Hardkill

The Democratic leadership so far hasn't seemed to have learned from any of the mistakes they made that led them to lose in the 2024 election. They also have too many old leaders in Congress and in the DNC that must be replaced by a younger generation of Democratic leaders in their prime such as AOC and Jamie Raskin, who can do a much better job of communicating the Democratic party's platform, ideas, and messages to the country in this day and age. Otherwise, the Democratic party could lose again in more big elections including the 2028 elections. Yet, they are still apparently too stubborn to even make those kinds of changes. Do the corporate Democrats just not care anymore about winning anymore or is it because their fucking selfish donors and their God damn useless Washington elite consultants won't let them?

We all have our favorite mainstream film actors/actresses. Well, since porn is becoming increasingly mainstream, there is not much as much shame with porn as there used to be. So, I might as well ask you all who each of your favorite pornstars are?

Why should I believe you?

If you can tolerate the violence and gore in the show, then it's a really good show to watch. Yeah, I think they really do an excellent job of portraying a kind of dystopian scenario of what could happen if unchecked capitalism keeps running amok, particularly with regard to Big Pharma. I mean, of course, there's no way that scientists and pharmaceutical companies are ever going to be able to create any drugs that will give people superpowers. Obviously not going to happen during this century. However, the show greatly illustrates how a society could go wrong when it doesn't have enough guardrails, loses its democracy, and doesn't seriously consider the long-term consequences of creating a monster like Homelander is.

Yeah, it's a real national tragedy.

I can’t speak for those who are 60+ years old, but as someone who is 36 years old, I really haven’t seen any decline in my ability to learn any new kind of skill. If anything, I feel like in many ways I’ve been able to learn new skills faster. I think it’s because I’ve constantly educated myself and have gained more experience and wisdom as I’ve gotten older.

Substantial government progress often necessitates catastrophic events or widespread hardship because voters tend to be reactive, typically demanding change only after experiencing significant difficulties. So, why hasn't such urgently required transformation in leadership and governance been occurring in impoverished states like West Virginia, Wyoming, Mississippi, Alabama, or Arkansas, where numerous individuals in those regions are struggling very badly in various ways including the economy, infrastructure, and education? For that matter, why hasn't the tremendous suffering in impoverished countries, particularly in many parts of Africa and the Middle East, been enough to catalyze meaningful reforms in leadership and governance, thereby improving the economy, infrastructure, and education of those countries?

That’s partly true. It’s also because of the dominance of right-wing propaganda disinformation machine that unbelievably tricked the majority of voters into believing that Biden/Harris did very little to nothing good for the country. I still think that if Harris was the POTUS for about a year or two then she wouldve been able to better command the attention of the public and communicate all of the accomplishment their party much better than Biden did. Also, enough Americans might’ve gotten used to having a woman of a color be the President of the United States. Btw, we don’t even know for sure if things would’ve been worse had Biden stayed as the Democratic presidential nominee. Anybody who tells you that it would’ve been worse really has no idea. The people could’ve elected him again by deciding “I am not happy with Biden and he really has gotten so old, but at least he’s the same good old white American middle class man named Joe Biden we both are already used to having as our country’s president and he already beat Trump before, which must really mean that Trump can’t ever beat Biden.”

I forgot to mention this about a month ago, but after Harris lost to Trump, professor Lichtman said that in retrospect, the Democratic party never totally adopted his Plan B idea. Lichtman proposed this idea long before the election, in case Biden was forced out of the race by his own party. The whole plan B was to have Biden resign from office to make Harris the incumbent POTUS. That way, Harris and the Democrats would've had the full advantage of incumbency and much stronger party unity. He talks about it around 7:33. I think that if Biden had resigned in 2023 or early 2024, allowing Harris to serve as president for about 1-1.5 years, she would have had the best shot at beating Trump. That's because she would have received the greatest amount of free media attention, resources, and presidential power for her campaign, with at least 1-1.5 years to campaign for the 2024 election. Additionally, members of her own party, particularly those foolish moderate Democratic officials, would have been less likely to publicly criticize her, unlike their treatment of Biden. This would have allowed them to present a much more unified front for the 2024 election.

So, should I still not be discouraged from ever pursuing entrepreneurship?

So when I asked you on another thread: Why did you say before: You also said before that there is now more ways than ever before to make money, especially in a country like America:

Musk is really asking for another historic labor strike in the future.

Ah! That's what I thought when I asked you before about what you said in your 'How Society Evolves' video and how suffering ties into that: So, all of the major factors that are involved in developing a country are: Infrastructure Resources Economy Education per capita Culture and views of each current generation The country suffering nationwide from a serious crisis The people witnessing the struggles and suffering of certain marginalized groups

Maybe.....or maybe not..... Yes, there was this strong anti-incumbent sentiment going on around the world, but generally speaking, it's still always much more difficult to defeat an incumbent president than a non-incumbent because of all of the reasons I mentioned above along with having a much greater record of accomplishments to run on and because people tend to be naturally more comfortable with the person that's already in charge. Incumbent presidents often lose re-election when they govern so disastrously, as seen in Trump's 2020 loss. Another example is Jimmy Carter, who lost re-election in 1980 due to widespread discontent with the struggling economy, which was plagued by soaring inflation that peaked at around 14% by election year, along with a recession, bad handling of the Iran hostage crisis, very deep divisions and troubling conflicts within his own party, didn't enact real major policy changes to the degree that Obama or Biden did, and had both a very significant third party presidential candidate run against him. Carter also ran against a Republican presidential candidate who truly was exceptionally charismatic. Objectively, Biden/Harris didn't govern anywhere near as bad as Carter in 1980 or Trump in 2020 did. They did as great of a job of running the country as Obama/Biden did during Obama's first term as president.

You know, I've thought about that, but unfortunately, I don't have the time and money to start and run my own YouTube channel.

When Harry Truman was running for re-election in 1948, he presided over a much worse inflation problem during that year than Biden ever did. Plus, the economy back then was significantly weaker than it has been under Biden's presidency. Yet, Truman won re-election decisively and brought coattails for his whole party, which caused his party to win back both chambers of chambers along with them keeping the White House. When Ronald Reagan was running for re-election in 1984, he also presided over a much worse inflation problem during that year than Biden ever did and the economy by 1984 also wasn't as strong as it has been throughout ALL of Biden's presidency. Plus, the majority of Americans considered Reagan back then to be too old to run for re-election. Yet, Reagan won re-election decisively and helped his party win back 16 seats in the US House. Sadly, Biden/Harris and the Democrats lost in great part because they were held responsible for an inflation problem that was not even as bad as the inflation crises that occurred during either the 1948 or 1984 presidential election years. Furthermore, I must reiterate that Biden's economy has also been significantly stronger than it ever was during Truman's 1st presidential term and during Reagan's first presidential term. So, WTH?

Not if Trump really enacts both his mass deportation and sky-high tariff plans. I am telling you that if those kinds of incredibly stupid and extreme policies become a reality, then inflation and prices will skyrocket to truly historic levels.

Here's the response I got for this question from Meta AI: The recovery from the 1970s-80s stagflation crisis was indeed more challenging than the recovery from the 2021-2024 inflation crisis. Comparing the Recoveries Depth and Duration of Recession: The recession in the early 1980s was more severe and longer-lasting than the recession during the COVID-19 pandemic. Inflation and Interest Rates: Inflation peaked at over 19% in 1980, and interest rates soared to combat it. In contrast, inflation during the 2021-2024 period, although high, was not as extreme. Unemployment and Job Market: Unemployment rates in the early 1980s were significantly higher than those during the COVID-19 pandemic. Changing Expectations and Perceptions Economic Baseline: The economic baseline has shifted over time. Americans in the 1980s may have been more accustomed to economic volatility and higher inflation, making them more relieved by the recovery. In contrast, Americans today may be more sensitive to economic disruptions due to the prolonged period of economic stability and low inflation preceding the 2021-2024 inflation crisis. Media Coverage and Information Availability: The way people consume information has changed dramatically since the 1980s. The 24-hour news cycle, social media, and the internet can create a sense of perpetual crisis and amplify economic concerns, even if objective economic conditions are improving. Societal and Cultural Factors Changing Social Norms and Values: Societal values and norms have shifted since the 1980s. Today, there may be a greater emphasis on economic security, stability, and equality, leading to increased anxiety and dissatisfaction with the economy. Growing Awareness of Economic Inequality: The growing awareness of economic inequality and its impacts on society may contribute to a sense of unease and dissatisfaction with the economy, even if overall economic conditions are improving. The confluence of these factors of the following factors has contributed to widespread dissatisfaction with the economy among Americans, despite the relatively stronger recovery from the 2021-2024 inflation crisis compared to the 1970s-80s stagflation crisis: Evolution of the media landscape: The 24-hour news cycle, social media, and the internet can amplify economic concerns and create a sense of perpetual crisis. Growing dissatisfaction with the system: Americans are increasingly dissatisfied with the economic and political systems, leading to a sense of unease and mistrust. Worsening economic inequality: The growing wealth gap between the rich and the poor has led to feelings of economic insecurity and frustration. Increasing cost of living: The rising costs of housing, healthcare, education, and other essential expenses have made it difficult for many Americans to make ends meet. Lack of familiarity with economic volatility: Unlike previous generations, many Americans today are not accustomed to economic volatility and higher inflation, making them more sensitive to economic disruptions. These factors have combined to create a perfect storm of economic anxiety and dissatisfaction among Americans, despite the relatively stronger economic recovery. In contrast, while wages have been outpacing inflation in the US since early 2023, and inflation levels have been relatively stable, ranging from 2.5 to 3.5%, many Americans still perceive inflation as a significant problem. By 1984, Americans' perceptions of inflation had shifted, and it was no longer seen as a major concern. This was despite the fact that inflation remained relatively high, around 4%. This disparity can be attributed to the factors we discussed earlier: Changing expectations and perceptions: Americans' expectations and perceptions of inflation have shifted over time, influenced by factors like the media landscape, economic inequality, and cost of living. Lack of trust in institutions: Growing dissatisfaction with the economic and political systems has led to decreased trust in institutions, making people more skeptical of economic data and more prone to perceive inflation as a problem. Increased sensitivity to price changes: The rising cost of living, particularly in areas like housing, healthcare, and education, has made Americans more sensitive to price changes, even if inflation is relatively low. These factors have contributed to a disconnect between Americans' perceptions of inflation and the actual economic data, making it more challenging for people to feel confident about their economic prospects. Additionally, even though the Fed has already been lowering interest rates significantly since a few months ago from what have actually been historically average Fed Funds rates: Lingering economic uncertainty: The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent inflation crisis have created a sense of uncertainty and unease about the economy, which may take time to dissipate. Ongoing cost of living concerns: The rising cost of living, particularly in areas like housing, healthcare, and education, continues to be a significant concern for many Americans. Growing wealth inequality: The widening wealth gap between the rich and the poor has contributed to feelings of economic insecurity and anxiety among many Americans. Now how did most people feel about the high prices in the US by 1948? By 1948, the US economy was in a period of transition. World War II had ended just three years earlier, and the country was shifting from a wartime to a peacetime economy. Post-War Economic Conditions Inflation Concerns: There were concerns about inflation in the immediate post-war period, driven by pent-up demand, shortages, and the transition from a wartime economy. Price Controls: The US government had implemented price controls during World War II to manage inflation. These controls were gradually lifted after the war, leading to some price increases. Wage Growth: Wages were growing rapidly in the post-war period, driven by strong economic growth, low unemployment, and the rise of organized labor. Public Perception of High Prices Economic context: The post-war economic boom and the rise of the middle class created a sense of economic optimism and opportunity. Social and cultural factors: The sense of national unity and purpose following World War II contributed to a more positive outlook on the economy. Public perception: The high inflation rate in 1948 was seen as a temporary phenomenon, and many Americans were more focused on the opportunities and benefits of the post-war economic boom. The main differences between 1948 and 2024 were: Economic anxiety: The COVID-19 pandemic, supply chain disruptions, and geopolitical tensions have created a sense of economic uncertainty and anxiety. Growing wealth inequality: The widening wealth gap between the rich and the poor has contributed to feelings of economic insecurity and frustration. Changing expectations and perceptions: The low inflation rates of the 1990s and 2000s created a new normal, making people more sensitive to even moderate inflation rates. Plus, the media landscape has undergone significant changes between 1948 and 2024, which have contributed to differences in how people perceive and respond to inflation. In 1948: Limited media outlets: There were fewer media outlets, and news was primarily disseminated through print newspapers, radio, and newsreels. Less frequent news cycles: News cycles were less frequent, and people were less exposed to constant updates and analysis. More trust in institutions: There was generally more trust in institutions, including the government, media, and financial systems. In 2024: Proliferation of media outlets: The rise of cable news, social media, and online news sources has created a 24-hour news cycle, with constant updates and analysis. Increased polarization: The media landscape has become increasingly polarized, with different outlets catering to specific ideologies and demographics. Decreased trust in institutions: Trust in institutions has declined, with many people questioning the credibility of the media, government, and financial systems. These changes in the media landscape have contributed to: Increased anxiety and uncertainty: The constant stream of news and analysis can create a sense of perpetual crisis, contributing to increased anxiety and uncertainty. Confirmation bias and polarization: The proliferation of media outlets has enabled people to selectively consume information that confirms their pre-existing biases, contributing to increased polarization. Decreased trust and credibility: The decreased trust in institutions has made it more challenging for people to distinguish between credible and non-credible sources of information, contributing to confusion and mistrust.

How are red states in the US able to make any substantial progress if they are constantly dominated by so much conservative ideology? How do states like West Virginia, Alabama, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and Mississippi, which face very significant economic and social challenges, manage to develop their economies and improve the lives of their residents? Why aren't most people in those states angry at their elected officials for not doing enough to improve public education, healthcare access, economic opportunities, environmental infrastructure, crime, and so on? In fact, contrary to right-wing claims, crime rates have been worse overall in red states than in blue ones. So, why haven't many residents in those states not been holding their elected officials accountable?

It's all fake populism. Right-wing populism, which is arguably more detrimental than left-wing populism, still involves welfare chauvinism that benefits the working-class, middle-class, and working poor who are native-born citizens; albeit it excludes all racial and ethnic minorities and primarily yields short-term benefits. Even Hitler, who was the Devil incarnate, I believe enacted policies that significantly helped out his own citizens in Germany, at least for the short-run. Yet, Trump hasn't even ever provided any meaningful welfare support or major benefits for white Americans from working-class, middle-class, and low-income backgrounds in our country.

Even Roland Martin, a liberal Democrat who I like because of his no-nonsense takes on politics, mentioned how delusional TYT's latest strategy of trying to work together with the MAGA "populists" is:

Obama was kind of spineless. He was a great president, but not a true liberal/progressive warrior like TR, Wilson, FDR, Truman, and LBJ were. Obama didn’t have enough guts to be a partisan advocate and party builder for his party.

Tell that to the great liberal/progressives like TR, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK/LBJ, Obama, and Biden, all of whom saved and dramatically improved our country in many dimensions. What about the civil rights leaders like MLK and Malcolm X, the women's rights movement, and the gay rights movement?

If we don't get a handle on both this terrible media landscape and political environment we are in, then even the youngest generations of people in every developed nation will succumb to living in an Orwellian dystopia for God knows how long.

Well, this probably never would've happened had America had the very same kind of gun control laws that all other developed nations have.