Hardkill

Well, he's made it clear that he's not gonna in 2024, and by the time 2028 happens, he will be about 86 years old. I sincerely doubt that 4 and a half years from now he will run again. It already is worrisome enough that if Biden were to be re-elected that he would be 86 years old by the time he finishes his 2nd term. However, I've come to realize lately that his socialist movement might have been a good this for this country. He reminds me now of Eugene V. Debs, early 20th century socialist who ran as a prominent 3rd third party candidate for US president a number of times throughout the early 1900s progressive era. Even though he never came close to winning the presidency, he was still one of the most instrumental politicians and political activists in bringing about major liberal/progressive reforms for our country during that period of historic change in US history. In fact, Bernie Sanders himself has said that he's always admired him, having described Debs as "probably the most effective and popular leader that the American working class has ever had." Plus he even produced a documentary on him with Bernie having voiced Debs.

Right. But wouldn't the lazy, undisciplined, dishonest liberal be no more developed of an individual than a conservative?

What about a liberal who lacks discipline, has a weak work ethic, dishonest, irrational, and unrealistic left-wing views vs. a conservative who is hard working, disciplined, honest, temperate, and is measured in his right-wing views? Would the latter actually be a more developed individual than the former?

If the DNC "can stop" any left-wing populist like Bernie from being the Democratic nominated, then why couldn't the RNC in 2016 stop Trump, a right-wing populist, from being nominated as the Republican nominee? Explain.

So, would that mean that RFK has a serious chance of being elected president? Or not so much because of how extreme, weird, and off the wall he is?

We also DESPERATELY NEED our labor unions to regain the power they had during the mid 1900s. I think that that will be key to greatly reducing the power or influence that corporate donors and other megadonors have on Democrats. After all, one reason why the Democratic Party switched from being the party of farms, organized labor, and racial minorities to that of being the party of Wall Street, white collar workers, and racial minorities is due to the fact that labor unions have kept losing their power and size since the 70s. Rural America has also been on the decline since the mid 1900s, but at the same time still consist of virtually all white Americans who hold strong and largely archaic conservative American values, don't trust the government as much as suburban and urban Americans do, and have a much more homogenous culture that's more fearful and hold more resentment of racial integration and foreigners immigrating into this country. That's probably why farmers have continued to lose much influence on the Democratic Party, which of course since the mid 1900s has increasingly the represented liberalism/progressivism, civil rights, pro-immigration, urban America, and to some extent suburban America. This idea might also work to some extent on reducing the influence that corporations and the top 1% of wealthy Americans have on the Republican Party, even though the GOP has always been since the 1910s to 1920s the party of Wall Street, the most wealthy individuals, and conservative white christian Americans.

Well, I fear that all of what I showed you could very well happen again in the future. Dark times could be coming by the time all of us are old or have already passed away.

I know these are from the late 1800s Gilded Age and even a little after the turn of the 20th century, but I think they are classic reminders of examples of what happens when there's too much economic inequality, too much pollution, too much neglect for the natural environment, inadequate regulation of foods and drugs, and the people are essentially ruled by corporatocracy and plutocracy when capitalism runs amok:

Exactly. You know what? Instead of complaining that the Democrats aren’t doing enough or voting for a third party, which doesn’t work in America like it does in other countries that have a multi-party system such as Ireland or Scandinavia, why not create or join a movement on the ground that will help the Democrats gain enough support for more good policies to be passed by Congress?

What’s the point of voting for a third party that has no shot of winning? I don’t even think that the Green Party candidacy would even push the winner of the election to meet some of its demands. Furthermore, the Green Party has already done enough damage to this country. Ralph Nader, who ran as a Green Party candidate for president in 2000 caused Al Gore to lose to the disastrous George W. Bush. Jill Stein, who also ran as a Green Party candidate for president in 2016 was one of the main spoilers along with Gary Johnson, who ran as a Libertarian for president, who caused Hillary Clinton to lose to Trump.

I understand your anger. It still is despicable that African-Americans suffer from greater police brutality, unjust amounts of mass incarceration, economic inequality, and educational inequality, and subtle racial discrimination. I also agree that Democrats ideally should be able to get transformative domestic policies done on the scale of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon B. Johnson. However, looking back and having lately read so much on history of American politics since 1776, Democrats and liberals, never had such long-lasting supermajorities of liberals/progressives in Congress like TJ, AJ, Lincoln, TR, WW, FDR, and JFK. Also, Corporate/neoliberal Dems since the late 70s such as Carter, Clinton, Obama, and Biden never had the support of extremely powerful liberal/progressive nationwide movements nor governed during times of crises that were as horrific or as catastrophic as the kinds that TJ, AJ, Lincoln, TR, WW, FDR, and JFK all had. Abe Lincoln presided over the entire American Civil War, which was the bloodiest battle/war in all of US history and had immense support from the abolition movement during a time when there only 34 to 36 states in whole USA and the southern half of the states tried to permanently split off from the northern half of the states. Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and there respective parties governed during the Progressive era (1896 - 1916) each had nationwide support of liberal/progressive activists that arose from the Populist parties and other activist organizations during the 1890s and continued growing in America during the 1900s decade, and 1910s. Also, back during each of those decades, total US population was not even a quarter of what it has been since 2010. The reason why there was such widespread movement during the Progressive era was because of how much the bottom 99% of Americans were deeply suffering during the Gilded Age (approx. 1877 - 1896). The Gilded age caused the worse degree of economic inequality in US history, did not stop the development of the most excessive amount of monopolies that ever occurred in the history of all US economics, led to several periods of economic depressions and bank panics, allowed real child labor, let business owners get away with having the most unsanitary and abusive working conditions we ever had, created widespread pollution and the destruction of too much of the environment everywhere, contamination of foods and drugs in many parts of the country, resulted in historic levels of political corruption and violence, had decades of major social unrest throughout America, etc. Plus, during the late 1800s, the country was about as political polarized as we are now, and therefore had a terrible amount of gridlock in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Such gridlock meant that the government could not get much positive changes done for the country. Yet, there was much more political unity and bipartisanship amongst both parties during the progressive era because that was a time when the country had finally healed from the terrible political divide during the late 1800s, especially when the newer generations of Democrats and Republicans replaced the older generations of those who were in power before the 20th century. Also, Woodrow Wilson presided over WWI and was forced to have our country enter into it in 1917, which gave him even much more of a mandate during his 2nd term to transform our country again to the degree that happened during TR's two terms as president and Wilson's first term as president. FDR and the Democrats in Congress took over the presidency and Congress during the Great Depression, which was probably the worst economic crisis we ever had in US history and was so much worse in many dimensions than both the 2008 financial crisis or the Covid-19 2020 economic crisis were. Plus, those Democrats were strongly supported by such powerful labor movements all over the country. Moreover, there was still much greater political bipartisanship unity with both parties during the New Deal era than there has been in recent times. Additionally, FDR and the Democrats in Congress not only had to help their foreign allies during the first two years of WWII they later on were forced to enter into the second world war by 1941 and fight in it until the end which was 1945. Like what happened with Wilson and the Democrats during WWI, all of those years of the US working together with our allies during WWII, gave FDR and his party even much more of a mandate for their party transform our country again during FDR's 2nd and 3rd terms as president, to the extent that already happened during his first term. LBJ and the Democrats governed during a time when political bipartisanship consensus between both parties was at their peak in US history, when the power of labor unions were at their peak in US history, and when Dr. King and the civil rights movement had delivered such a shockingly powerful message to the whole nation that was effective enough to embolden Johnson to aggressively pressure congress for the series of historic civil rights and voting rights legislation that would end Jim Crow laws forever. Plus, after Johnson defeated GOP nominee for president, Barry Goldwater, in a major landslide due to Goldwater's perceived right-wing extremism along with LBJ's historic civil rights act of 1964, and the Democrats won even more seats in the US Senate and US House in the 1964 general election, Johnson and the Democrats did just end up with massive majorities of Dems in both the US Senate and US House in Congress, they got supermajorities of liberal Democrats in both chambers of Congresses. That gave Johnson and the Democrats even more of mandate to pass more civil rights and voting rights legislation and many of his other Great Society bills. Carter was president during the late 70s, which was when the New Deal coalition and the modern liberalism that had dominated American politics from the 1930s to 1970s dissipated gone and unfortunately got replaced by the new both the major conservative resurgence and the emergence of neoliberalism as the new dominant influence of US politics. This was all due to intense racial backlash from whites in the south and in rural areas of the country, the chaos caused by rebels in the late 60s and 70s who became disgusted and angry with the government/establishment especially after the events of the Vietnam War and the resignations of President Nixon and his first VP Agnew after they got caught with each of their major wrongdoings, the prevalence of horrific cults and growing number of sick and twisted murderers in America during the late 60s and all of the 70's, 70's stagflation which got to the worse it ever got by 1980, the very significant decline of labor unions since the 70s, increasing amount of foreign economic competition and off shoring of manufacturing businesses to other countries, the rise of right movements in the 70s such as the Christian Right, corporations and banks getting too much economic influence, rise of conservative think tanks, conservative federal level judges (including those in SCOTUS) in the 70s and 80s ruling in favor of allowing more corporate lobbying and big money in politics, etc. The political dominance of conservatism and neoliberalism of course really grew dramatically during the 80s with president Reagan and his immediate successor, H.W. Bush. After Clinton got elected president in 1992, he and his new third way centrist faction of Democrats took over the Democratic party, and unfortunately made the Democratic party cave even more to the pressure of neoliberalism in order to compete with the dominant force of Reaganism in the Republican party. Clinton and his party basically extended the Reaganism/neoliberalism regime and that of course. then, when Bush Jr. got elected president in 2000, he of course was more than happy to continue with what both Reagan and his daddy during their presidencies. By 2008, the Bush presidency, the do-nothing Republicans in Congress from 2001-2008, Reaganism, the war on terror done by Bush and the Republicans all turned to be historic failures. Obama won the presidency and Democrats won a supermajority of Democrats in both chambers of Congress after the 2008 general election due to Obama's once in a generation level of charisma and a massive referendum on the Republican Party having been a total disaster for the whole country. During the Obama presidency, his administration and the Democrats in the Congress were able to shift the country back to the left with historic healthcare reform that no president before him except Johnson could accomplish, major bank regulations close to the level of FDR, passed a bill that reduced disparities between mandatory crack and powder cocaine sentences that had put blacks behind bars longer than whites, commuted the sentences of nearly 1,200 federal inmates, virtually all of whom were incarcerated for nonviolent drug crimes, and more. Obama unfortunately wasn't able to transform the country to the degree that FDR or LBJ did because he had supermajorities in both chambers of Congress for only 2 years and he didn't have the support of strong enough left-wing movements. Plus, the rise of the right-wing media has had too much influence over too many idiots in this country since the 90s. The right-wing media before the 90s never had much influence over people. Even after Trump became president in 2017, he and the Republican party failed miserably with repealing Obamacare (except for repealing the individual mandate). In fact, the Republicans struggled to get much needed legislation to the point of having been one of the least productive congress in all of US history even when they had control of the whole government trifecta. When Biden and the Democrats took back control of the presidency and both chambers of Congress by 2020, they were able to get so much positive changes by reversing many of the Trump era executive orders and making legislative achievements that were the most significant and sizable since the 60s. Biden also pardoned thousands of people convicted of weed use, has asked the Health and Human Services Department to try to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to a Schedule II controlled substance, cancelled much student debt as much as possible, and signed other significant executive orders that further improved racial equity within the federal government and prisons in the US. According to a number of social science experts, Biden has already accomplished more domestic policy changes than any president since LBJ. If you think about it, this is quite exceptional considering that Democrats held only razor-thin majorities in both chambers during a period of intense political polarization during the years 2021-2023. Biden has been representing a transition from the "government is the problem" consensus since the 1980s towards social democracy like we had in the mid 1900s.

Actually, I just found a source that does mention the fact that other developed countries besides ours also sell weapons to 2nd and 3rd world countries such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, North Africa, and more. https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2021/07/23/are-european-arms-fuelling-wars-and-conflicts-worldwide So, I guess the valid point you're making is that given the world we still live in, even 1st world countries still cannot afford to not manufacture and sell much of their weapons to those primitive countries because global arms trade without much restrictions on doing business with 3rd world countries is still needed to sufficiently support and grow all 1st world countries. Though, I am sure that America sell significantly more arms to all other countries around the world than other developed countries do because as you're implying, the US is and has always been since the end of WWII, the number country for developing the best and most prolific military technology and weaponry in the world. Plus, America is still the most capitalistic, and therefore the greediest 1st world economy in the world.

Hmm...Well, do western European countries, Canada, Australia, and every other developed country in the world also sell arms to authoritarian regimes in third world countries in order to support and grow each of their own economies?

Bush said that "it breaks my heart that women in Afghanistan are going to be brutalize by the Taliban" when we withdraw from Afghanistan. But you're saying that he never really cared at all about women's rights and freedoms there. Well, I didn't realize how much more narcissistic or perhaps even sociopath many of our politicians are, even beside Trump, than I realized. I also had no idea that our military industrial complex has always been such a cold hearted machine. Eisenhower, in his 1961 farewell speech, was right when he warned all of us of the potential dangers of this issue.

So, Americans like Clinton, Bush 1, Bush 2, Obama, and Biden never really cared about developing democracy in other countries?

What about all of this talk that every US president, government official, mainstream pundit, etc. have been saying about spreading democracy and western values all over the planet? Isn't that why also NATO keeps expanding? Bush said that one reason we were nation building in Afghanistan was to establish democracy there, including women's rights. Obama apparently agreed with that too for a while.

But why has the US government always provided military support to tyrannical regimes in third world countries instead of to possible resistance or revolutionary groups in those countries who would be able to have enough power to overthrow their authoritarian leaders? After all, hasn't the US been constantly trying to promote democracy, freedom, individual rights, and equality around the world?

Many people in the US, especially those who are Republican or conservative, always say that if you don't have a job or don't have a house or aren't as successful or as wealthy as you want to be, then blame yourself. While there is a lot of truth to that, at the same time I know that at the same time that the whole system has definitely always been rigged against racial minorities, the poor, the working class, and even the middle class. Then again, all of these successful self-gurus, including Leo himself, seem to imply that almost anyone in any developed part of the world can become a millionaire, successfully run a business, or become a successful highly-educated professional, own a good home, be well-off with a family of your own with enough hard work, self-education, taking full ownership, personal responsibility, being a fighter, being a creator, having patience and discipline, having a strong work ethic, having a positive and strong mindset, constantly putting in the effort yourself on self-actualization for life, etc. Exceptions to this include homeless individuals who are mentally ill, people who are dying, victims who have been kidnapped or enslaved illegally, or other people with severe psychological or physical disabilities that literally prevent them from living any kind of normal functioning life. If all of that is true then why do we actually even need to worry about the growing economic inequality in America? Why does America need to bother to seriously re structure its economy, education system, and laws, etc. if almost anyone in America can just put in the work themselves to get from rags to riches?

I've already made posts on different parts of this forum about this crisis my country has been having since 2020. These mass shooting are really scaring me and making me wonder where I should live, where should I work, where should I meet new people and date girls, and much more. I know that there's no such thing as 100% safety, but I feel like that would be such a cliche considering how crazy the gun violence in America seems to have gotten. I wonder if I should buy a gun to protect myself considering that military, law enforcement, and the rest of the government have been failing to get a handle on these mass shootings. How do most people stay calm and hopeful in such times?

But I don't want to live in a rural area of the country. Every part of Rural America, especially in heartland and the South, are dying dumps. Compared to urban or even suburban areas, rural areas have much more limited access to government funded services, don't have a lot of new people including not a lot of new women to meet, much less job opportunities available, and have a lot more ignorant people with archaic and outdated views of the world. According to credible statistics, as a collective, people in rural areas die much sooner than people in urban and suburban areas. Plus, there's much less exciting things to do in a small town that's in the countryside than in a big metropolitan area. Actually, if I am not mistaken, according to other legitimate statistics, the inner suburban areas of the US are the safest parts of the country. I tend to agree with that as I used to live in a privileged suburb, which was very safe and comfortable to live in.

I am getting very upset and very scared about these unusually high amount of mass shootings that have been happening over the past few years now in the US. It seems like the Democrats in Congress will never have the votes to ban assault weapons and pass many other gun control laws like the kind that Canada and other first world countries have. Plus, the courts have always been stack too heavily in favor of the Republican Party and have been bribed by every extreme right-wing mega donor in the US, especially with the US Supreme Court. A lot of times, I am not even sure if it okay to go to a night club or bar like in Vegas or go to any city or rural part of the country. The last time a federal assault weapons ban was passed in America was in 1994 with the Clinton Crime Bill or Biden Crime Law. Listen to what Michael Moore just recently said about how we have to stop this gun violence madness:

Since 2020, the US has had a record number of mass shootings per year, especially in urban areas of the country. Plus, there's a lot more gang violence in cities than in suburban or rural areas of the country. I remember seeing the Las Vegas Strip mass shooting on the news in 2017. It's made me very hesitant to ever try cold approaching in a big city such as Vegas, LA, New York, Chicago, Austin, Houston, or Phoenix. Are cities no longer safe places for even meeting any new kinds of people?

So, there's nothing that we can do about these mass shootings? Innocent people in the US are all at the mercy of this kind of stochastic terrorism? This gun madness is getting absolutely out of hand!

These are all valid points, but is there possiblt some way that we could protect ourselves better from these very random shootings which have been occurring at such an unusually high rate since 2020?