Hardkill

Are you serious?

The candidate who spends the most money usually wins elections. A lot of times when a certain candidate loses an election, some people will say it was because that candidate was outspent by their opponent with regard to how much they were able to finance their campaigns.? So, if that's the case, then if progressive candidates had as much money to spend on their campaigns as the corporate democrats have for their own campaigns, then could progressives win a lot more elections? Or not necessarily?

So, then why don't politicians really need campaign donations from corporations and wealthy donors?

Okay, so let's take a first world country such as the US, UK, Canada, or Australia. Obviously income inequality has gotten increasingly worse, while technology has gotten increasingly a lot better in each of those countries, especially in the US. However, you've mentioned before that things in the US are way better and way more fair overall than they were in the 50s or 60s because America has still become more developed than it's ever been. So, would you say when taking into account all of the trade-offs, improvements, declines, etc. that have happened over the past 40 years in this country, would you still say that things are still more fair or better overall now than they were in the 80s, 90s, 00s? How about with Canada, UK, or Australia since the 80s?

So, are things better, worse, or about the same now for most people compared to the 80s, 90s, 00s?

What if progressives including Sanders, Warren, AOC, Jayapal, and what have you tried to win over their voters by presenting their policies and platform as moderate, in accordance with American traditions, and emotionally compelling? For example, what if they talk about how universal healthcare or single-payer is a "God-given right" and that according to Proverbs God said that 11:24 "One person gives freely, yet gains even more; another withholds unduly, but comes to poverty"? Or let's say that they talk about how having a healthcare system in our country that would provide decent healthcare to every single citizen actually leads to true Freedom, which is one of the main core values that virtually every American cherishes and takes pride in. Such a healthcare system would grant every American freedom from "job-lock," freedom from the monopoly of the corrupt healthcare cartel in the US, freedom from corporate/private tyranny, freedom to care for one's family and loved ones, freedom to become a productive hard working member of our society, freedom to follow one's dreams and passions, freedom to participate in community and religious services, etc. How about that? Why don't they try much harder to emphasize how money in politics from all of the megadonors in America, especially those from right, are just as much of a threat to our country's democracy and civil rights as the MAGA Republicans are? Haven't they even thought about making really bold fearmongering statements about corporation and rich people such as "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I run a corporation, and I'm here to help." or "A Billionaire is about as dangerous as a power hungry dictator or a raging psychopath" or "Monsters really do exist. These abominations run many Fortune 500 companies and they may look totally human and they may present themselves as brilliant, persuasive, well-respected, civil, high class individuals, but the chilling reality is that they are actually green vampires who survive entirely on the money and souls of their victims"? Now, I don't really believe that about CEOs, but why not make statements like that as populist talking points used to emotionally connect with most everyday voters who are severely uninformed, not very bright, and already believe in all kinds of myths and lores that have no intellectual basis to them?

Ohh.....I thought you meant that they have that kind of obstinate stage Green mob mentality attitude. Well, that's sounds a lot like what been happening lately with the Republican party. There's been a growing amount of intra party fighting within their party, especially ever since Trump left office. In any case, even if progressives don't herd as much as most other people, they has to be a way that all of the progressives, liberals, and moderates, and a small amount of conservatives in this country can all effectively unite as one. The greatest figures in US history who were undoubtedly progressives for their time, including Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglas, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, MLK, Obama, Sanders etc. were able to form overwhelmingly powerful, cohesive coalitions that lead them all to the historic victories they achieved. Not only that, but they all were able to make major political realignments that would dominant for decades. Why do you think the Republican party became the dominant political party from the mid 1800s all the way to the end of the 1920s? It was because of how appealing the Republican party was as the liberal/left-wing activist party with Abraham Lincoln and the abolition movement. Why was progressivism so popular amongst the American people during the early 1900s? It was because of the populist movement, William Jennings Bryan, Teddy Roosevelt, Eugene Debs, and others like them around the turn of the 20th century. Why do you think that modern liberalism was the dominant political order during the mid 1900s decades? It was because of FDR and the tremendous pressure by the labor movement during the New deal era. Therefore, I would think that the progressives of our time should be able to do the same.

Oh yeah! I actually watched him in an interview with Pod Save America. As a matter of fact, I got the idea of messaging universal healthcare to Americans as something like "Freedomcare" from him when he talked about that in that interview. Well, we all know that practically all politicians are phonies anyways. Besides, if we had an incredibly charismatic Obama-like liberal/progressive candidate run on that kind of messaging strategy, then I think that progressives would have a really great chance of persuading most people to strongly favor their progressive policies. Yes, many of them do have that herd mentality, but they can't be too stupid to not realize that their messaging strategies are not working as well as the those of the moderate/establishment Democrats and the Republicans. As James Carville has said before "We’ve got to do whatever it takes to get more political power and that means we’ve got to win some elections. Just win some goddamn elections. This is not a time to complain. It’s a time to act. So let’s talk about real things, in real language, to real people. And if we do that, we can still save the country."

If there are plenty of girls out there who just want casual sex and nothing more, then why don't guys just approach every girl they talk in a sexually explicit manner right away until they find the girl or girls who are down to use a guy just for sex with no strings attached?

Yeah, maybe that along with her being a woman of color and not having the most ebullient personality all together perhaps have made her not appealing enough to most people. You know, a lot of times, I am not proud of being an American. I think that we still just have too many people in middle of america and in the south who belong in a 2nd or 3rd country like Russia or Hungary.

The vast majority of them were already MAGA Republicans to begin with. You don't realize how much the Republican base has shrunk considerably. If you haven't been keeping up with the news and politics then you have no idea how dislike and hated Trump has become by the American people, especially amongst the growing hoards of new upcoming young voters in this country. As Leo mentioned a while back:

But most Americans hate or dislike Trump more so than Harris. Most Americans are getting terrified by Trump and his authoritarian movement. Why does she have the wrong vibe but Biden doesn't? At least she doesn't have the age-related issue that Biden has. Also, given your premise why was she picked by the Democratic party to be Biden VP running's mate in 2020 if she's not likable enough? Actually why is she our country's VP?

Even though she's totally qualified for the job, represents the values of the majority of americans, is in her prime, already had great name recognition from being VP like Biden had before he became persident and even though Trump has had countless indictment made against him and most moderates and independent voters have made it clear that they will not vote for Trump? That's very sad.

Do you think Biden should drop out of the race even he has the incumbency advantage and has the best chance of preventing a very very costly bloody primary? I wonder if Harris could beat Trump.

Because he is the incumbent. Ideally, we should have a new younger, and stronger candidate run against Trump, but after having greatly deliberated on this matter myself, I think it would be a big mistake if Biden dropped out of the race because the Democratic would the lose the tremendous advantage of having Biden as the incumbent in the election and have a much much harder time of being able to keep the whole party united. Otherwise, I fear that we could really have a replay of 2016. The Democratic party needs to be united as one in order to win.

There's absolutely no way Williamson would even make it through a democratic primary. What about the idea that we should have a democratic primary because most Americans say they don't want Biden to run again and the Democratic voters in America deserve more of a choice for whom they want as their nominee for president? I don't agree with that personally, because Harry Truman, who was one of if not the weakest incumbent president in modern US history, ran for a second term, actually won another term, which totally defied all of the pollster's predictions back then of him losing re-election.

Yeah, but I never thought that he would genuinely believe that a fringe candidate such as Marianne Williamson would have a better chance of defeating Trump in the 2024 general election. He's also now screaming about how incredibly selfish Joe Biden is for not stepping aside and clearing the field. If Biden announced he is not running again then there would likely to be a very bloody primary that would probably divide and weakened the Democratic party very significantly in 2024. Besides, Biden's approval rating is actually not terribly low like Carter's was before he ran for re-election and lost to Reagan. I can't believe Cenk really thinks that Biden is definitely going to lose to Trump even though he already beat Trump. I mean no one for certain what will happen in 2024, but how can you say that Biden has no chance of defeating Trump again?

That's a cruel and short-sighted way of handling homelessness. Wait to you see how many angry homeless people there would be in the country if enough republicans in charge just kept sweeping the homelessness problem under the rug without really addressing the root cause of it. It would be like what happened during the Gilded Age or the Great Depression.

Do you think the right-wing megadonors are more of a threat to our country than the MAGA Republicans are?

Well, I am glad he's okay. But you know, it's kinda spooky how many of his family members had died from tragic deaths and that could've happened to him too,

UAW labor union is striking incredibly hard with a vengeance after not having an increase in real wages and real benefits, for so many years, especially ever since the 2008 financial crisis. The intensity of this strike from UAW has never happened before in the union's 88-year history. That's going all the way back to the beginning of the New Deal era.

I don't see how Destiny is a sociopath. He's morally for all of the right things as a true, but sensible progressive. The falsehood right wing talking points have included "the welfare has enabled black people to be lazy, do drugs, and commit crime" and that "non-white just as much as opportunity as white people." There's been no real evidence to prove that a robust welfare system enables black people, brown, or poor people to be lazy, do drugs, and commit crime. Also, the percent of black people in America who are welfare recipients is the same as that of the percent of white people in America who are welfare recipients. Plus, the main reason why there have a larger percentage of black people than white people who commit crime in the US is due to the fact that most black people in the country are struggling to survive. They are angry over the unjust income inequality between black and white people in America and because they don't make enough of a fair living they a lot of times feel like they have no choice but to steal from others with money in order to survive.

So, I should stimulate her first by making her feel safe and comfortable around me and whether or not she likes my personality?

Why does she need an emotional connection with me when she'll probably never see me again after we bang? What does her being emotionally stimulated really have to do with her wanting to just fuck? If she wanted to be emotionally stimulated then she could just watch a movie or tv show she likes, read a novel she's into, watch some spectacular performance on stage, or go to a music concert. If she wanted someone to make her laugh then why doesn't just listen to or watch some kind of comedy?

What other psychological reason would there be if it couldn't that she's hoping to have a serious relationship with me and just wants to fuck?