dems gotta win more elections.