Hardkill

I don't know much about Canadian politics. However, from what I understand, Trudeau's party is in trouble because they are being blamed for similar things that have been going on in the US including the lingering effects of inflation, housing shortage, economic inequality, toxic polarizing media landscape, xenophobia, racial demagoguery, etc. Although, those factors seem to be even worse in America.

OP, don't tell me the right-wing media got you. Do you realize that America has more mass shootings than every other developed nation in the world combined? Also, while I'm uncertain about the future of America under Trump's potential second term, I'm honestly still ambivalent about the need for everyday citizens to own guns. Throughout America's history as a sovereign nation, there hasn't really been a significant instance where citizens needed to protect themselves from government tyranny. Given the current level of freedom and fairness enjoyed by people of all backgrounds in America, one could argue that there's even less justification for widespread gun ownership. Historically, the Second Amendment originally meant that only US Citizens who were part of a well-regulated militia could own a gun; however, SCOTUS in the early 2000s twisted the interpretation of that amendment by ruling that the right to bear arms extends to individual ownership and use. Has there ever been a time when the people of your country needed guns to protect themselves from government tyranny? Also, watch professor Lichtman explain why there needs to be heavy gun control throughout the entire nation:

Wait, how do you know about that for certain?

I get what all of you are saying, but how do you reconcile that with the fact that most people again tend to be centrist and prefer more of the status quo or incremental change? I don't think there was a strong mandate for major change, considering that there was no real major crisis that occurred under the watch of Biden/Harris and the Democrats, no dominant right-wing movement throughout the entire country, and the Republicans did not win substantial majorities in either chamber of Congress. Although the Republicans regained control of the Senate and gained four seats, their majority in that chamber is still not that sizable. Notably, the Democrats even managed a net gain of one seat from the Republicans which led to the Republicans maintaining an extremely slim majority of 220 seats in the House, the narrowest majority for either party since 1930.

Most voters tend to prioritize familiarity and stability over innovative ideas, opting for the comfort of the status quo rather than taking a chance on radical change, unless there's a major crisis, a powerful movement, or supermajorities of one party controlling both chambers of Congress and a president of the same party. So, why did Kamala Harris need to present a bold vision of change, as many people claimed they wanted?

I see. So, it was the younger generations of the people back then who were more inclined to move on to a new modern system for their country.

We may not have another free and fair election ever again. Also, I am so far not optimistic about the Democratic party and the Left being able to effectively combat both the right-wing propaganda and extreme anti-mainstream propaganda machines before either the 2026 or 2028 elections. Otherwise, we’ll just keep losing the messaging war in this abominable media environment and if that continues to be the case then it won’t matter how strong any of the Democratic candidates will be in either the 2026 or 2028 elections. They’ll just keep losing more and more big elections.

Oh, very interesting. So, did he say that the people in his country really hated the whole USSR regime?

I acknowledge that most people in America are not well-informed about politics, not very bright, and not well-educated. However, Donald Trump's advanced age and increasingly lethargic demeanor have been noticeable. Most people hate him and his first term as president was truly abysmal, which is why he lost in 2020. In contrast, Kamala Harris presented a starkly different image when she entered the political scene. As a relatively new figure, she brought a sense of fresh youthful energy, appeal, and vibrancy. Harris's appeal was further enhanced when she chose Tim Walz as her running mate. Walz is a well-respected politician known for his authenticity and relatability to everyday working-class Americans. His working-class background and commitment to progressive policies have earned him a reputation as a champion of the people. She ran on our country moving on from the same old tired shitshow of Trumpism and representing a future where our country would have greater justice, greater housing affordability, and greater healthcare access and affordability. Moreover, Harris didn't come off as patronizing or out of touch like Hillary Clinton did. Trump gives off the impression of being too weak, too lazy, and too demented to govern.

And what did Trump have to offer that was popular? Also, why weren't people sick and tired of Trump?

If people can't always be deceived by propaganda about their daily lived experience, then I am perplexed as to why people in red areas of the country, particularly in impoverished states like Mississippi, Alabama, and West Virginia, consistently support politicians and officials who implement detrimental governance and policies that have exacerbated the struggles faced by these communities. What is even more puzzling is that Mississippi, the poorest state in the country, seems to be struggling indefinitely. Are the residents of Mississippi resigned to facing greater hardships compared to most other states, despite the state's persistent poverty? Similarly, rural communities in Alabama have been really underserved by their government. The state has been ranked as one of the worst states to work in, yet it seems that the government is not doing enough to provide better job opportunities for its citizens. Do the people of Alabama not expect more from their elected officials in terms of economic development and job creation? Furthermore, West Virginia has been ranked as the least educated state in America. It is concerning that the state's elected officials have not adequately addressed this issue. Do the residents of West Virginia not demand more from their government in terms of investing in education and improving the state's economic prospects?

One more thing I want to say about wokeness is that, although I wholeheartedly support social justice in every way possible, and the claims about Democrats and progressives fixating on woke policies and issues like trans rights too much have been highly exaggerated, it appears that the Democratic Party really needs to improve its messaging on fringe trans rights issues. I really think that the Democratic Party should do a better job of presenting itself as opposed to extreme policies, such as gender reassignment surgery for minors or allowing male-born transgender athletes to compete in women's sports. To achieve this, they should clarify their stance on these specific issues and provide clear, concise messaging to counteract misconceptions. Furthermore, the party needs to do a much better job of combating the widespread misinformation and lies circulating on the internet and social media. These false claims, which allege that the Democratic Party supports extreme woke policies, have been allowed to spread unchecked for far too long. Otherwise, the Democrats will continue to cede the ground on this matter, which will ultimately hurt them in future elections and undermine their ability to connect with voters. In fact, I think the Democratic Party would be wise to suspend its advocacy for additional trans rights for the foreseeable future.

Well, don't get too rich. Hatred for rich people has reached historically high levels, with a growing number of Americans expressing resentment towards wealth inequality and the perceived excesses of the wealthy elite.

Ah, okay. I gotcha. So, how do you think the groupthink in the USSR back then compared to what we've had going in our country for many years?

but the more help those in need get the less likely those people will come after you for your wealth out of anger and desperation and the less likely they will hate you.

The more rights and opportunities minorities and women have the better the quality of life the majority of white people in a developed country have. Only white men who are straight, rich, and grew up in a Christian background like Trump, the Bushes, Reagan, and Musk have something to lose from any advancements in civil rights, social justice, and equality for any marginalized groups.

Actually, believe it or not, virtually every liberal/progressive social justice policy throughout all of history that has improved the rights, freedom, fairness, and opportunities of racial/ethnic minorities, immigrants, women, and LGBTQ+ community has also improved the rights, freedom, fairness, and opportunities of poor white men and the white working class. Why? Because every policy or law that has been racist, xenophobic, sexist, homophobic, classist, etc. has in actuality also caused many white men to suffer from greater poverty, less job/financial opportunities, less education opportunities, less healthcare benefits, less voting rights, greater labor shortage for their own businesses, a smaller and less diverse pool of talent to choose from for hiring workers for their businesses, staff shortages for the schools they run, no gay rights for any gay men, and so much more. Roland and his panelist start talking about it around 16:13

https://www.instagram.com/aoc/?hl=en

As I've become increasingly aware of the developments in US politics over the past four years, I actually don't think that any progressives in Congress, except for a small handful of representatives in the US House, have actually engaged in identitarian woke politics to any significant extent. I don't even think that AOC has focused excessively on emphasizing the importance of certain issues that have been irrelevant to most people in the country such as using preferred gender pronouns or promoting the term Latinx. I also don't think that she has ever been for open borders or excessively demonized the police. Instead, the policy priorities and public statements of progressives like her have largely centered on issues like economic inequality, healthcare, and climate change.

One overarching lesson I've ultimately learned this year is that I shouldn't have gotten so attached to any predictions made by any expert, especially when it comes to predictions made more than about one or two months in advance of any event. One thing I realized by the end of this year was how utterly futile it is to predict the outcome of any election, including a presidential election, more than a month in advance. Credit where credit is due, Leo did correctly sense that Trump was likely to win about one or two weeks out from the election. However, during 2021, 2022, 2023, and even at the beginning of 2024, he wrongly believed that Trump would lose decisively and that Biden would likely win re-election, as long as he and his party had kept governing effectively. This assessment was also influenced by the fact that Trump and his party had alienated many moderate and independent voters after a series of very despicable and unpopular actions of him and his party since 2017. Yes, I mistakenly believed that Trump and his party would likely lose the 2024 election, especially after renowned forecasters like Michael Moore and Allan Lichtman officially predicted a Trump loss about two months out from the election. However, I must admit that I always had a nagging feeling about Trump's potential return to power, ever since he left office in 2021. I explicitly stated on record on this forum multiple times how very worried I was about Trump's possible return to power. Despite my best efforts to dismiss this feeling, telling myself that Trump and his party were already so unpopular and had done so much harm to the country, the concern lingered. I am not trying to accuse anyone on this forum, including Leo himself, of wrongly assuring us that Trump could never win the presidency again or expressing confidence that the majority of Americans would never be fooled by Trump and MAGA again. Nobody is perfect, and I am sure that individuals like Leo did their best to understand where the country would head by 2024. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the truly contemptible display of ignorance and shortsightedness by the majority of the electorate, who re-elected Trump even after everything he did and even despite how hateful the entire Republican party has become. Also, a lot of people on here including myself kept flip-flopping with their 2024 predictions too much throughout the entire race. As soon as Harris became the new Democratic nominee, Many people including Leo himself, predicted that she would likely defeat Trump. I wasn't sure at first if she really had a chance. Then, as time went on people like me thought she was going to win, while some of the same people who initially predicted Harris would win said that they weren't sure anymore if she would and that it will end up being very close. Finally, Leo changed his mind again and predicted that she would likely lose to Trump. A second thing is that you don't know who is electable for any office, especially for president, until that candidate has been through the primaries. Nobody knows how well Harris would have done if Biden had announced early last year that he wouldn't run for re-election and she had gone through the entire 2024 presidential primaries. In fact, it's impossible to predict with any likelihood how well other potential candidates like Newsom, Josh Shapiro, Wes Moore, Andy Beshear, Buttigieg, Walz, Whitmer, JB Pritzker, or someone else we've never heard of before, would have fared against Trump. For all we know, any of them might have performed worse than Harris did against Trump. It's also worth noting that none of these candidates have yet fully demonstrated the exceptional level of oratory skills that legendary presidents like FDR, JFK, or Obama in 2008 had. It's unclear whether any of them would even be as strong of a presidential candidate as Bill Clinton was in the 1990s. That's why we have to wait and see how well any of them will do in the 2028 Democratic presidential primaries. How about all of those economists and financial experts out there who wrongly predicted a recession in 2022, 2023, or 2024? The economy instead achieved an extraordinary soft landing and is still going remarkably strong all around. Moreover, I now really get why most political pundits have been wrong about a multitude of issues. Most of them incorrectly predicted the outcome of the 2022 midterms, and many were surprised by the numerous historic accomplishments of Biden and his party during his presidency. This is particularly noteworthy, given the profound polarization that has developed and the increasing hostility of federal courts in recent years. Even medical and scientific experts sometimes can make wrong predictions. I never thought that everything they knew about COVID was completely wrong or a total lie. However, they wrongly predicted that the COVID pandemic would end by late 2021 to early 2022 and didn't foresee how much trouble the public health officials would have with leading, advising, and communicating with the American people on managing COVID. I'm pretty sure there have been plenty of other times when experts made ridiculously wrong predictions on all sorts of issues over the past few years. I just can't think of any more specific examples off the top of my head. So, from now on, I will consider any prediction made by anybody as being really subject to change. That doesn't mean that I am going to take any serious predictions made by anyone with real expertise on a matter lightly. I will just consider predictions made by a legitimate expert more than about one or two months out as having a high likelihood, but still has a very good chance of changing and I will considered predictions made in the very near term as having a very high likelihood of occurring.

May he RIP. He arguably accomplished the most for the world as a former president compared to any other former president in modern US History if not in all of US History. He also was perhaps the most moral president in modern US History.

Right! That's what all of the critics have been saying! There are certainly problems with the mainstream media, including their failure to hold Trump and MAGA accountable enough and their tendency to engage in false equivalence. This has led to a lack of trust in the media among many Americans. However, if the mainstream media is undermined too much, then most people will no longer believe in any of the good-quality reporting of real facts on what's truly going on in our country and the rest of the world. This is a concerning prospect, as a well-functioning democracy relies on an informed citizenry. If we lose faith in credible sources of information, then we will really lose our democracy. Moreover, most people who are low-information and low-educated folk will get very easily confused on what are the real facts versus what are not the real facts if they don't believe in the mainstream media anymore.

I am really glad that progressive programs such as Majority Report, Hutch, The Vanguard, and the Humanist Report are calling out a lot of TYT's bullshit: I also want to see all of these alternative left media people tear each other apart. Many of them really deserve it.

Even Destiny, Pondering Politics, and that Pisco guy are all dumbfounded by what Cenk and TYT are trying to do: Marc Lamont Hill, a well-respected expert on urban education, culture, and politics as well as a host of UpFront on Al Jazeera English, doesn't think that Cenk and TYT have necessarily sold out. He believes that they are making a mistake out of naivety. I actually believe that's what is really going on:

I also forgot to mention that it's also true that more moderate to liberal people used to live in more rural areas of the country before fleeing to more urban/suburban areas of the nation. Furthermore, I forgot two more very significant factors that have made it even more difficult if not virtually impossible for Democrats to win congressional and statewide elections in traditionally Republican areas. The widespread gerrymandering of electoral districts has drastically tilted the playing field, while the 2010 Citizens United v FEC ruling has flooded these elections with virtually unlimited corporate money, further stacking the deck against Democratic candidates.