Hardkill

There is mainstream conservatism, mainstream centrism, and mainstream liberalism. but I get your point. What was once an unthinkable or radical form of progress eventually becomes mainstream.

We had a federal assault weapon ban passed in Congress in the 1990s during Clinton's presidency with the 1994 crime bill that was sponsored by then Senator Biden. Sadly, it only lasted for 10 years. Bush actually wanted to renew that law but never got the support he needed in Congress for it. Federal law banned the civilian transfer and possession of new machine guns as of May 19, 1986, through the Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA).

Then, we have to somehow replace the 2nd amendment with a new amendment and/or overthrow the radical right-wingers on SCOTUS to ban most guns for all civilians except for hunting guns, federal level gun permits, and major federal level background checks.

Wait, are you sure that all of those in power and were loyal to the crown were moderates? Imperial power (the Crown/Parliament) was, of course, the incumbent. But in the colonies, power was split: many Patriot leaders were also local elites (planters, merchants, lawyers, officeholders). “Moderate” in 1775–76 often meant reconciliationist (stay in the empire but with reforms). Some of these moderates later drifted Patriot once reconciliation died; others stayed neutral or Loyalist. Across both eras, conservatives generally favored less and slower change than moderates, who were more open to positive reforms short of radical rupture.

Makes sense. Actually, I thought that some majority of Americans during the American Revolution were either for Independence from the British empire or were undecided/indifferent to the issue. Also, I thought that a majority of all of Americans wanted slavery to end towards the end of the Civil War.

So, America breaking from the British Empire became moderate during the American Revolution, the abolition of slavery and grants some basic rights to blacks became moderate during and after the Civil War, and the New Deal agenda became moderate during the Great Depression.

Yeah, I get what you’re saying and that’s what Leo said a while back. Though no great leader or president in US history was ever truly a hard left-winger. Not even Washington, Lincoln, or FDR. Even though they were historic forward looking figures they were all relatively moderate for their time. Do you think that’s because those leaders governed during times when certain crises and/or certain mass movements were able to push progressive revolutionary ideas move into the center of political spectrum?

Yeah, anything taken too far won’t work. Far left economics such as true authoritarian Socialism/Communism like in Cuba, in the old days of the Soviet Union, or during Mao’s regime in China does more way harm than good. Also, we can also pay for higher spending programs for the everyday people by taxing more of the rich and big corporations, especially during economic boom periods. Btw, conservatives and Republicans since the late 1900s, starting with Reagan have really been the ones who have worsened the deficit and debt much more so than moderates, liberals, and Democrats have. The GOP and the Right have ballooned the deficit and debt for decades with their insane major tax cuts, the recessions they’ve caused, and the crazy amount of money they’ve spent on wars.

Do you know how progressive and economically populist FDR was? Yeah, he ran as more of a moderate when he ran and won the presidency for first time in 1932. However, he was arguably the most economically progressive and the most economically populist US president of all time! It saved our economy from the worst economic crisis ever in American history! Thanks to his entire New Deal philosophy we’ve never had another economic Depression for almost a century and our country has greatly benefitted from all kinds of social safety nets and protections for 90+% of Americans in this country. His fifth cousin, TR, who was president in the 1900s decade, was extremely progressive and economically populist. His Square Deal agenda saved our country from the horrific abuses and extreme economic inequality of the late 1800s Gilded age. His policies didn’t go nearly as far as FDR did. However, when he was still alive he was for so many more progressive and economic populist ideas that he wasn’t able to get done but were eventually enacted in later years during the presidencies of Taft, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, combined presidencies of JFK and LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Clinton, Obama, and Biden. New Deal Democratic presidents including FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ were always more to the left economically than moderates like Clinton, Obama, and Newsom. Biden was a center-left Democratic president that was more to the left economically than Obama, who was more to left economically than Clinton was. Biden really turned out to be a New Deal 2.0 Democrat. Newsom has yet to prove that he can be as economically populist or as progressive as Biden was.

You know that virtually every progressive politician out there doesn’t support any "downright stupid policies" such as the ones you're talking about. I used to believe that when I first heard about progressivism and Bernie Sanders. However, the vast majority of the left, especially today, is for bringing back the Democratic party fully to it's New Deal roots. Even Cenk, whom I can't really stand anymore, had just said this today on his X account: "Brother, you're years behind. The far left attacks me more than anyone else these days. I'm in the economically populist wing of the left. The establishment left is ruled by the donor class and the far left is too obsessed with culture wars (and so is the far right)."

I admit that I am selfish, but life is hard.

Yeah, but I feel like placing truth above everything else is a luxury that most people can't afford to do because of what it takes to survive and thrive.

I think it's really because Elon doesn't like how much more support the more progressive and more fair economic policies have been getting in every developed country around the world. That's why he turned against the Democratic party as soon he realized how much more economically left-wing it has gotten since around the mid to late 2010s coupled with his insane addiction to gaining more and more wealth, which keeps getting worse and worse. He probably also is deep down a racist to some extent like many well-known white Christian-born South Africans have been.

These are all really good responses. @Kid A Yeah, it's messed up in a way. @psychedelaholic @Bjorn K Holmstrom @Basman So, it depends on what kind of centrism we're talking about. If it's just splitting both of the issues down the middle for the sake of centrism without any advanced reasoning for it, then that centrism is less evolved than healthy liberalism/progressivism/left-wing ideology. However, if it is integrative centrism involving highly sophisticated, nuanced thinking that's liberal-leaning, but in a more clear-headed and more intelligent manner involves moderate views and conservative views at times for the bigger picture of achieving effective long-term progress in a society. @Emerald What about centrist politicians like Manchin who aren't politically disengaged, but are trying to seem like "the adults in the room" by being in the middle?

I agree that offline, average women date average men, and that apps skew attention. The “top 20%” thing mostly describes app attention, not offline selection. Two truths can coexist: Boosting your own package (health, style, social skills, purpose) helps a ton—do it for you. In recurring, talk-friendly scenes with warm intros, assortative matching and mere exposure kick in, and most guys do fine without being “top 10%.”

Yeah, I just remembered that about Preety India, aka Tyler Robinson. lol

Exploring for me is both fun and help me figure out what kind of woman I ultimately want to have for my life partner.

To have that in America would be Trump's wet dream.

It may take just about 100K YouTube subcribers for talking about controversial topics from either the Left or the Right to get death threats and all other kinds of harassment. Around the time Allan and Sam Lichtman got about 100K YouTube subcribers and he predicted that Harris would win the 2024 election, Allan said at the time that he and his family were threatened in many ways by a lot of crazy right-wingers out there.

Imagine how many more wars there would've been if the assassination of every major political figure had caused one.

The face he has been making is strange. It does appear to be a sign of a stroke or Bell Palsy. However, we don't know what kind of stroke he may have had and/or how severe it was. We would need to know a number of things that might have been impaired including his speech, comprehension physical capabilities, etc.

In any case, I applaud Brazil. I am very impressed.

You know, our country should be absolutely embarrassed that a developing nation like Brazil was able to hold a fascist accountable, but America, which is still a developed nation and has had the longest-running democracy in the history of the world, can't hold a fascist accountable.

A lot of guys online say it’s gotten much harder to get women in developed countries today. But when you look closely, maybe it seems more complicated. Why People Say It’s Harder Now Apps concentrate attention on a small % of men. Marriage is delayed, so men compete longer in the casual dating scene. Women aren’t pressured to settle for survival, so they can be choosier. This makes wealthy, urban dating feel cutthroat. But now that I think more about it the environment still matters, yeah? Working-class / poorer areas: People settle faster into LTRs. Stability matters more than endless choice, so it can actually be easier to find a partner. Wealthier / urban areas: More hookups, later commitment, higher selectivity. Geography: The same man might struggle in LA but easily find an LTR in a small town. Therefore, perhaps it’s not simply “harder” or “easier.” It depends on: Where you live Your background (education, class, culture) Your personal attributes (looks, charisma, ambition, etc.) So, is the so-called “dating crisis” mostly an upper-middle-class urban problem? Are men in poorer or smaller communities actually better off at locking down LTRs? Should men adapt their dating strategies to their environment?

Unless the Right figures out a way to pin the blame on the Left and the Democratic party for making this shit up, lol....