Hardkill

Man, I can't wait for Walz to annihilate him in the VP debate, just for kicks!

I think Trump is going to be toast. The enthusiasm for Trump isn't what it used to be and Vance turned out to the worst VP pick in US History. Even worst than Sarah Palin. The enthusiasm for Harris and Walz is about as high as the enthusiasm for Obama was in 2008. Plus, the Republican party has become so unpopular, perceived to be incredibly incompetent, and has been terrifying too many people. The Democratic party on the other hand is perceived to be normal, functional, competent, and representative of the true majority of the Americans today. "We're not going back!"

Again, his system has worked for virtually every presidential election since 1860, despite the enormous changes made in our society since that time. Gotta read his book to understand how his system works. I think you will be amazed by it. "Forget the polls, forget the pundits, keep an eye on the big picture" "It's governance, not campaigns that counts in presidential elections." How will you feel if/when he turns out to be right with this election?

This is total nonsense:

Yeah of course! It is totally an incredible sea change! Also, thank goodness the Democrats did the right thing by not having an open convention for choosing another Dem nominee for president and instead uniting strongly behind Harris! Otherwise, they would've probably lost the no-contest key, which would've very likely spelled defeat for them like what happened in 2016. Btw, Michael Moore, who also predicted Trump would win in 2016 and Biden would win 2020, feels really optimistic about Harris/Walz. He also put up pics of various Harris/Walz yard signs that have been made and that we can use ourselves. https://www.michaelmoore.com/p/i-asked-you-delivered-here-are-your

He still hasn't decided yet whether either of the Foreign/Military keys are true or false. Regardless, even if both of those keys turn false, Harris would still be predicted to win because she won't lose more than 5 keys.

Yeah, but conservatives in America, especially those on the far-right, have pushing so hard since the 1980s to eliminate any checks on their right-wing rhetoric, even if it causes mass chaos and confusion for the public. I think that right-wing libertarianism has been the true culprit. Mature liberals and progressives, who are generally smarter and more sophisticated than conservatives and traditionalists, want there to be fair regulations on all information and content from both the left-wing and the right-wing.

Well, you better get used to it because it looks like she's going to be the next president of the United States.

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.