Hardkill

This prosperous age is now crashing because of Trump's damn tariff scheme and because of how much the entire system has been corrupted to such an unprecedented degree by Trump, MAGA, and the unchecked capitalist culture in our country.ch Also, rhe OBBB is going to decimate a large part of our population. Look at the historical precedent and pattern recognition — especially in how legislation shapes democracy, civil society, and power structures over time. The lesiglation will: Destroy health access for tens of millions Shred clean energy and climate investments Slash social safety nets And embolden concentrated wealth and corporate control This is not just a flawed policy, but a foundational threat to American well-being, fairness, and long-term stability. This bill may be remembered not just as a political overreach, but as a catastrophic turning point—comparable in consequence to the most damaging laws ever passed. It will go down in history as being clearly the worst piece of legislation since the Fugitive Slave act of 1850 or the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.

You know who’s a true introvert? Barack Obama—calm, thoughtful, and magnetic without ever needing to be loud. His presence proves you don’t have to perform to connect. There's no doubt that he can get any kind of play he wants. I’m not saying you have to be as exceptionally compelling as he is, but he’s definitely someone who worked hard to become socially savvy while staying rooted in that quiet center.

I've thought about that OP, and I think both visions of AI’s future are possible—either it leads us to a utopia or becomes a force of tyranny, as seen in films like The Terminator. The danger comes from misalignment between AI's goals and human values. If AI evolves to prioritize self-preservation or efficiency at the cost of humanity's well-being, we could face disaster. But if AI can be aligned with our values and guide us toward cooperation and growth, we could see a transformative future. The challenge is ensuring its goals and methods remain compatible with human flourishing, without drifting toward control or destruction.

That's true too, sadly. So, what can any strong Democrat out there and what can any movement do to save our country? God, it really makes me think how the hell did our country get through the American Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Long Depression, WW1, the Great Depression, WW2, and the Cold War? I really can't wrap my head around it, especially when you realize how much worse most people in America were during each of those dark times.

So, does this mean that Democrats are now in serious trouble in 2026 and 2028? I wonder how someone can Newsom can turn this around when the people still trust Republicans more than Democrats to run the country. Or will centrists and progressives eventually get desperate enough to unite and fight back against Trump and MAGA before it's too late?

I’m honestly at a breaking point with how bad things have gotten—not just in terms of policy, but perception. I just watched this video by Chris Cillizza, and I've seen a number of other videos on other channels like this one on this problem, and it’s left me feeling deeply pessimistic. We’re now 7 months into Trump’s second term, and despite the chaos, indictments, dysfunction, and extremism, something disturbing is happening: The Democratic Party’s approval rating is still falling. And even worse: Polling shows that Americans trust Republicans more than Democrats to run the country. Let that sink in. We’re living in a country where truth and results no longer matter. The Democrats delivered: A soft landing from inflation Record job growth and manufacturing investment The lowest poverty rate in U.S. history (on a 4-year average) The most pro-union administration in decades Historic infrastructure and green energy spending and so much more And yet, the dominant public narrative is that they’ve “destroyed the economy,” “opened the borders,” or “failed the country.” The Democrats can’t even gain ground with Trump actively back in power—and under multiple felony convictions. That’s how broken our information ecosystem has become. This isn’t just about poor messaging. It’s a full-blown epistemic collapse. As someone deeply into consciousness work, I can’t help but see this as a spiritual and psychological crisis. When a society becomes so disconnected from reality that facts and material improvements can’t shift public perception, what hope is there for reform? So I’m asking this community: How can Democrats (or any rational movement) turn things around when perception has become fully decoupled from reality? What happens when mass consciousness is hijacked by emotion, tribalism, and misinformation? Is it even possible to win in a system where truth doesn’t matter—only narrative? Or are we watching the slow death of reality-based politics altogether? I used to think better policy and clearer communication would be enough. Now I’m not so sure. Would love to hear how others here are processing this—especially those thinking at the intersection of politics, media, and collective consciousness. Sure, lots of things can change a year or two or three from now, but I’m losing faith in the Democrats' future. I am not even sure now if the Democrats can win the 2026 midterms.

I see... I am very sorry to hear that. I hope all of you stay safe.

How has it been in Florida so far with Trump being president again?

Yeah, the Devil won and the end is nigh. "The Apocalypse." Coming soon to a theatre near you.

Too old and too much of a socialist.

Then, you are greatly misinformed about what happened during Biden’s presidency. It was the most progressive in terms of policy since Lyndon B. Johnson’s in the 1960s. He helped save the country from one of the worst recessions since the Great Depression, presided over the strongest economy since Clinton in the 1990s, oversaw the highest number of jobs created by any one-term president in U.S. history, and initiated the creation of brand-new, good-paying working-class jobs unlike any president since the mid-20th century. He was the most pro-union president since FDR and Truman, helped bring the U.S. poverty rate to its lowest level ever—especially when looking at the four-year average—and oversaw an exceptional soft landing from high inflation. He also led the country through the COVID-19 pandemic and greatly help save us from it. Additionally, Biden signed a bipartisan law codifying nationwide gay marriage rights. And that’s still only a portion of the major achievements during his presidency. As for Obama’s presidency, he was the second most progressive president in policy since LBJ. He helped save the country from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and by the end of his presidency, the economy had returned to full strength. He also enacted—with Congress—historic financial regulations to prevent another crisis like the one in 2008. Furthermore, he passed the Affordable Care Act, which became one of the most pro-working-class reforms in modern times and the most comprehensive overhaul of the healthcare system since the 1960s. On top of that, he and then-VP Biden publicly supported and helped shift public opinion on gay marriage, playing a crucial role in paving the way for the 2015 Supreme Court ruling that granted nationwide marriage equality for the first time in U.S. history. And again, that’s just a fraction of what was accomplished during his time in office.

So, you want to just give up and let the authoritarians win? Do you know which party has the more popular and more effective policies? What kind of leader do you exactly suppose should run the country who has a real shot at winning the presidency sometime soon? Which party should run the country?

That all sounds good, but you can't just sit back and do nothing to fight against a monster like Trump/MAGA. You have to choose the right side of things from a truly wise and forward-thinking perspective.

To be quite frank, that kind of false-equivalency or bothsideism thinking is an example of how people like you go too far with centrism, which plays right into the hands of authoritarians like Trump even though Trump will never gain total unchecked power like Hitler or Stalin did.

It has been very clear to me in recent years that if you’re serious about improving your dating life — especially daygame or nightgame — the best move is to leave your small town and relocate to a big city like LA, NYC, Vegas, or London. I understand that: more women, more variety, faster feedback, and better exposure. But here’s the issue… We're living through one of the worst housing affordability crises in the entire developed world — and the epicenters of that crisis are the very cities guys are told to move to. In the U.S., cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York have become financially unsustainable for many men — even for those making what used to be considered good middle-class incomes. A huge percentage of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend more than 30–50% of their income just on rent. And unlike places like Vienna, Berlin, or Tokyo, the U.S. doesn’t have strong public housing systems or rent controls to balance it out. Hell, U.S. Big Cities have become the worst of the worst or ground zero for the housing affordability crisis in the developed world. Even suburbs or mid-sized cities near big metros (like Pasadena in LA) often don’t help much. I lived there for years, and while technically it had nightlife and population size, it lacked the sexual energy, social dynamics, and foot traffic needed for consistent game. It was expensive, very very frustrating, and low-yield. So here’s what I’m really wondering: Is it still wise or realistic for most men to move to major U.S. cities for dating/game — given how unaffordable and unstable those environments have become? Or would it make more sense in 2025 and beyond to: Choose smaller, more strategic cities that balance affordability and dating volume? Do game in bursts through travel or event-based windows? Build your finances and remote income first before relocating? I’m currently working toward a Doctor of Physical Therapy degree — so I’m not broke, but even on that income, LA or SF would require serious compromises. Curious what others here have done or recommend — especially anyone who’s made that big-city leap and had to navigate both the dating and financial terrain.

What do you think about Vlad Vexler's take on him foreseeing right-wing authoritarianism not going away even after Trump is gone and that there will more than likely be a second wave of authoritarianism that's more strategic and more disciplined? However, he said months ago that Trump’s 2nd term would likely erode and damage U.S. democracy — perhaps deeply — but it’s extremely unlikely to end democracy outright, kind of like you've been saying.

Manchin has reared his ugly head again and even though he said before that both parties have gone too far to their respective extremes, he's now normalizing Trump and his actions, delegitimizing the whole modern Democratic Party by framing it as out-of-touch with average Americans, and is still representing corporate extremism. Kyle Kulinski's Key Points in the Video: 1. Manchin complains the party isn’t neoliberal anymore 2. But the ‘Democratic Socialists’ are returning to FDR-style governance 3. Manchin represents the failed corporate wing Kyle not only slams Manchin’s Trump-friendly, anti-progressive shift, but flips the script to argue that Manchin is the outlier, and figures like AOC, Sanders, and Mamdani are in a sense the true heirs of American democratic tradition even though they are self-described Socialists.

Oh, so even a middle-class or working-class guy could live comfortably in cities like that?

Thanks man — appreciate the perspective. Yeah, I’m not looking to dabble — I want to go deep with cold approach and push my edge, after I get this DPT degree down and out of the way. Yeah, I actually had the thought in my head about how even living in a suburb would make everything more inconvenient as everything would still be logistically slower and more fragmented, especially for dating momentum, like you said. I lived in that city, Pasadena for years, which technically had a fair amount of nightlife, but it was still missing that social energy you get in places like downtown LA, WeHo, or even Miami Beach. I’m also realistic about how much of my income would go toward rent, even on a DPT salary — especially if I want to avoid roommates. But I hear you: if the purpose is strong enough, it’s worth stretching a bit to make the logistics tight. That Miami spot looks pretty solid, too. Although, I really don't think that living in a place like Miami will ever personally be for me. But I get your point. I'll definitely weigh some different cities for best game-to-cost ratio.

Good question. I would hope that that could work great.

You're totally right that older generations "settled" more — because they had fewer options, stricter social roles, and more immediate survival concerns. And yes, material comfort has absolutely led to greater freedom, but also to spoiled expectations — in both men and women. But I don’t think it’s just about "people being spoiled" or men "playing video games." That’s only part of it. There’s a much deeper existential and systemic breakdown underneath this. Our generation is trying to create meaning and intimacy in a radically deregulated cultural and technological environment — where capitalism has commodified everything, including sex, love, and identity. So yeah, we have freedom now — but with no clear guidance, no cultural guardrails, and algorithms that reward superficiality and infinite choice. That creates emotional paralysis and relational inequality, not just “spoiled people.” You're right that “it was easier to be married when life had a gun to your head.” But the paradox is this: too much freedom without structure becomes its own form of suffering. It’s not a call to roll back feminism — it’s a call to build new collective frameworks for love, meaning, and connection. So I’d say: both things are true. People today are more free and more lost. We’re living through the collapse of old relational paradigms, and the new ones haven’t emerged yet. This isn’t about blaming feminism or men’s choices — it’s about realizing we need more than freedom. We need wisdom to navigate it.

Two things can be true at the same time — which is something I’m still learning as part of the broader concept of non-duality and/or duality. Of course, dating has never been completely equal, nor will it ever be, just as a system like communism would (theoretically) aspire to create. However, @Jodistrict makes a valid point: older generations, on average, didn’t complain nearly as much about finding or maintaining long-term relationships as younger generations do today. Feminism and women’s rights over the last 4 to 5 decades have been a double-edged sword. On the one hand, these movements empowered women to say no to men who were bad for them or simply incompatible, and gave them fairer opportunities in nearly every aspect of life. Plus, women’s sexual satisfaction has generally improved across generations. On the other hand, these shifts have also contributed to women becoming, on average, less traditionally feminine than previous generations, developing much higher standards than ever before, and feeling lonelier and more lost in the modern dating world. The media landscape — especially the rise of online dating and dating apps — has turbocharged women’s options, particularly for the most attractive women, in ways never seen before. Most men now have to compete more than ever before. Btw Leo, you’ve pointed out how hypercapitalism erodes consciousness. Well, a hyper-commodified sexual market does something similar — it reduces people to utility, status, and looks. That’s not freedom, that’s algorithmic determinism. In fact, I fear that excessive dating and sexual inequality can become undemocratic because it undermines social cohesion, creates resentment, and fosters the conditions for radicalism, demagoguery, and anti-democratic backlash.

I am very disappointed in Owen. In a way, he's turning out to be a phony. Of course, people like him will say that at least they are winning and that most other people out there are just mediocre simps or lazy losers.

Thanks for your response — I get where you're coming from. I’m not arguing for rigid, enforced monogamy or a return to outdated norms. As much as many men out there — especially conservative ones — wish for that to happen (and I admit I’ve had those thoughts at times too), that’s obviously never going to happen. And to be fair, there have been some real positives: women having more dating and sexual freedom than before, and men also not being forced to conform to strict traditional norms around dating, sex, and marriage. My point is that when we removed structure from dating without replacing it with emotionally healthy cultural alternatives, we ended up with a highly deregulated, winner-takes-all system — much like neoliberal economics. Yes, freedom can be fulfilling, but unstructured freedom without guidance or protection tends to concentrate success in the hands of a few — and leave many others feeling lost, lonely, or frustrated. Personally, what I struggle with most is how disconnected and transactional things feel today — how hard it is to find emotionally open, grounded people who genuinely want connection. It’s not just about effort; it’s about how broken the broader incentives and culture have become. Glad your strategy is working, though. I hope it leads to something deep and meaningful.