Hardkill

I mean, there have been some athletes or bodybuilders who have had to temporarily stop lifting heavy and intense for several months from back-related injuries, but even most of them have been able to get back to lifting as heavy and intense as they did before because their back injury was only temporary in the grand scheme of things. I think Luigi's back pain was quite chronic and intense and had been lasting for years if I am not mistaken.

I just found out that it was because his body has been out of commission for weightlifting. He has been suffering from very serious back problems including having had back surgery and frequent moments of moderate to severe back-related pain.

What's your take on Democrats needing to use the same kind of hardball tactics as that of the Johnson Treatment like during the days of FDR, Truman, and Johnson? Yes, it is indeed easier to pander to people's ignorance, fear, and hatred than to persuade them through rationality and compassion for others who aren't like them. However, you can't convincingly argue that Democrats and progressives don't need to work on seriously changing their messaging strategies, which have become less effective since the early 2000s compared to the more impactful messaging of the past, particularly during the progressive era of the early 20th century. Plus, Democrats have to get rid of all of the useless elite consulting class that for decades has cost Democrats way too many elections from the local level to the national level. I really think that these so called top Dem strategists like Axelrod, Carville, and Jen O'malley Dillon are all through. We need fresh new vigorous blood with a thirst for no-holds barred fighting in the political arena and are much more tech savvy with all of the new Age digital communication out there. The DNC chair needs a fresh new liberal warrior to run the committee.

@Husseinisdoingfine Ohhh......Damn........After reading that whole manifesto, I am now seriously reconsidering my view of him. If everything he said about the pain that he and his mother have been going through was the truth, then I deeply empathize with him and his family. But I thought he came from a prominent wealthy family. Couldn't he and his family still have found a viable medical way to better cope with the pain they've been dealing with? Also, he still could've used the pain he and his family are going through as an opportunity to bolster a serious non-violent movement towards holding the healthcare industry more accountable.

I wonder if this means anything or if it will really lead to anything significantly positive:

Mangione is so incredibly arrogant that he must've thought that he is some kind of hero or angel sent down from the heavens by God to kill the corporate elites all in the name of justice or for the greater good of the nation. It's a real damn shame. This guy could've been a real hero if he had used his intellect, work ethic, communication skills, and looks to help inspire and possibly help build a non-violent widespread movement to take on corporate greed like Sanders, AOC, and other progressives like them have been trying to do for years.

This is war. Right now, Democrats and progressives are losing the messaging war. More importantly, millions of Americans are now going to be hurt so terribly and lose their rights.

But it worked back then and it was all truly for the good of the country. Besides, think about one big reason why Trump won the presidency twice. Even though Trump is utterly incompetent and never truly cared at all about anybody but himself, he still effectively PORTRAYED himself as a fighter who is willing to break norms and defy the institutions of our country for the people. People in our country are starving for someone who won't just talk like Trump, but will also actually fight like hell for them, like LBJ did even that leader goes against certain principles or rules. Being a big softie with honor doesn't work a lot of times. Sometimes you have to do whatever it takes to survive and thrive big, even if it means doing something that goes against your own morals:

The point is that Democrats got to go back more to the old days when they played hardball. Look at how Lyndon Johnson, one of the most progressive Democrats in US History, used hardball tactics during his time:

There's absolutely no excuse for killing the CEO. However, the killer claimed to do it for political reasons. Nevertheless, this Luigi guy needs to be locked up in a mental institution. He very likely hasn't been properly diagnosed with a severe psychological disorder yet.

Wait a minute.... He doesn't look that buff in this photo:

Part of what you’re saying is true, but OP is right. Democrats have been terrible at messaging for decades. They used to be masters at it when the New Deal coalition was around. Examples of top Democratic slogans back in those days were: FDR’S New Deal Truman’s Fair Deal JFK’s New Frontier LBJ’s Great Society They also used the bully pulpit far more frequently to get their messages across much more consistently. Actually, Bill Clinton’s Bridge into the 21st century slogan was strong. Though Clinton himself didn’t use the bully pulpit forcefully enough. Obama’s Hope and Change fully resonated powerfully with Americans. Yet, he hardly used the bully pulpit to push his liberal agenda because he was too afraid of being perceived as being “too partisan.” Biden couldn’t communicate well enough for obvious reasons. Not to mention that his slogan “Build Back Better” didn’t make sense and was boring. Corporate Democrats and progressives still to this day can’t come up with a set of fiery cohesive messages that represent the party’s agenda. Plus, Democrats for decades generally haven’t had as much of a spine as Republicans do, which is why Democrats are often too afraid to say anything that might sound too offensive or come off as “too far to the left” for any group of people within their coalition. Plus, the party has to cater to too many moderates who are just too disaffected to fight for what’s right for our country and Liberals/progressives sadly make up the smallest percentage of voters in the country. Republicans have a much more homogeneous coalition of voters, most of whom are racist white Christians with intense religious dogma and are addicted to hyper-capitalism. That’s why virtually all of them firmly believe in protecting all white American traditions and the rich at all of costs out of fear of that “our country is dying because of those radical left commies are destroying it!” They no longer have to worry about winning over moderates because of how far to the right the whole GOP has gotten, which sadly is still working for them.

We probably shouldn't. George Washington was right when he said that having a duopoly in politics was a mistake. I wish we could have a multi-party system like in Canada, but of course that's never going to happen for the foreseeable future either.

There would be much less of a difference in voting for either party just like how similar the parties were during the mid-1900s. Maybe that could heal the country from the terrible divisions in our country while accelerating the destabilization of our existing system until the country is forced to radically transform into a more progressive country.

It's the only thing that has ever worked in the past ever since big money in politics corrupted the whole political system. I frankly don't see the Democratic leadership moving to the left anytime soon. If anything they might be more inclined more and more and more back to the center like what happened after George McGovern's failed presidential campaign in 1972. I hope I am wrong.

I think we may also need to be as racist and xenophobic as the Republicans are while running on either more economic populism or more pro-corporatism.

I don't see how those seeds will ever grow in our lifetimes.

It worked in the 90s and it worked during Obama's presidency; albeit Obama was more of a liberal Democrat than Clinton was.

Yeah, like should Carville, Schumer, Pelosi, the Obamas, Manchin, and the Clintons, be like: "SHUT UP Bernie and AOC! You guys have done enough damage to our party! None of you have ever represented what the country really wants! All of you Greenpeace hippies with all of your pie-in-the-sky ideas never worked and are never going to work for us substantively or politically! Everything you touch turns to shit! Most of you guys can't even win elections! You either move more to the middle with us or your political careers will be over!"

Sorry, I am not just trying to sound doom and gloom. I am just trying to understand all this from both a pragmatic and rational viewpoint. Do you think that Bernie's movement was a big mistake and should the Democratic party just reject the progressives and their ideas and just go back to full-throated centrism like Bill Clinton in the 90s moving forward from a strategic viewpoint? If I am not mistaken, haven't you been implying that Democrats should run more on centrist ideas?

It looks like the police have caught the killer, thanks to a McDonald's employee who called the police after the suspect was seen at the restaurant: https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/brian-thompson-unitedhealthcare-death-investigation-12-9-24/index.html

You argue that America will never be ready to move beyond neoliberalism and that it's a mistake to keep attacking centrism and centrists. I get the point you're making, especially considering that Trump just got elected president again, how much the country will likely regress during the next four years under him, and the great long-term damage he will do to this country, affecting generations to come. You say that Trump's second term will cause the federal courts to shift even further to the right and that this shift will likely remain in place for decades to come. Therefore, the federal courts may end up blocking and undoing every progressive legislation and executive order enacted during the next 3 or 4 decades or so. Then again, I know you're still a progressive at heart and still advocate for promoting progressive policies wisely. So, then should all progressives just completely surrender to both conservatism and centrism for say the next 10 to 50 years? Should the Democratic party move back to the center or just stop moving more to the left??

Maybe the Democrats might’ve won if Harris ran more to the left, but you don’t know that for certain. Again, the primary obvious factors that cause Harris and the Democrats to lose were the explosion of unprecedented misinformation/internet brainwashing, Dems’ faulty media strategy in a fractious media environment world wide anti-incumbent over inflation and the establishment, racism, misogyny, xenophobia (especially after the historic immigration surge under Biden and the Democrats), Harris having run a very late and short campaign, and less party unity amongst Dems than we thought. I don’t see how a much stronger and more talented candidate than Harris could’ve defeated Trump and his party. The only way the Dems could’ve had a better shot was having a much better media strategy in this new Age media environment.

Vlad says that it probably will get worse for the country like it did for Libya after the fall of Gaddafi or like what happened to Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein:

No, I get that, but you've been saying that there has been a backlash against society due to the excessive amount of progressive attacks on neoliberalism and centrism. So, do you think for the time being that progressives and Democrats should stop trying to run on a more progressive platform for the next few decades given where we are at and what's going to happen to the whole system even after Trump himself is gone? Do you think that the Overton window will shift back more to the right? Should the platform of the Democratic party as a whole move a lot more back to the center like during Bill Clinton's presidency in the 1990s or move somewhat back to the center, but still be liberal overall like during Obama's presidency? Or should they just stick with being as left-wing as the party has become now and wait for another real chance to implement more of the same kind of progressive-leaning policies someday? Or should the Democratic party actually keep incrementally shifting more to the left as time goes on in the hopes of being able to implement an even bolder progressive-leaning agenda whenever they get a real shot to do so in the future?