Hardkill

I don't see how better security will work to dramatically reduce the amount of murders from mass shootings. The military and law enforcement apparently have already tried, but have failed. Btw, I remember when you said in your "When Does The Left Go Too Far?" series that you now see the point in the idea of bearing arms in order to protect yourself from a possibly intrusive government. With all due respect, I absolutely disagree with that point you made on that. Most people in Canada, western Europe, Australia, and Israel believe that such a notion is ridiculous, atomizes societies, and unnecessarily undermines the much needed trust in the infrastructure of our governments. This is what an article from the Israel Times said about their philosophy of gun ownership and the state: “The United States is deeply heterogeneous, and deeply aware of its heterogeneity, and that fosters deep distrust generally,” explained Daniel Correa, who teaches law at the University of North Texas at Dallas. “There is a triple fear that drives” the American gun debate, he said, and “every one of these fears is internal to the US, not external. Right-of-center people are afraid of the federal government becoming so powerful that states can’t retain their sovereignty. Among libertarians, there’s a fear that government generally, whether state or federal, will run amok unless citizens can protect themselves from it. The third level is the distrust people have toward each other in the United States.” Those fears are not limited to conservatives, Correa said. “The Democratic base has the same type of fear, but tries to promote the idea that government is good, or at least capable of being good, so people don’t need to be armed the way governments are armed — you don’t need AR [assault rifles] or tanks, but only the bare minimum for personal defense, like a handgun.” Since the state is the danger, American laws don’t just permit owning guns; they actually forbid the government from tracking those guns. For example, the so-called “Dickey Amendment” passed by the US Congress in 1996 (PDF of the law, amendment appears on p. 245) ensures that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” As columnist Charles Blow noted in The New York Times this week, that amendment denied the CDC millions of dollars over the past two decades for the study of the public health aspects of mass shootings and gun violence generally. Tourists seen at a shooting range in Gush Etzion, in the West Bank, during a training session on fighting terror. April 8, 2015. (Gershon Elinson/FLASH90) That was “disastrous,” Blow argued, because “we now propose policy prescriptions largely in an information vacuum.” But isn’t that the point? Information is power, and the gun fight in America is really about where power resides in society, about statist impulses vs. individualistic ones — competing with each other to shape the ethos of American society. The federal government is literally forbidden under law to track gun sales because knowing where the guns are would make it possible to take them away. ...... It doesn’t take much imagination to grasp how, in the aftermath of the Civil War, southerners might have come to see the right to bear arms as a kind of rallying cry in defense of their states and local cultures against the imposing Yankee-led federal juggernaut, or how many northerners and African Americans might have come to view gun ownership as a check on the efforts by those very states to rob individuals of their hard-won freedoms. Israeli Jews, meanwhile, lie deep within the liberal Democratic camp when it comes to gun control. They believe the state can and should do good. Despite their deep social and political divides, Israeli Jews maintain a deep and abiding faith in their shared fate and communal solidarity. After the Jewish experience of the genocidal 20th century, the Israeli state represents for them an instrument of collective action that literally rescued them from oblivion. A powerful state is thus synonymous with both national security and personal safety." https://www.timesofisrael.com/comparing-america-to-israel-on-gun-laws-is-dishonest-and-revealing/

Why does Canada and every other 1st world country not have anywhere near as much violence as the US does?

But isn't that like saying that "You can't put that toothpaste back in the tube" with economic regulations because once you give businesses such economic freedom you won't be able to take such freedom away from them? Also, how come Clinton and Biden successfully passed the 1994 federal assault weapons ban? Also, why currently has Biden and other pragmatic centre-left Democrats like VP Harris, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senator Booker, Hakeem Jeffries, Nancy Pelosi, Gavin Newsom, and many others like them have been strongly urging Congress and the rest of the US government to pass many gun control laws that take away assault weapons and possibly more? Hell, even Joe Manchin, the most conservative Democratic congressman has wanted to ban assault weapons:

Yeah, I am surprised that this game didn't have much more realistic graphics.

and yet Weinstein ultimately paid a profoundly grave price for all of the women he molested, assaulted, and raped committed. Michael Jackson died from drug overdose at a relatively young age. Funny enough, he actually died at the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center at the same time and day when I happened to be in the Eli Broad Art section of the UCLA campus for this one summer lecture class I took on Modern Art films.

OP, have listened to Noam Chomsky’s on take on the difference between both parties? Even though both parties have been captured by businesses interests, then Republican Congress Party has always served corporations and the top 1% of Americans much more so than the Democratic has. Democratic at least has gotten much more good things done for the good of the country by far the GOP. Obama became the first truly liberal president we had in terms of policy since Nixon’s presidency from 1969-1974. Furthermore Biden has arguably now gotten even more liberal policies done than Obama did and has accomplished more good if not great things for the country compared to any other president since JFK/LBJ in the 1960s. Unlike most Democrats, most Republicans, especially the MAGA Republicans just keep trying to destroy our country by constanly passing tax cuts and deregulation policies for the rich, deregulation policies that destroy the environment and worsen climate change, undermining people’s social security and healthcare rights, anti abortion laws, pass racist and undemocratic voter suppression laws. Democrats as a whole have continued to fight for and expand people’s freedoms, racial equality, social justice, democracy, pro-environmental policies, taxes on the rich and corporations, healthcare rights, and so on and so forth. Right now, the Republican Party has been perceived as being more out of touch, anachronistic, and tyrannical, than the Democratic Party.

She already has made it clear that she doesn't even want to run for president. In any case, can Biden convince enough moderates, independents, blacks, latinos, working class people, and young voters to vote for him instead of them voting for a third party or not voting at all? Even my parents and my uncle, all of whom are 74 to 83 years old have told me that Biden really shouldn't run again because they are getting very worried that too many Americans perceive him to be a doddering old man who's not gonna make it and the polls are still showing that about 70% of Americans don't want Biden to run again for president. Plus, Harris is the most unpopular vice president we've ever had since like Truman in the 1940s. TYT keeps saying that Biden is "gonna lose in 2024!" and that "he needs to be primaried!" Now, I am skeptical about Biden definitely going to lose in 2024, but it is concerning that Biden is not being covered in fair enough light by the media as a highly successful president and a far better alternative to any right-wing extremist such as Ron DeSantis or Trump.

Recently, Professor Chomsky was found to have associated with Jeffrey Epstein. The Wall Street Journal reported that Chomsky admitted to have occasionally met with Epstein, but emphasized that they met each other only during the period of time that Epstein had already served his first criminal sentence and before he got arrested again in 2019 and Chomsky said that "According to U.S. laws and norms, that yields a clean slate." However, according to an article from Insider, Noam Chomsky told The Wall Street Journal that his meetings with Jeffrey Epstein are "none of your business" https://www.insider.com/noam-chomsky-mit-wsj-wall-street-journal-jeffrey-epstein-2023-4 I have a lot of respect for Chomsky, but is what he did seem very suspicious?

Okay, now you're coming up with a conspiracy theory. Well, I still believe in Professor Chomsky. Besides, despite how cynical he can often sound, what he said a couple of years might be encouraging:

I still don't get why Mexico's economy is not nearly as rich as the USA or Canada or even Chile.

Could AI inadvertently cause even greater political polarization in 1st world countries like how the rise of the internet, big-tech platforms, rise alt media platforms, right-wing and left-wing echo chambers have been largely responsible for making the political climate increasingly since the 90s?

I know that the unemployment rate has generally always been about 1.5 to 2 times the overall unemployment rate in the US. However, according to the latest employment report, the unemployment rate of black people in America has gone down to 5.0%, which the lowest on record it has ever been in the history of the country for all black people in America. Plus, for the first time ever in US history, the employment-to-population ratio of African-Americans in the US is now higher than the employment-to-population of White Americans. https://www.npr.org/2023/04/16/1170293913/the-black-unemployment-rate-has-hit-a-record-low-but-it-might-be-too-early-to-ce Btw, the employment-to-population of Latinos and Asians have always been higher than the employment-to-population of White Americans. Therefore, the angry white men, Republicans, and other right-wingers out there really can no longer say that black and brown people are "lazy." In fact, according to some news sources, white men in America are the ones who are getting lazier.

Now, according to the April 2023 US jobs report, the unemployment rate of black Americans in April 2023, 4.7%, which is another another all-time low in the history of the country for all African Americans! The gap between the white/Black unemployment rate also shrank to a record margin! Some blacks did actually decide to not look for work last month, which is part of why the official unemployment rate of black Americans went down to a new low, but African Americans have lately been getting even more worker power and more opportunities to choose where they want to work more than ever before. While this is something worth celebrating, this of course does not mean that we should be satisfied or complacent with the progress that has been made for black people. I know that Black Americas are still suffering even much more so than white people, or even brown people, from the crisis of economic inequality that's been going for decades in the US. No doubt is that unacceptable problem and a real injustice to all African Americans. Nevertheless, America is still continuing to make significant progress in giving the respect, power, opportunities, equal rights, and real freedom that all black Americans deserve. https://www.axios.com/2023/05/05/unemployment-rate-milestone-black-americans

Given the concern over Biden running again at the age of 82 years old, a lot of people in the US are saying that Kamala Harris will be seen by the American people as the "true" presidential candidate. I think she's eminently qualified for the job of being POTUS, is still well in her prime age-wise, physically attractive, and comes off as a no-nonsense moderately liberal or centre-left Democrat with even slightly more progressive viewpoints than Biden does. Unfortunately however, Harris has turned out to be least popular VP in modern US history and she hasn't really been perceived by Americans as having been an influential VP, even though the VP generally has such limited responsibilities and generally has much less opportunities to present themselves to the public. They say that she's not likable to most Americans and lacks charisma. That's why some are saying that she could be a liability to the Democrats in 2024 if she doesn't improve her popularity or ability to command widespread respect from the American people.

I really like Biden and respect a lot of the great work he has already done for this country, but I wish Obama could save my country by being president again.

Ok, that makes sense to me. Thank you.

If I wanted to just have a one-night stand with some random girl I met from a night club in LA or in Vegas for or if I wanted to have a friends with benefits kind of relationship with a girl I met from cold approach or what have you, do I still need to be romantic with that girl in order to seduce her into sleeping with me? Or could that actually mislead her into thinking that I want a serious relationship with her even if I don't want that?

So, not everyone who is either poor or middle class or working class is able to become financially well off without sufficient intervention and regulation from the government?

Okay, so in that case why does the government need to fix the economic inequality problem?

I agree with that, but just to play Devil’s advocate, what about the argument made by the right-wing in America, which is that “if want to improve whatever situation you’re in, then don’t depend on the government to save you. If you want to improve your standard of living and/or improve your level of education, or have the opportunity to focus on higher conscious pursuits, then it’s your responsibility to achieve those things yourself. You have to power to do all yourself and by asking for the right help from those in private sector.”

Polls shows that most Americans don't want either Trump or Biden to run for president again. However, it's looking like 2024 is going to be a rematch of these two old white men. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/25/upshot/polls-biden-trump-2024.html https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/29/biden-trump-2024-polls-old-white-men Will this substantially dampen voter turnout due to lack of voter enthusiasm for these two and for politics in general....... or will this once again cause voter turnout to skyrocket to such a historic level like what has happened in 2018, 2020, and 2022 because of how incredibly polarizing and threatening Trump is and how increasingly divided and politically charged America keeps getting?

@aurum @Roy Yeah, I am with both of you on those points. That's why it kinda makes me wonder sometimes if there is any need or urgency for anymore liberal or progressive economic policies for those who are not wealthy. Do you think that the growing economic equality in the US needs to be fixed?

and who do you have in mind? Can you come up with anyone for SURE who would be as popular as Bill Clinton or Barack Obama? The fact is that none of the Democratic politicians in the US who are clearly anymore popular or likable than Biden is. Same thing with Trump and the GOP. There is no one in the Republican party who is more popular than Trump. I'd like to think that Gavin Newsom might become the Bill Clinton of the West Coast; however, given his wide reputation of being the governor of California for more than 4 years, he might very well come off as being way too liberal for those in the Southern states and in the heartland of the US. Besides, he's already made it clear that he will not run for president in 2024. A lot of others are saying that Gretchen Whitmer, might have a chance, but she may not have enough charisma to overcome the fact that she's a woman. Too many Americans, especially those in the South and middle America, are still averse to the idea of a woman being POTUS, particularly after we already had a black president. Personally, I'd like to think that either Josh Shapiro or John Fetterman from Pennsylvania would seem to have great appeal to the America people, but they just got newly elected as the new governor of the state and new US senator of the state respectively. So, neither of them would be ready to run for president yet. I can't think of anyone who would have a better chance than Biden. So, I don't see anyone who would be a better alternative for 2024.

To be fair, that's true. He did sign the First Step Act into law which led to federal prison reform for the better. He also signed into law the raising the minimum age of smoking from 18 to 21 years old and the signed into law the creation of the US Space Force. Furthermore, the CARES stimulus package he passed with Congress during the very beginning of the COVID pandemic was really good too. However, in terms of the overall legislative accomplishments he made as president, he only achieved minimal success that was less than any president since perhaps the worst years of the Gilded Age. According to "Several political scientists described the legislative accomplishments of this Congress as modest, considering that both Congress and the presidency were under unified Republican Party control." Plus, according to a contemporary study, "House and Senate GOP majorities struggled to legislate: GOP fissures and the president frequently undermined the Republican agenda. Most notably, clashes within and between the two parties (for example, on healthcare issues) strained old ways of doing business." The only legislative success he got that most Americans really noticed was his big Tax Cut law that primarily benefitted wealthy Americans and corporations. It was primarily through his executive actions that Trump followed through on many of his promises (all of which where terrible far-right wing policies that really caused serious damage to the US and to many other parts of the world). These included: withdrawing America from the Nuclear weapons accord with Iran, withdrawing from the Paris Agreement on climate change, withdrawing from the Treaty on Open Skies, withdrawing from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty that President Reagan had negotiated with Russia, revamping immigration policy by separating the families of undocumented immigrants, imposed a travel ban on residents of certain foreign nations (particularly muslims), seized money from the military to build his "border wall," eviscerated clean air and water regulations, and throttled back efforts to control catastrophic climate change. Not to mention that he appointed three christian nationalist Justices to SCOTUS, which undoubtedly cemented a conservative supermajority in the US Supreme Court, and he appointed about a quarter of all federal appellate federal judges. All of these federal level judges got easily confirmed by the devious machinations of then-Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell and the rest of his Senate GOP caucus. The total number of federal level judges that he appointed and got confirmed throughout his entire presidency became a modern record for a president in his first three and half years as president. Consequently, all of these Trumps judges at the federal level already have and will continue to have such a decisive role in American jurisprudence for decades in a way that's incredibly reactionary. Moreover, while his military/foreign policies thankfully did not lead to some disastrous war or some major foreign policy failure for America, his military/foreign policies were really not so great. In fact, his relations with every NATO ally were terrible and he was bed with Putin, Kim-Jong Un, and some very corrupt middle eastern leaders. All of his key foreign policy initiatives had failed. Rather than drawing down, North Korea actually ended up ramping up its capacity to produce nuclear weapons and develop missile delivery systems. Iran did not abate its support for international terrorism and instead relaunched its program for building a nuclear bomb after Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear accord and failed to negotiate a new treaty. Russia continued to increase its dominance in the Middle East and was not deterred from its aggression in Ukraine. Even though he made a paper treaty with Afghanistan, it did not help to prevent the Taliban from taking over the country. His order of the assassination of Qassim Soleimani, only ramped up tensions in the Middle East, and lead to the ISIS terrorists to come back with a vengeance. Biden at least made good on his promises to finally end the forever war in Afghanistan and finally put an end to the failed idea of nation building in underdeveloped countries in the Middle East. Plus, his handling of the War in Ukraine has without a doubt been highly strategic, wise, effective, and hasn't cost any American lives or even the lives of anyone in any of the other NATO countries. Plus, he's been taking a tough, but shrewd stance against China with regard to intellectual property rights and trading. Additionally, despite the fact that the Democrats lost control of the House in Congress, they defied electoral history by winning the 2022 midterm season overall while being the party in power. That gave Biden even more leverage to run for president again. Regarding the economy, yes the US has been suffering from the inflation issue for over two years now, but during Biden's first two years as president, the US economy had a historic boom and recovered, at breakneck speed, all of the several millions of jobs lost from the COVID pandemic recession. Plus, the US unemployment rate has been at a historic low for almost a full year now and Biden has now presided over way more than a million new jobs (many of which are good paying ones) in addition to all of the jobs recovered from the pandemic. Lastly, Trump incited violence, fanned the fires of hatred and racism, sowed chaos in America especially during his last year in office. Biden, on the other hand has significantly dampened down chaos, violence, racism, and the rise of hate groups in America.

Most people in America and in many other parts of the world wish that there was some Obama-like superstar candidate running for president in 2024 who is either centre-left or centre-right. Of course, America ideally needs a progressive president like Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, or JFK/LBJ. Unfortunately, there hasn't been anyone over the past 2 years since Biden has been president who has been able to clearly demonstrate themselves as either a charismatic moderate liberal or inspirational moderate conservative or a progressive who has enough popular support from the American people. Furthermore, believe it or not, but Biden has actually turned out to be so far one of the most successful US presidents we've ever had since LBJ in the 1960s. Btw, Biden succeeded to bring back a lot of manufacturing jobs back in America. When Trump ran for the 2016 presidential election, he made a big promise to working class Americans that he would bring back those good old manufacturing jobs that paid well and protected the national interests of the American people. That's partly how Trump won in 2016. Yet, Trump was never able to make that happen when he became president and probably never had any real intention to do so. Nevertheless, Biden was the one who was able to get it done.