Hardkill

She's already in serious danger of being unelected according to the polls and many pundits. Also, she may not be acting as a slave of the voters, but what about the fact that she has been acting much more of a servant of the rich and corporate donors that she secretly has been working for for years? It's not just progressives like those on TYT and Secular Talk or what have you who have spoken out on this. Even Sanders, Warren, AOC, Khanna and other progressive politicians in power have constantly spoken out about how Sinema has indeed been legally coerced by the rich and corporate donors into not voting for higher taxes on them. She probably has also been legally coerced by the wealthy and corporate lobbyists into not voting for eliminating or weakening the filibuster, which absolutely needs to happen for the greater good of our country. You even said last year the very same thing about Manchin even though he understandably has been a very right-wing Democrat from a very conservative state all of his life: So, how is that aspect really been any different with Sinema? I understand that political leaders are supposed to be smarter and have a better understanding of governance than the average the voter, but does that mean that politicians aren't ever obligated to vote for any of the policies that they run on during each their campaigns? Does it also mean that they don't ever have to deliver on any of the promises they make as a politician? Oh yeah, one more thing. How about the fact that she once said on her Twitter feed long ago that it's conscionable that the federal minimum wage isn't $15, then she deleted that statement from her account as if she never put out that statement, followed by turning her back on that idea or view by unabashedly thumbing down the idea of passing the $15 minimum wage provision via the budget reconciliation process last year when Congress was passing the ARP stimulus?

Still doesn't explain why Senator Kelly was noticeably more to the left and less difficult to work with in DC than she was. Even Senator Tester who comes from Montana, which is a red state is even more to the left than she is and he has turned out to be a much more reliable Democratic voter in the Senate than she is. He even supported making permanent filibuster changes and a filibuster carveout for those voting rights bills and abortion rights bills that didn't get passed. Sinema, on the other hand, has always been one of the only two Democrats in the Senate along with Manchin who have been against eliminating or even making any changes to the filibuster. Why is she really against changing or eliminating the filibuster when she doesn't even come from a conservative state like West Virginia? Furthermore, have you seen her poll numbers? She has actually become very unpopular for over a year now with both Republicans and Democrats in Arizona. She's likely to be primaried or lose re-election if she runs again. Even James Carville said in a vox article earlier this year, "I can’t explain it, and no one else can. The only explanation people have given is that she wants to be the next John McCain. But she’s not going to win a primary against Rep. Ruben Gallego, I’ll tell you that damn much. And I will personally volunteer to help him fundraise because I think we can keep that seat if he runs." https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/09/kyrsten-sinema-approval-rating-equally-unpopular-everyone.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/22893113/james-carville-joe-manchin-biden-democratic-party Btw, how come Manchin who is the most conservative Dem in Congress and comes from a deep red state was for raising taxes on the rich and corporations, but Sinema wasn't for it at all? In fact, why was she the only Democrat in the Senate who did not support raising taxes on the rich and corporations? Also, why are Senators Ossoff and Warnock a lot more to the left than she is even they too are from another purple state? What about Senator Baldwin who's actually a real progressive representing Wisconsin, which is arguably an even more purple state than Arizona is? How about Senator Brown who's another real progressive from Ohio, which has become more of a red state since 2016?

Yeah, I agree! People in Arizona weren't doing that to Mark Kelly because they perceived him to be someone who definitely represented the values and political beliefs of most people in Arizona.

Yeah, but she has constantly shifted from being a "progressive" in her 20s to being more and more and more to the center until she became a moderate conservative Democratic. Now she has become a moderate conservative Independent. I hoped before that she would be more like of a center-left or a moderate liberal Democrat like Schumer or Pelosi or Harris or Biden, which would've been good. Why was she never even as liberal as the other US Senator from Arizona, Mark Kelly?

Would that include conservative Dems too?

That's good that the German government was able to stop this coup from succeeding. Yet, I can't help, but feel like this was a group of extreme right-wing Germans who want to bring back the Nazi regime. I know the news didn't say that these freaks were Nazis, but it does remind me of how Hitler and the Nazi Party were first arrested after their failed coup d'etat before they successfully took over the entire country and then expanded their empire greatly with the goal of world domination.

But if a guy is naturally good at pickup and dating than another guy who is struggling, then wouldn't that mean that he actually would have even greater genetic potential to improve his game than the other guy who is naturally weaker at it? The more gifted you are at something the greater your potential for it is, whereas someone else who was not born a natural at that activity or skill to begin with can only improve so much, correct?

The threats of right-wing authoritarianism seems to never end. Though, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the conservatives/Republicans, I don't think that most Americans will be happy about this. Especially, considering how the midterm elections were in no doubt a referendum on Trumpism and right-wing extremism. There was supposed to be a red wave in the 2022 midterm elections because the Democrats have been the party in power and have been blamed for inflation, crime, and immigration. Yet, one major reason the red wave didn't happen was because most of the GOP candidates in these midterms scared most of the American people with their election denialism and threats to overturn future election results. Besides, practically every Republican, especially all of the Trump backed GOP candidates, lost in practically every secretary of state race, every attorney general race, and every gubernatorial race in every battleground state for the 2024 presidential election. The Republicans also lost 4 state legislative chambers throughout the entire country to the Democrats including the Minnesota State Senate, the Michigan State Senate, the Michigan State House of Representatives, and the Pennsylvania State House of Representatives. They further lost partisan control of the Alaska State House of Representatives to a bipartisan coalition. Wisconsin Republicans failed to win veto-proof supermajorities in both chambers of the Wisconsin State Assembly. North Carolina Republicans also failed to win veto-proof supermajorities in both chambers of their State General Assembly. I don't think that the Republicans in Georgia won veto-proof supermajorities in either chamber of the Georgia General Assembly. Furthermore, even though gov. Kemp and Secretary of State Raffensperger of Georgia are both Republicans who just easily won re-elect for each of their seats, they are both totally anti-Trump. Nevada Democrats successfully defended control of their legislative chambers in the Nevada Legislature. Arizonan Republicans failed to gained veto-proof supermajorities in either chamber of their state legislature as well. Plus, Arizona will now be governed by a Democrat for the next four years thanks to Katie Hobb's defeat of loony Lake. It further looks like Congress will soon pass the Electoral Count Act which is supposed to include a number of new guardrails that will further protect our Democracy including this provision: "Protection of Each State’s Popular Vote: Strikes a provision of an archaic 1845 law that could be used by state legislatures to override the popular vote in their states by declaring a “failed election” – a term that is not defined in the law. Instead, this legislation specifies that a state could move its presidential election day, which otherwise would remain the Tuesday immediately following the first Monday in November every four years, only if necessitated by “extraordinary and catastrophic” events."

Alright, well those are fair statements. Also, I actually would be totally fine with moderate Republicans like Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins becoming the dominant faction of the Republican Party. I wish that most of the GOP could go back to the good old days of being Eisenhower Republicans or even go back further to being Teddy Roosevelt Republicans or go much much further back to being Lincoln Republicans.

I hope you're right because we can't just keep hoping that Democratic candidates will go up against a lot more buffoons in future elections. The Democratic party has really got to come up with an even better, stronger campaign strategy for their candidates for 2024 and beyond somehow if they want to be able to take on traditional competent Republican candidates.

I see what you mean. Though Shapiro's argument sound very cogent, created his own successful business from scratch, and he still graduated Harvard Law School at an age that's earlier than that of typical law school graduates.

True... So, then does that mean if all of GOP candidates in every congressional race and in every governor and in every other state level were regular competent ones like the ones mentioned above then does that mean that there definitely would've been a red wave and that the threat of democracy and the overturning of Roe vs. Wade wouldn't have helped the Democrats at all?

Yeah, it looks like that would've happened according to the stats.... But, what about the more regulars GOP conservatives like Governors DeWine, Kemp, and even Desantis who are too far to the right and anti-abortion also not punished even after having the Republican Party's reputation be so tarnished? Can the Democratic party ever come up with a strategy to have a real chance against traditional GOP candidates in the future?

Prager seems very similar to Ben Shapiro as both of them are intelligent conservative Jews.

My concern is now is why didn't the conservative GOP establishment candidates like Brian Kemp, De Wine, De DeSantis, and others like them throughout the country win their elections even though they still have far-right views and this election was a referendum on Trump and the Republican party having clearly adopted right-wing extremism? Governors DeWine and Kemp are especially against any kind of abortion at all and they still won their own races easily even after the overturning of Roe vs. wade. Why is that?

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.