Hardkill

Weren't all leaders of historic movements such as Frederick Douglas, leaders of the Populist Party, MLK, leaders of the feminists movements all so miserable?

Yeah, but if there's a serious contest for the Democratic nomination between Biden and another Democrat then that will cause the Democratic party to split throughout the country, which would also spoil Biden's of winning re-election.

I don't like it when people like her trying to run as a third alternative. I don't think that she has enough of a following to spoil the 2024 presidential election, but I hope I am not wrong about that. She lost badly the last time she ran for president. She also doesn't have charisma like Trump does. Furthermore, she hasn't even received any serious endorsements from any Democratic leaders or big donors.

Shit. Well, he probably shouldn't have smoked a lot cigars. Smoking regularly increases your risk of lung cancer.

According a poll done by the Pew Research Center 2018, "Most Americans want to limit campaign spending, say big donors have greater political influence." https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/08/most-americans-want-to-limit-campaign-spending-say-big-donors-have-greater-political-influence/ Additionally, according to a Gallup poll done 2019, most Americans are not satisfied with the campaign finance laws we currently have: https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/04/politics/campaign-finance-polling/index.html I couldn't find polls that were done in 2020, 2021, 2022, or this year, but I am sure that the vast majority of Americans still believe that has been has been undermining our democracy, subverting will of the voters, influencing politicians to not pass many of the much needed reformist measures for our country Plus, it's not just almost every Democratic voter and Liberal voter in America who believes that all of that. The majority of conservative voters and Republican voters in the US also agree with all of that as well. So, why hasn't there yet been some kind of widespread movement for passing a constitutional amendment for banning all corporate donors and rich donors from financing campaigns?

Boy, if Teddy Roosevelt was still alive and in his prime, he probably would’ve led a massive nationwide movement to ban all corporate donors and big money from politics. He did it with Congress before in 1907 with Tillman Act. He also has the courage, wisdom, integrity, and willpower to fend off every corporation and rich person who tried to bribe him. John Rockefeller, who eventually became the first billionaire in the history of the world, tried coercing T.R. with money to not break up his monopoly over oil, but Roosevelt refused and went on with breaking up the oil monopoly into separate smaller competitive ones.

The constitution used to be amended about every 1 to 40 years, with new meaningful amendments. I am no lawyer or legislator, but I don't see how why coming up with a viable constitutional amendment that bans corporate money and big money from politics is too difficult. Btw, haven't other first world countries such as the UK, France, and Canada banned corporate money and big money from politics? How would one side lose power if every politician from every party was banned from receiving any PAC money or any corporate money from politics?

But if they passed constitutional amendment that banned rich donors and corporate donors from donating any money to any politician in the US, whether it be a Republican or Democrat or Independent or what have you, then it would a level playing field for every single candidate running for any kind of office. So, why would any politician or any candidate have a problem with that? Also, couldn't some brilliant campaign strategist or marketer out there come up with some compelling brand or some catchy message about this extremely important issue? For example, what if they put out powerful ads on television or on the internet that shows how rich donors and corporate donors having bribing politicians to poison America? Or how about having major nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience campaigns out on the streets about how corporations have been extorting politicians to grant them the authorization to destroy the middle class and working class as the rich keep getting richer and the poorer keep getting poorer? Couldn't those kind of things rile up the reptilian brain of many Americans across the country? How did the abolitionists, political activists in the early 1900s progressive era, civil rights activists, feminist activists, gay rights activists, climate activists, and all other kinds of activists throughout history all succeed?

But isn't it concerning that this problem of the increasing amount of men who are lonely might get to a point where most men in westernized countries might become single and alone for the rest of their lives? Can you imagine how that will turn out?

tragically, yes.

This is very sad. I don't see how a lot more men in America will be motivated enough to find self-help resources to improve their dating and sex life. More and more men in the US are getting mentally weaker by the day. I hope western countries don't have a serious decline in birth rates, a continuing increase in suicide rates murder rates because of all of this.

So, you're saying that there's nothing that any leader or any movement can do about this? Dude, the government had no choice but to bailout the banks. I don't like the fact that they did get bailed out, but if we did then we would've be in another Great Depression. Here's what happened during the Great Depression in the US (1929-1941) according to Wikipedia: - 13 million people became unemployed. In 1932, 34 million people belonged to families with no regular full-time wage earner. - Industrial production fell by nearly 45% between 1929 and 1932. - Homebuilding dropped by 80% between the years 1929 and 1932. - In the 1920s, the banking system in the U.S. was about $50 billion, which was about 50% of GDP. - From 1929 to 1932, about 5,000 banks went out of business. - By 1933, 11,000 of US 25,000 banks had failed. - Between 1929 and 1933, U.S. GDP fell around 30%; the stock market lost almost 90% of its value. - In 1929, the unemployment rate averaged 3%. - In Cleveland, the unemployment rate was 50%; in Toledo, Ohio, 80%. - One Soviet trading corporation in New York averaged 350 applications a day from Americans seeking jobs in the Soviet Union. - Over one million families lost their farms between 1930 and 1934. - Corporate profits dropped from $10 billion in 1929 to $1 billion in 1932. - Between 1929 and 1932, the income of the average American family was reduced by 40%. - Nine million savings accounts were wiped out between 1930 and 1933. - 273,000 families were evicted from their homes in 1932. - There were two million homeless people migrating around the country. - Over 60% of Americans were categorized as poor by the federal government in 1933. - In the last prosperous year (1929), there were 279,678 immigrants recorded, but in 1933 only 23,068 came to the U.S. - In the early 1930s, more people emigrated from the United States than immigrated to it. - With little economic activity there was scant demand for new coinage. No nickels or dimes were minted in 1932–33, no quarter dollars in 1931 or 1933, no half dollars from 1930 to 1932, and no silver dollars in the years 1929–33. - In 1932 deflation was 10.7 percent and real interest rate was 11.49 percent. - The U.S. government sponsored a Mexican Repatriation program which was intended to encourage people to voluntarily move to Mexico, but thousands, including many U.S. citizens, were deported against their will. Altogether about 400,000 Mexicans were repatriated.[84] - New York social workers reported that 25% of all schoolchildren were malnourished. In the mining counties of West Virginia, Illinois, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania, the proportion of malnourished children was perhaps as high as 90%. - Many people became ill with diseases such as tuberculosis (TB). - The 1930 U.S. Census determined the U.S. population to be 122,775,046. About 40% of the population was under 20 years old. - Suicide rates increased; however, life expectancy increased from about 57 years in 1929 to 63 in 1933. - The stock market lost almost 90% of its value over the course of four or more years. During the financial crisis (December 2007 to June 2009): - The unemployment rate peaked at 10% in October 2009 - real GDP contracted by 4.2% between Q4 2007 and Q2 2009. - industrial production fell by about 10.3% between 2007 to 2009. - stock market lost about 50% of its value from October 9, 2007 to March 9, 2009 - I don't think suicide rates, living conditions, and health issues were anywhere near as bad as they were during the Great Depression. So, what do you propose should've been done instead of having the big banks be bailed out? Again, Obama didn't achieve as much positive fundamental change for the country as Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and LBJ did. This is because Obama didn't have as large of liberal majorities in both chambers of Congress as those 4 above mentioned presidents did. Obama also only had a supermajority of Democrats in both chambers of Congress for only 2 years. Plus, Obama was president during a relatively politically polarized era which caused a lot of the legislation he wanted to pass to be blocked by the asshole Republicans in Congress. Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and LBJ on the other hand were presidents during eras of high bipartisan consensus and unity in the US, which allow them to pass a lot more reform laws for the country. Besides, don't you think that Obama accomplished more than any president since LBJ in the 1960s or Nixon in the 1970s (except for possibly Biden)?

Are you saying that the people with big money would hire somebody to assassinate a leader any powerful movement? Part of why Trump was elected was because Obama didn't fulfill a lot of the promises he made, but that's far from being the only reason. The other main reasons why Trump got elected were: - The country was already turning Republican before Trump became president. The 1st and 2nd midterm elections during Obama's presidency were unmitigated disasters for the Democrats. This was due to the racial backlash after Obama became the very first black president ever and because of how unpopular Obamacare was during his presidency. In fact, right-wing populism was already on rise during Obama's presidency with the whole Tea Party movement which started in 2009 and continued all the way to around 2016. - While the Obama administration didn't have any major foreign/military policy failures and achieved a major foreign/military policy success during Obama's first term, it unfortunately did not any achieve another major foreign/military policy success during his second term. - Bernie Sanders' followers and Jill Stein spoiled the 2016 presidential election with their significant third party campaign. Bernie or bust voters who also didn't like the fact that the Clintons supported NAFTA in the 90s and Hillary supported TPP and other free trade polices during her 2016 presidential run. - Hillary Clinton wasn't likeable enough. I personally like her and have much respect for her. I thought she would've been a terrific president because of how brilliant, competent, and honorable of a politician she has always been. Plus, she's also been a centre-left Democrat like Obama and Biden since the early 2000s. Furthermore, she never came off as being too old for President, unlike Biden who has had problem. However, she unfortunately has never been charismatic like her husband was and has always had a bit too much of an elitist vibe. There was also gender backlash from white men throughout America when Hillary Clinton was expected to become the very first woman president ever after a black president. Also, a lot of the working class and middle class in the US hold a grudge over her and her husband for their decades long support of free-trade and globalization policies. Michael Moore in 2016 talked a lot about this and how all of these trade policies the Clintons supported significantly eroded the middle class and the working class in the US over time, particularly in the industrial Midwest and rust belt states including Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Trump was actually shrewd enough to realize that if he campaigned heavily on bringing manufacturing jobs back and protectionism in those states then he could win those states in the electoral college. That's why he flipped them red in 2016. Clinton didn't even bother to campaign much in any of those states, probably because she got too cocky and too complacent. - Hillary Clinton was not an incumbent presidential candidate. Btw, Biden presidency has in many ways been a 3rd Obama term. So, apparently enough American people still praise Obama as being one of the greatest we've ever had of all time. The historic positive changes Obama made to our country were: - Obamacare - Passing Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act - Saving our economy from the worst recession since the Great Depression and helping it boom again, - In 2012, he became the very first sitting president to openly support gay marriage and Biden became the first sitting vice president to openly support it (actually Biden spoke out about it before Obama did). This greatly contributed to the push for gay marriage rights and eventually the US Supreme Court ruled that all same-sex couples throughout the entire country have the right to marry after hearing the landmark case, obergefell v hodges, in 2015. - He authorized the plan to assassinate of Osama Bin Laden. That made Obama into more of a hero. - He signed into law the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Act of 2009, which gave the FDA the power to regulate tobacco. As a matter of fact, most political scientists and historians have said that before Biden became president, Obama accomplished more than any other presidency since LBJ or Nixon in the late 1960s to early 1970s. Furthermore, Allan Lichtman, who is a top US historian said that in terms of actual policies, Nixon was the last true liberal president after LBJ until Obama became president. Biden has actually now become arguably even more liberal than Obama was, in terms of policy. That's one reason why most conservatives in America are having a meltdown over what Biden has done so far as president. All in all, while Obama couldn't get nearly as much done as Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, or LBJ were able to he still fundamentally shifted our country more to the left in historic positive ways.

Awww, but she’s a person too. Doesn’t she deserve to be loved?

Interesting.... Well, generally speaking, men still want more sex partners than women do. Also, most men in western societies get easily pussy whipped by women they are in a relationship with because of feminism and the fact that most men have weak character. So, what should a woman who already has already with hundreds of men do if she really wants to be in a monogamous relationship with a guy?

Then wouldn't that mean that if a man sleeps around with lots of women then his own psychology will also be damaged, have more difficulty bonding deeply with a woman, and will have a harder time becoming a good responsible father?

Hilarious. Haha Yeah, girls generally can sex easily by just approaching any guy in a very sexual manner right away like she did in that vid. But almost no girl ever does that, unless they're really drunk, they are a prostitute, just happens to be horny during a rare moment when her sex drive just randomly spiked. This is because women generally have a fear of being slut shamed, while men are praised for sleeping with a lot women. It's also because, women have to worry way more than men do about potential dangers such as getting sexual assaulted, raped, pregnant, or murdered. Women also usually aren't horny as often as men are and usually take longer than men to get sexually stimulated.

Imagine if everyone in America watched porn a lot more, read more erotica, masturbated a lot more, and had a lot more sex and and all of that became the key to bringing the country back together.

Are you an expert in any of the social sciences? Also, if the nations who were responsible for killing close to 100 million humans during WWI and WWII didn’t have the level of technology they had for those wars then, I think that the amount of people who would’ve killed in from both of those wars combined would e probably been a fraction of what it was in total. Conversely, imagine if primitive tribes had the same level of military weaponry that Western civilizations or even Asian countries had during WWI and WWII? What do you think those tribes would want to do with that kind of weaponry?

That's why tribalism and tribal warfare has always occurred around the world since the dawn of mankind. Many native America tribes got very violent towards one another in the old days. Furthermore, there have been many instances during ancient times, where a member of a tribe, in any part of the world, would not hesitate to harm or kill one of their own if they even suspect that person to be a traitor or some other kind of bad person. There are still some tribes who still act that way in the middle east. Maybe some other native tribes in Africa, South America, Central America, North America, Australia, Indonesia, Asia, Europe, are are sometimes that way too.

So, it's not just that left wing is usually more right than the right wing. The main point is that we ultimately want to get to a point where the whole world is able to establish absolute equal rights and total economic fairness for everyone around the world. Ideally, we want to eliminate all forms of tyranny, correct?

Didn't you say one of your vids that there have been periods in history where the left has done some abominable things? Would communism/socialism in the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, China, and Venezuela be an example or examples of the left having caused more harm to people than the right? Or was communism/socialism in those countries actually far-right, not left-wing?

You mean have each county or congressional district be its own country? If every area in the country has a mix of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents then how are you going to be able to evenly split up regions or areas of the country?

It sounds like a good idea in theory, but the reality is that it would be way too complicated to do because of the fact that no state is completely blue or completely red. Each and every state in the country has a mix of blue areas and red areas. For example, the cities in California are blue while its rural towns are red. Some of the suburbs in the state are red and some of the other suburbs in the state are blue. In fact, every city in every state is blue even in southern solid red states such as Jackson, Mississippi. Most rural towns throughout the whole country are red even in northern solid blue states like some of the rural towns in upstate New York. Some suburbs in a red state are blue and others are red within that same state. Similarly, some suburbs in a blue state are red and other blue within that same state. Furthermore, not everybody living in a blue city is a Democrat, not everyone living in a red city is a Republican, not everybody living in a blue rural town is a Democrat, not everyone living in a red rural town is a Republican, not everybody living in a blue suburb is a Democrat, not everyone living in a red suburb is a Republican. Plus, how about the fact that Independent voters makeup the largest percentage of voters in this country? According to a gallup poll from "December 17, 2020, 31% of Americans identified as Democrats, 25% identified as Republican, and 41% as Independent. Additionally, polling showed that 50% are either 'Democrats or Democratic leaners' and 39% are either 'Republicans or Republican leaners' when Independents are asked 'do you lean more to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?'"

Constant rejection does undoubtedly cause one to feel very discouraged and demoralized. I almost lost hope after getting by hundreds and hundreds of girls in a row in real life. If I hadn't ever gotten lucky enough to finally get my first ever real girlfriend at 30 years old after years of countless rejection, then I could've either ended up in a hospital for major clinical depression or commit suicide or start taking drugs or drinking alcohol to numb myself from the trauma of failure and being unwanted or resort to paying prostitutes/escorts for the rest of my life or abandon my family to become a celibate monk for life or live alone in the wilderness until I get killed by some wild animal. Who knows what insane and self-destructive thing I really could've done to myself.