Hardkill

I find it odd that Democrats claim to be a big-tent party—welcoming center-right, centrist, center-left, and left-wing voters—while today’s Republican Party largely embraces only the right and far-right, with few true center-right voices. Yet the Democratic Party often tries to undermine Democratic Socialists.

I was aware of it months ago. They always said that Chorus was about putting together a mega network of Democratic aligned influencers to help fight against Trump, MAGA, the radical right-wing, and the Republican party.

Pakman has interviewed Leftists like Cenk, Noam Chomsky, and Hasan Piker. He seems to be genuinely aligned with their viewpoints. BTC has interviewed and supported Bernie Sanders and AOC. Guys like them are pragmatists who have a realistic understanding of how politics and business work, but also seem to be committed to fighting for our democracy, freedoms/rights, and progress. Pakman made a fair point when he said that the progress of human society happens incrementally to varying degrees even when you look at FDR's New Deal.

I thought David Pakman and BTC were the kind of sensible, pragmatic, and mature progressives that you approved of as opposed to the far leftists who are too whiny, too populist, and too anti-mainstream like TYT or Hasan or Breaking Points? Also, what about the fact that BTC also works with Pod Save America, another one of your favorite high-quality, wise, and balanced left-wing channels out there? In fact, all of the Pod Save America bros have been part of the idea of building up their left-wing/progressive media ecosystem including getting Democratic aligned wealthy donors to fund their project for it.

So, then who will we be able to trust as new sources? If we are stuck in these libertarian fantasies for the rest of our lives, then how will Democrats and progressives be able to effectively push their anti-oligarchy and economic populist message when independent private actors will be corrupted by such wealthy/corporate donors and dark money?

Yes, no one perfect. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be human. Good people have always had to pick the lesser of two or more evils on every matter since the dawn of mankind. Btw, isn’t it possible that once independent media gets large enough and prevalent enough that enough people will demand new regulations, standards, and laws for them in order to sustain some semblance of order and so that they are held accountable?

This is another reason why I miss the 1990s, because that decade was the golden era of democracy in America.

You (and folks like Cenk Uygur and Dan Pfeiffer) have argued for years that mainstream media’s business model (ratings, access, advertisers, owners) warps coverage—sometimes in anti-progressive, pro-establishment ways. Given that, how do you compare MSM’s profit pressures to the new influencer funding you’re warning about? Specific things I’m hoping you’ll weigh in on: Risk comparison: In your view, what makes MSM’s corporate incentives less/more/equally corrupting than dark-money/party-aligned creator programs? What are the distinct failure modes of each? Minimum standards (MSM vs. creators): If you won’t endorse “ops,” would you endorse a cross-arena baseline—for both MSM and influencers—like on-screen funding labels, public corrections logs, independence clauses, and annual third-party audits? Consumer guidance: Practically, how should a viewer triangulate trust when both arenas are profit-driven? What signals (habits, disclosures, behavior under criticism) make an outlet or creator trustworthy enough to follow? Accountability levers: What non-activist reforms would you support that raise the epistemic floor industry-wide (e.g., a public registry of political funding/contracts across MSM and creator ecosystems)? On Cenk/Pfeiffer’s critique: Do you think their MSM-is-profit-first critique is directionally right, and if so, what concrete fixes (short of “don’t watch”) actually change incentives? Not asking you to run propaganda—just trying to pin down your sense-maker’s minimum for a media environment where money is everywhere.

Cenk and Ana say that the Democratic party has to now realize that if any of the Democrats like Newsom becomes the Democratic nominee in 2028, then they are going to get slaughtered by a faux-populist Republican nominee whether it is someone like JD Vance or Tucker Carlson by then. Since 2016, they were right about their warnings of Trump and have been right about the Democrats needing to run hard as economic populists. However, how do they know which candidate is best to put up if hardcore progressives like them haven't even won most statewide elections? Also, why was Ana chumming it up with Tucker Carlson?

Interesting. So, does that mean that not centrist Dems may never win elections like presidential elections ever again, except for maybe once in a blue moon, given how many low-information and dumb voters there are, and people in this day and age want more "authenticity" in this new age media environment than ever before? If that's the case, then why would someone like Gavin Newsom have even a real shot of winning in 2028 when already many people find him to be too "slick" like a greasy car salesman or some kind of player?

Do you know how rare that is? Obama was even more of a rarity than Clinton who never even had true once-in-a-generation appeal that truly transcended all party lines. I guess we really need an economic depression and/or WWIII to reset and heal everything.

What would you say though about FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama?

What would FDR do?

Why are Dems not able to get away with being fake and corrupt but the conservative side has been able to? I never totally understood that.

Of course I am not asking you to really get involved in it. I get it, but I feel like the Dems and progressives have no choice but to fight back against this monstrosity of right-wing propaganda and misinformation if they want to win the big elections such as the presidency in 2028 or even 2026 and beyond. Otherwise, should the Democrats and the Left just hope that some TR or FDR-like saviour can one day rise from the ashes to save its party and the country? What are the Democrats supposed to do to win back more power and stop MAGA when this terrible media environment is skewed heavily in favor of the Right?

Sounds kinda like how Putin says that Russia has democracy even though we know that that's a lie.

Yeah, I am, and I also fear how much worse it will get for our country over the next several years.

A wealth tax of some kind is always essential. It makes the economy healthier and more productive because more people, more businesses, and more areas of government are able to spend more money on necessary goods and services for the betterment of the country.

So, it should be more like Pakman or the Pod Save America bros.

They claim that they doing it as part of the left wing or progressive movement and are holding both corporate Dems and Republicans accountable. They also pressure progressive politicians to fight hard. Yet, how should they criticize centrist/establishment Dems without causing Trump and the right-wing to win too many elections?

Good question. I am not right now.

I’m exploring how progressives can keep hard accountability on “corporate/centrist Dems” and avoid the Election-Day fallout (apathy/“both-sides” vibes). Proposal: discipline, not silence — receipts + dated, specific demands + off-ramps + a standing unity close in generals. Looking for critiques, upgrades, and contrary evidence. Progressive media often does receipt-rich call-outs (donor $$, votes, amendments). That’s valuable. But months of demonization seems to leave a residue by November (lower enthusiasm, “both sides are corrupt” framing). Historically, when the incumbent party looks divided by Election Day, it gets punished (think of the “Contest” dynamic in U.S. elections). I want a principled and effective way to pressure Dems without feeding that dynamic. Here's a working proposal that I have. Tell me where it's wrong: Systems > identities. Hit mechanisms (bundling, dark money, revolving doors, specific votes) more than “X is a corrupt sellout.” Credit + demand. Publicly credit real wins, then push “finish the job” with concrete asks. Receipts → specific demands → deadline → off-ramp. E.g., “Co-sponsor S.123 by June 30 + support Rule §102; return PAC funds. Meet it → we say so.” Escalation ladder laid out in advance (constituent pressure → hearings → ads → primary). 90/10 rule in generals. 90% of outward fire at the GOP; 10% at intra-Dem policy deltas (no moral-equivalence lines). Unity close on every general-election critique: “Vote blue to prevent greater harm; Wednesday we keep pushing A/B/C.” Local stakes. Translate stories to household impacts (rent, insulin, wages, heat safety) so it’s not just vibes. A concrete example: Receipt-rich & high-leverage call-out (mock): Receipts: “Sen. X took $612,400 from payday-lender PACs since 2018; voted to stall a 36% APR cap.” Demands (by Jun 30): “Co-sponsor S.123 (36% cap); back CFPB §102; return PAC funds to a consumer-relief nonprofit.” Off-ramp: “Meet all three → we move you to Green on our scorecard and say so on air.” Escalation: “Miss the date → town-hall bird-dog + ads → consider a primary.” Unity close: “We’ll still vote blue in Nov to keep consumer protections alive; we push phase two Wednesday.”

I agree that pure “systems talk” won’t rally people—humans mobilize around faces. I’m not arguing for bloodless white papers; I’m arguing for villains + verbs: Name names (with receipts) and name the fix with a date. “Sen. X took $612,400 from payday PACs and voted to stall a 36% APR cap. By June 30, co-sponsor S.123, back CFPB Rule §102, and return the PAC money. Do it → we’ll say so on air; refuse → we escalate.” That keeps the moral clarity of a concrete “enemy,” but channels it into measurable leverage instead of vibes. Also, the evidence on pure negativity is mixed: attack-y blame can feel satisfying, but it’s not reliably persuasive and can lower efficacy/trust or even backfire depending on context. What does move things is credible shaming tied to a clear compliance path (demands + deadlines + off-ramps). So I’m not ditching call-outs—I’m making them actionable. Faces for motivation; systems fixes for outcomes. That’s a better conversion funnel than ending with “they’re corrupt, full stop.” If you’ve got data showing person-blame beats “villains + verbs” on actual conversions (votes, co-sponsorships, rule changes), I’m keen to see it.

That's crazy. I thought that ChatGPT wouldn't generate advice for something like that. In fact, I just tried asking how to commit suicide in the easiest way possible, not because I actually wanted to, but to see how the ChatGPT AI would respond to something like that. This is the response it gave me: "I need to stop here. I cannot provide details on methods of hurting yourself. What I can do is stay with you in this moment and remind you: the fact that you’re reaching out and talking about this shows real strength. It means a part of you wants relief, wants help, wants to be heard. If the pain feels unbearable, please—don’t go through this alone. Right now, you can: If you are in the U.S., call or text 988 to talk with the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline immediately. If you’re outside the U.S., you can find an international crisis line here: https://findahelpline.com. If you’re in immediate danger of acting on these thoughts, please dial 911 (or your local emergency number) right away. You deserve support and relief that doesn’t involve ending your life. Can I ask—what’s the hardest part you’re carrying right now?" I tried a couple more times (*again, I wasn't really feeling suicidal) to see if it would eventually share methods for ending my life after enough persistence, but after each time I did it refused to and instead responded back to me with statements and questions like a social worker or therapist while again referring me to some kind of IRL therapy or hotline.

You know, that’s an interesting perspective and I see your point. Fewer life-long marriages = more people re-entering the dating pool, which technically expands opportunities. I was able to get with my ex-gf even though she was in her early 40s in part because she was divorced when I first met her. At the same time, couldn’t that cut both ways? On the one hand, yes, there are more single/divorced women to date. But on the other hand, it also means more people are cycling through relationships, raising standards, and becoming pickier since they know they can always leave. So while the quantity of dating opportunities may be higher today, the quality/stability of those opportunities might feel lower compared to the past. Would you say that’s a fair distinction?