Hardkill

Maybe when Trumpism and MAGA go away or maybe when our country becomes greatly depolarized then we can go back to having much more substantive discussion about policies. Btw, do you think that the progressives and Democrats are still losing the messaging war? Or do you think that they have made real progress with fighting back against the Republicans and the extreme right-wing?

This is actually the kind of stuff that both Cenk and James Carville have been advocating for for a long time now. I hear what you're saying @aurum but I feel like we have no choice but to do whatever it takes to stop the radical right wing as long as it's legal.

Yeah, I get it now. I fear that we may have to suffer from the ills of hyper-capitalism until the end of our lives? I am afraid that all of our freedoms in our country could all be all gone within the next 30 to 40 decades, especially if Trump becomes president again. The terror of corporate greed and the radical right-wing will enslave our country if we don't figure this problem out before it becomes too late. May God help us all.

Yeah, but it doesn't seem as bad or as frightening as it has become in our country

Thank you everyone for all of your responses. The points you guys have made here make a lot of sense. but now, why do you guys think that there was much greater unity in American politics during the 1900s and early 2000s, particularly during the golden era of politics in the mid 1900s? Was it because the country during the 20th century was much more stage Blue and less stage Orange? Was it because the country had a stronger need for unity during WW1, WWII, the Cold War, and post 9/11 during the Bush presidency? Was it because it much less people during those times dared to question the establishment and new sources before the 2000s? Was it because the parties during the 1900s were much more similar to each in terms of what each of them stood for, especially during the mid 1900s? Was it because the end of Jim Crow laws by the late 60s followed by the growing influence of corporate lobbying in our country ever since the mid 70s? Was it because of Reaganism in the 1980s and then Trumpism in the 2010s? Was it because of the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 and Democrats for decades did a terrible job with fighting the messaging war since then? Was it because there was little to no internet usage and no social media before the 2010s?

So, the media isn’t divided in countries like the U.K., Canada, France, and Australia?

Yeah, the Republican party ruined all of it. They used to be for all of the same social values as the Democrats have been.

That's true! I think if we can eliminate the stark contrast in social values between both parties then I think our government could go back to being a much more functional and beneficial institution for the people.

I have a lot of respect for his brilliant accomplishments and incredible work ethic. However, people like are still a great liability to our economy. Keeps me up at night.

Most people didn't perceive FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ to be radical left commies back in their days. Only right-wing Republicans accused them of that. Hell, you might as well say that Teddy Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson were socialists or communists because of their progressive policies. It's time to stop apologizing for being a liberal or progressive as long as you're not an extreme left-winger.

I think that if Musk values his life then he should be extremely worried about the very high likelihood of an immense violent labor strike happening at his company one day like what happened during the Gilded Age if he doesn't stop being so greedy. He is a prime example of what a robber baron or corporate tyrant is in the 21st century. I wouldn't even be surprised if he becomes partially responsible for the next economic depression we will inevitably experience if the alarming levels of extreme economic inequality in our country doesn't reverse fast enough.

(Sighs)…..I wish our country could go back to being dominated by the liberal era of politics like it was during the New Deal era and the mid-1900s.

But if most people in America like equality or fairness, then how do you reconcile that with the fact that most americans are pro-status quo and are tradition-oriented?

I get your first two points, which is what Leo has talked about before. However, regarding your second two points, you're saying that even though American is primarily center-right culturally, left-wing policies still tend to be more popular than right-wing policies because the country has always kept becoming more and more liberal/progressive in the long-run since the very beginning of the country. You also say that whenever left leaning policies that aren't too far to the left for most Americans get enacted they generally stay as popular and well-respected policies for good, whereas most right-leaning policies that get enacted generally never stay popular for long and most people eventually see how bad they've been for themselves and for the country. Do I have all of that right?

I wish South Korea could save North Korea.

China is currently in serious trouble with their economy. They've been struggling with a real deflation problem for several months and the government has been doing a poor job with not allowing sufficient investment. Top economists also say that the size of China's economy now probably won't be larger than the US economy anytime soon.

Yeah, I worry about all of that. However, apparently a majority of the business community wants Harris/Walz because they don't feel comfortable with the bad extreme anti-business policies of Trump such as high tariffs, anti-global trade, anti-manufacturing, against funding the war in Ukraine, and anti-immigration. Most of them don't like how insane and chaotic Trump is. They've found the policies of Harris/Walz and the Democrats to be more in line with corporations. Remember, the Democratic party is still very much captured by corporate interests and by the interests of urban and suburban educated white collar professionals. In fact, the Democrats has increasingly represented suburban voters who now makeup the majority of voters in America. Also, America is still the most powerful country in the world by far. No other country can come close to matching its power and influence in the world.

What if Israel and other developed countries decided to improve the levels of infrastructure, education, and economy of Palestine in order to help their society develop faster and better? Could that work?

We still don't know that for sure. We don't even know what RFK jr. stands for or even where the hell he even is on the political spectrum. I mean nobody knows what Trump truly stands for ideologically deep down either; however, at least Trump has clearly presented himself to the whole country as a radical right-wing Republican. RFK jr. came off as a liberal Democrat when he first tried to challenge Biden in the 2024 Democratic primaries. Afterwards, he quickly changed to running as some kind of very strange Independent who is not a liberal, not moderate, or a conservative. He has present himself as being all over the place with his message and political platform.

Then, why do they keep going towards the brink of an all out war in the middle east?

I think that Netanyahu and the radical right-wing officials in their government want a wide regional conflict in the middle east and don't mind if their actions or decisions lead to an all out nuclear war in the Middle East. I am sure that they all would be okay if they contributed to the cause of WWIII in the future.

How can Leo still say that the world is still more peaceful and civilized than ever before? Weren't 80s, 90s, early 2000s, and even the 2010s periods of greater of greater peace and civility than what we have had going on in the world since 2020? I fear that 5 to 20 years every remaining democracy around the world, including the US, could all be replaced by dictatorships, and WWIII will occur. Things all around the world keep getting worse and worse and worse.

Let's say that about half of the Republicans in Congress turned out to be secret liberals/progressives and helped the Democrats in Congress pass major pieces of liberal/progressive legislation for the country: Major Policy Shifts: Passage of significant liberal/progressive legislation, potentially including universal healthcare, climate action, gun control, and more. A significant shift in the country's policy direction, potentially leading to a more progressive society. Republican Party Upheaval: A civil war within the Republican Party, with conservative members feeling betrayed and seeking to purge the secret liberals/progressives. Potential splits or rebranding within the party, with some members forming a new, more moderate party. Democratic Party's Reaction: Initial shock and surprise, followed by delight and potential attempts to capitalize on the situation. Potential efforts to work with the secret liberals/progressives to pass even more legislation. Public Reaction: Widespread surprise and confusion, with some people feeling betrayed and others celebrating the unexpected turn of events. Potential increases in political engagement and activism, as people respond to the new political landscape. Historical Precedent: This scenario would be unprecedented in modern American politics, with no clear historical analogue. Potential comparisons to historical events like the Civil War-era Republican Party's shift towards abolitionism or the 1960s Democratic Party's shift towards civil rights. Consequences for the Country: Potential improvements in areas like healthcare, education, and the environment, depending on the legislation passed. A more divided and potentially volatile political climate, with some people resisting the changes and others embracing them. This scenario would be a game-changer for American politics, leading to significant policy shifts and a potential realignment of the political landscape.

I used to think that, but I actually came to realize that those viewpoints are common misconceptions. The truth of the matter is that it was never clear that Gary Johnson took more votes from Trump than from Hillary Clinton in 2016. He actually got some voters who were socially liberal, but also got some voters those who were fiscally conservative. There's no clear evidence that RFK jr. is pulling more votes from Trump than from Harris. The pundits have kept going back and forth between saying "it seem like RFK jr. is taking more votes from Biden" and "it seem like RFK jr. is taking more votes from Trump" and "you know, we thought that RFK jr. is taking more vote from Trump but now it's looking like he's taking more votes from Biden." What most people misunderstand is that you usually cannot parse out which kind of votes or voters a third party candidate is taking more votes from unless there is an absolute clear split from either major party. For example, because Jill Stein and Cornel West are left-wingers they obviously are taking votes only from Harris/Walz. Another example, would be if say Matt Gaetz, who is a hard-right Republican, decided to run for president as another third party presidential candidate in the 2024 presidential election. In that case, Gaetz who categorically be taking votes only from Trump.