Hardkill

I was just gonna make a thread on Warnock's victory. But yeah, thank God! He, actually defeated Walker by 2.8%+!

Well, it's looking like the protestors in China got themselves a partial victory: https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/05/china/china-protests-loosen-restrictions-intl-hnk-mic/index.html

Nationwide protests against the Zero-COVID lockdowns and the CCP are happening like never before! Could this turn into some kind of revolution?

Crazy.....but that video does teach people a lesson not to ever mess with the cops.

Yes, people do vote based on vibes. My dad who has always been a center-left Democrat also thought that Carter was too soft on military and foreign policy. He lost re-election because of a combination of being unfairly blamed for the late 70s stagflation crisis, his lack of charisma, Reagan's historic levels of charisma, and Carter's impractical/unrealistic pacifist philosophies. However, if most Americans, who are indeed uninformed, don't vote for candidates based on their policies, then why are most of them willing to vote out a candidate, who has held some kind of office before, if they disapprove of his voting record and whatever policies that politician enacted during his/her time in office? If Manchin ever voted for any kind of progressive or very liberal legislation then he would more than likely lose his US Senate seat in West Virginia to some Republican who is even more conservative than he has ever been. A) Oh yeah, of course many rich white people like Warren Buffett are socially liberal. Though I thought that a narrow majority of rich white folk in America have been right-wingers. B) If you just vote for things that benefit you and you are financially well off and living comfortably, then why isn't that selfish?

So, then why have the majority of rich white people in America still voted conservative/Republican most of the time? Is that because of their greed?

Even though he was socially liberal, he was actually fiscally conservative, for the most part. In fact, Carter was arguably the very first neoliberal Democratic president, or for that matter, the very first neoliberal President in the US. He supported and signed legislation that deregulated airlines, deregulated the trucking industry, and some other industries. He also wasn't for any kind of universal healthcare law because he thought that it would cost too much. All of his economic proposals entailed limited government spending as he was more concerned about reducing inflation and balancing the budget, especially considering the fact that he unfortunately had to deal with the terrible inflation crisis that occurred during his presidency. Guaranteed minimum income and federal jobs guarantee were perhaps the only two economically liberal ideas that he ever proposed.

This article actually provides another idea for making the presidential election more democratic: https://www.amacad.org/ourcommonpurpose/recommendation-1-1 They say in that article that the total number of the House of Representatives in Congress should be substantially enlarged in a fair manner through federal legislation to make it and the Electoral College more representative of the nation’s population. Funny enough, I honestly just came up with this idea myself before I found this source. I also think that the total number of Senators in Congress should be substantially enlarged in a fair manner as well through federal legislation to make it and the Electoral College even more representative of the nation’s population. What's also good about this idea is that no new constitutional amendment would be required to make this happened. Congress could a laws or a set of laws by a majority in the House and a Supermajority in the Senate.

I just came across an article from Hillsdale college on "The Danger of the Attacks on the Electoral College" after seeing its commercial ad survey on the Electoral College on Youtube. In that article, they mentioned a number of reasons for preserving the Electoral College system including how it prevents any presidential candidate from winning the election based on intense support from a narrow region or from big cities. They further say that "This would alter our politics in some obvious ways—shifting power toward urban centers, for example—but also in ways we cannot know in advance." This they argue could lead to a rise of splinter groups and fears of election fraud cities like Chicago or Miami. They also say that if the winner of the presidential election was determined based on the national popular vote then that would "reward states with lax election laws—the higher the turnout, legal or not, the more power for that state" and allow state legislatures to subvert the will of the electorate. I still don't really buy their arguments, but any of you think that these might be valid points for keeping the Electoral College? https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/danger-attacks-electoral-college/

I see. Yeah, making one person's count as two votes for every citizen that lives in a small rural area in America, sounds much more fair compared to how much the votes of rural voters actually count in proportion to those living in the cities and suburbs. I mean, if you actually do the math and compare population-to-electoral vote ratio in a big state like California to that of Wyoming, you would see how ridiculous it is. Here's an example: California, which is the most populous state in the country, had an estimated population of 39.37 million in 2020 and had 55 electoral votes for the Electoral College in the 2020 presidential election. If you divide 39,370,000 by 55 then you get approximately 715,818. That means that one electoral vote represented 715,818 people in California in 2020. Wyoming on the other hand, which is the least populated state in the country, had an estimated population of 582,328 in 2020 and had 3 electoral votes for the Electoral College in 2020. That means that one electoral vote represented 194,109 people in Wyoming in 2020. Here's another example: Texas, which is the 2nd most populous state in the country and the most populous red state in the USA, had an estimated population of 29.36 million and had 38 electoral votes for the Electoral College in the 2020 presidential election. If you divide 29,360,000 by 38 then you get approximately 772,632. That means that one electoral vote represented 772,632 people in Texas in 2020. Washington D.C. on the other hand, which is such a small blue district had an estimated population of 712,816 in 2020 and had 3 electoral votes for the Electoral College in 2020. That means that one electoral vote represented 237,605 people in D.C. in 2020. The difference in how many people are represented for one electoral vote in a small state or small district compared to how many people are represented for one electoral vote in a big state is ridiculous and the electoral votes given for each and every state are all totally out of proportion. I also think that regulating campaigns in a way that forces presidential candidates to campaign in rural, suburban, and urban areas equally sounds like another good idea. I think that would definitely help ensure that every voice is equally heard.

Hmm...Then what do you think would be the best way for a presidential election to take into account rural voters, suburban voters, and urban voters in a fair and equal manner?

ReTrumplicans just keep getting crazier and crazier and crazier. Very frightening.

Yeah, I don't believe in the idea of their being certain states who are more prone to illegal voter turnout than other states. If anything I would think that rural areas in red states in the south and in middle of America might be even prone to it because the election security in those parts of the US probably aren't as sophisticated and as well funded as those in blue states, particularly in comparison to big cities in blue states. I also do believe that the definition of democracy is that whoever gets the majority of individual votes in any election is the one who is rightfully elected. You're right that the constituency in most rural areas and almost every red state (except for Florida) throughout the whole country are really homogenous as the Republican Party and other right-wing organizations in the US have always lacked diversity in practically every way possible. The Democratic Party and other left-wing organizations in the US, on the other hand, has always been a big tent party that has kept increasing in diversity in practically every way possible since the mid 1900s. Plus, as you said before, the Republican party has effectively become the party of minority rule, whereby they keep trying to unfairly rule over the majority of the US, when it should be the other way around. Conversely, the Democratic party since the early 2000s has always been the party of the majority. Rural people generally not having as many resources or as much as of an understanding on how to deal with global affairs as much as urban and suburban people do in America is another really good point as to why rural voters should not get nearly as much of a say on matters that involve both domestic and foreign affairs. But if the Electoral College actually got eliminated, then wouldn't that mean that the Democratic Party would never have to appeal to the interest of rural voters in America ever again in order to win presidential elections? If that happened, then wouldn't every rural voter in America be totally neglected and disregarded by every presidential candidate in every presidential election cycle?

Wait, but then why did the CIA including the CIA director himself say that Putin is 'entirely too healthy'? You don't think they are lying and you trust the CIA, right?

A recession in the US has been looming for a while, which of course is very worrisome. The general consensus amongst economists is now that the Fed will unfortunately have no choice but to cause some economic distress throughout the entire country in order to get inflation under control. This means that the Fed will have to raise interest rates high enough and do major quantitative tightening in order to dramatically cool the entire economy back until the Fed bring the inflation rate back to normal. However, progressives and even Biden to some extent have been blaming widespread corporate profiteering for the inflation that our country has been suffering from. They say that corporations throughout America have been raking in record breaking profits ever since the beginning of 2021 and have been using inflation as a BS excuse for jacking up their prices. They also say that the million plus people who died from COVID due to their own stupidity have been the main reason why there has been a serious labor shortage. TYT and other progressives in the US are saying that the Fed chair Powell and the rest of the Fed have now become so aggressive with tightening the entire economy that they are going to crash the US economy into a serious recession, which will in turn put several millions of workers out of work. They also believe that they Fed doesn't want the hourly wage inflation to happen for workers because they have been being paid off by corporations since the late 70s to make sure that the real wage of workers remain permanently stagnant. I know that TYT has gotten too populist, too anti-mainstream, and obviously too far to the left, but do they perhaps have a legitimate point in this case?

Yeah, I agree with you guys that a revolution is not gonna happen anytime soon in China, but I do agree with Leo, @Wilhelm44, and @Danioover9000that one day the people of China will one day be able to change the government's regime into something that's much less authoritarian, when enough of them seriously rise up against the CCP. Probably the same will happen in other countries such as Iran. They say that it's about tens of thousands of them across the country. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/thousands-in-china-protest-zero-covid-policy-in-largest-demonstrations-in-decades

The US CIA director, Williams Burns, says that the rumors on Putin's health are completely unfounded. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/20/cia-putin-health-00047046

The Republican Party has really become incredibly dysfunctional and scary. Btw, Biden and the Democrats didn't just have best first midterm elections results for the party of the incumbent president since Bush and the Republicans in 2002 (20 years ago) and the best first midterm elections results for the Democratic Party holding the presidency since JFK and the Democrats in 1962 (60 years ago). They also achieved a net gain in governorships throughout the country in these midterms elections, which is the first time this has ever happened in a first midterm election for party of the incumbent president since Reagan and the Republicans in 1986 (36 years ago). That's not all. Biden and the Democrats defended every legislative chamber they had held prior to this election plus made a significant net gain in state legislative chambers throughout the whole country. That has never happened for the president's party in any midterm election before since FDR and the Democrats in 1934 (88 years ago). Moreover, the Democrats successfully kept all of their state level secretary of state seats and state level attorney general seats in every battleground state for presidential elections, which will help save the 2024 presidential election from being stolen by the GOP.

Then Trump should already be locked up either in a maximum security prison cell for the rest of his life or be executed for all of the crimes he's actually committed. Btw, I would be very careful if I were you. Toxic conspiracy theories and right wing dogma aren't allowed on this forum.

I have a feeling that these investigations the GOP in House are going to do will end up backfiring on themselves. They might inadvertently hand Biden and Democrats the whole 2024 election because it will make their party seem even more extreme, dangerous, and out of touch with the needs of the American public.

His mental health is still overall fine. It’s certainly much better than even Ronald Reagan’s was by the end of his presidency when he was in his late 70s.

It's amazing how there is now a sizable amount of people in China who have become bold enough to unabashedly say that Xi Jinping should step down.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/new-york-post-mocks-trumpty-dumpty-on-front-page-after-praising-desantis/ Due to the Republican party having been completely devastated by their shockingly terrible 2022 midterm results overall, practically all of the right wing media outlets out there have recently been saying that the Republican Party needs to move away from Trump if they want to stop losing so many big elections. Do any of you guys think that the right-wing media will be able to successfully influence the whole base to move on Trump and MAGA candidates?

He already has allowed Trump back on Twitter. But here's a good analysis on that: What's wrong with Destiny?

Yes, he just turn 80 years old and he has been perceived as a "gaffe machine." However, he already undoubtedly beat Trump in his first debate with him and arguably beat him again in his second debate with him. Btw, earlier this year, RNC officially decided to withdraw from the commission on the Presidential debates because of how "unfair" and "biased" the CPD has become (which is quite laughable). They also have already warned the commission not to allow any future Republican presidential nominees from participating in any CPD- sponsored debates unless the commission changes the rules in the way they want it to be. So, it doesn't look like Trump or any other future GOP presidential nominees will be participating in the 2024 presidential debates for the general election unless something changes. Also, Biden still comes off as a much more dignified and much wiser person and leader than Trump. Further, it would be a big mistake for the Democrats if another Democrat tries to run against Biden for Democratic nomination.