Hardkill

You know, I've encountered a lot of Brazilian women who are very forward with me sexually. For years, I've been chatting with an attractive girl who lives in Brazil through social media and not only have we connected with each other well as friends we also have gotten very sexual with each other a number of times without any pay. We actually got very sexual with each other right away the first time we met each other. Another Brazilian girl I met near where I live a while ago, was very flirty with me telling me how cute or handsome I was. We got very touchy with each other before we kissed. Is it more of a thing with Brazilian women to be direct sexually/romantically even though men are generally expected to initiate everything?

I guess we'll have to wait and see if he really goes through with these tariffs, eventually.

A typical example of Trump making a grand promise, but then doing something that's the opposite of that. According to top independent economists if Trump really implements his entire tariff plan, then the average American will have to spend about $2600 more from their pocketbook and/or from their business revenue. Also, this move ironically contradicts the decades-long Republican principle of promoting the free market. Tariffs are a form of government intervention that can disrupt private enterprise. This approach is the opposite of Reaganism, which emphasized free trade. Trump is trying to implement an outdated idea used by conservative Republicans like Coolidge in the 1920s and McKinley before that. Their tariff policies had severe negative consequences, particularly with the Smoot-Hawley tariff, which worsened the Great Depression.

That's a really good question, OP. I believe it's because white-collar workers have never felt the need to have a union for their respective fields. Historically, white-collar workers have generally enjoyed better compensation, benefits, and working conditions compared to blue-collar workers. According to Meta AI: Factors contributing to the lack of unionization among white-collar workers: Higher wages and benefits: White-collar workers have typically received higher salaries, bonuses, and benefits, making them less inclined to seek collective bargaining. Perceived job security: White-collar workers often have more job security and stability, reducing their need for union protection. Professional identity and autonomy: White-collar workers often identify strongly with their profession and value their independence, making them less likely to seek collective representation. Lack of exposure to labor abuses: White-collar workers have historically been less vulnerable to labor abuses, such as wage theft, unsafe working conditions, and unfair labor practices. That being said I think there really should be unions for white-collar employees. Why not? After all, there's always the possibility that even very high-skilled workers who are very well-educated and have a high ranking job can still subjected to various kind of labor abuses from their employees. In fact, with the advent of AI, white-collar workers are more likely to be negatively impacted by the AI revolution than blue-collar workers are. Therefore, may need to form unions more than ever before.

Damn, I am really sorry about that, OP. Definitely keep us posted to let us know how you're doing. You can PM if you want.

This media environment we are in will really be the death of us all. If no one or no agency fixes this whole media problem before it's too late then it could spell the end of America and maybe the whole world.

Another heartbreaking disaster. I can't imagine how horrific this must have been for all of the victims and how much their families and closed ones are now suffering from this.

You know, I am now kind of open to the possibility of that. I am seeing this guy talking about it in more large left-leaning shows: However, I am still skeptical about it because if what that guy is saying is true then why haven't the major voting rights organizations such as the Lawyer's committee or the LDF brought this up as well? Also, in some blue states like New York, Illinois, California, and Massachusetts Democratic voter turnout decreased and Trump made some significant gains in each of those states when comparing 2020 to 2024.

There are some Dems out there who are good at communicating in this new media environment like AOC or Newsom. But it's still not nearly enough. They really have a lot of work to do if they truly want to win the messaging war. Otherwise, their voices will either be drowned out by both the dominance of the right-wing propaganda machine and the growing anti-mainstream media or their voices won't be heard at all by enough voters, particularly with those who are less engaged voters. That's the biggest reason why Democrats lost in 2024 and why they could very well lose again in 2028. Even the Pod Bros have been very disappointed by the Democratic party lately:

Sure, but they are still struggling a lot with getting all of that out there to the public. They need to be much louder, respond faster, and get on more social media/internet outlets/shows on everything that happens under Trump.

Well, I am not so sure that future generations may ever care about this if the Democrats can't even win the messaging war. So, far most of the Democrats in Congress and the Democratic consultants are doing a terrible job at communicating to the public about everything that has been going on so far with Trump's 2nd presidency: Democrats really suck at messaging, have a really weak infrastructure for messaging, and are already coming off as if they are capitulating to Trump and MAGA! Republicans have no principles, Democrats have no spine!

I don't see much point in these confirmation hearings. Any nominee has been able to get away with lying to the Senate about what they plan to do if they get the job as long as they know that they will have enough votes to get confirmed anyways.

I guess this is all part of a New Age version of Jim Crow laws in America. I feel terrible for members of the military who are trans. I get your point @LambdaDelta, but what Trump is doing is still a form of social injustice.

Most people in America don't care about what Musk does or says. If anything, the majority of the people seem to clearly want fascism. Otherwise, they would've supported Trump, Musk, and MAGA in 2024. I wouldn't be surprised if most Americans believe that he is some divine being sent from the heavens because of how much they herald his incredible talent as a brilliant businessman. Then again, maybe one day enough people in our country will be so fed up with him once they realize how much of a robber baron he truly is.

This is why I believe the parliamentary system is better for choosing the leader of a country than allowing the people to democratically elect the leader of a country. A parliamentary system generally sifts out those like Trump who are absolutely unfit/unqualified to lead the whole country.

The author of that article doesn't know for certain if Harris would've won if she had campaigned the way he suggests.

Damn... @NoSelfSelf went ballistic. You know, I honestly never really liked his attitude. He always came off as condescending and tone-deaf.

Why doesn't someone as brilliant as him realize that in the end he will pay the same kind of price the rich German businessmen did after they sided with the Nazis?

Just as men are socially conditioned to not cry as much as women, women are conversely socially conditioned not to come off as angry unless they happened to be more in a position of power such as teacher/principal in a school or a boss in a company and they rightfully yell at the student or employee for doing something very wrong. Other examples of this being considered acceptable are a female drill instructor in the military aggressively yelling at new recruits or subordinates or a mom yelling at her kids for bad behavior. Yet, even women in those kinds of positions are still discouraged from displaying as much anger as men who hold the same kinds of positions of power. Otherwise, women and girls who express anger will often be labeled as "emotional," "hysterical," or "aggressive," which can be damaging to their self-esteem and relationships. Women of color are especially subject to stereotyping and tropes, such as the "angry Black woman" or the "submissive Asian woman." These stereotypes can be even more damaging and limiting to such women. Even Kara in Supergirl had to be lectured by her boss about how it's a bad look when any woman comes off mad: Yet, when a man unleashes his rage (at the right time of course), especially in response to a perceived injustice or threat, it's often viewed as a sign of strength, authority, leadership, and masculine. White men are especially more allowed by society to display aggression and anger more so than men of color are, unless we are talking about a typical country in Africa that's ruled by black men, a country in Asia that's ruled by asian men, a Latin American country that's ruled by Latin men, or a country in the Middle East that's ruled by Arab men. This is one of my favorite scenes from Boys. Billy Butcher came off as a real badass leader who knows how to command the room like a real man: I bet most people who watched this were like "God damn! You got balls of steel! You showed them whose boss!"

Yeah, the German people were clearly so extremely desperate because of how dire their economic crisis was by the 1930s that they felt like they had absolutely no choice but to let a mad fascist dictator run their country and have him do whatever it took for their country to survive. However, if it wasn't for the Treaty of Versailles then I think that the German people never would've resorted to fascism and never would've allowed someone like Hilter to rise to power.

Dan Pfieffer and the Pod Save America bros say that if the Left and Democratic party with a robust messaging machine that can combat the right-wing media machine and all of the misinformation out there then Democrats may very well lose again in 2028 and every other presidential election in the future. In fact, more and more Democratic strategists and commentators out there are realizing how much of a very serious problem this is. Nothing else will matter.

That why Democratic strategists are seriously figuring out how to improve their messaging overall, particularly to these kinds of audiences who have been easily deceived by Trump and MAGA. Actually, as much as I believe Cenk and Ana are wrong for reaching out to these perverted right-wing fringe media commentators, they are right about the idea of needing to reach out to those voters out there who used to vote for Obama in 2008 and 2012, but then turned into Trump Supporters from 2016 to 2024. Many of those voters should be won back by the Democratic party. Otherwise, we may never win big elections ever again.

Although Professor Lichtman incorrectly predicted the 2024 election, he provided valuable insights as a US historian on how President Biden will likely be remembered and his lasting impact on the country:

Okay, that's what I thought and that was the argument that I made on that thread of mine even though midterms are always a referendum on the president and his party, the president's party almost always loses badly in the midterms, congressional elections have become more nationalized than ever before, and most pundits/strategists predicted that the Democrats were going to get killed in the midterms and Biden had historically low approval ratings at the time because of a number of things including the sour economy, the COVID problem still around at the time, people being very worried about the War in Ukraine when it broke out that year, and people just getting tired of Biden: You gotta admit that Biden and his party did unbelievably well then. The only other times US History the party holding the White House did as well as the Dems did in the 2022 midterms were 1934, 1962, 1998, and 2002. So, why did people buy Reagan's "It's Morning in America" optimism by 1984 even though Biden's economy was actually far superior in every way according to top independent economists? What did Truman have or do that got to win another term even though he presided over much inflation than Biden/Harris did? I think that it was actually because of two things: 1. During the mid to late 1900s there wasn't the kind of brain-rotting, anger, and resentment we have had in recent years caused by the rise of the internet/social media. This has greatly amplified everyone's negative perceptions on every issue to such unprecedented levels. 2. During the mid to late 1900s there wasn't historic levels of economic inequality in our country like we've had in recent years, which has further hurt so many Americans.

But if it wasn't for the media environment we are in then Trump never would've even come close to becoming president.