Hatfort

I'm not here to defend Russian democracy as flawless, but the last presidential election in 2024 showed a big support for Putin's operations in Ukraine, which was the most important issue people were voting for. His support has increased since the previous one. One of the first things Zelenksy did when the war started was prohibit political parties that represented Russo-Ukrainians and also the leftwing ones, I saw some footage of political leaders being lynched, tied to posts, and things like that. Ukraine is a de facto dictatorship, with Zelensky as visible head and the extreme ultra-right-wing nationalist factions of Ukraine in military power, even if they are not the majority. They are kidnapping men to send them to the frontline to die in vain, which obviously they don't want. People can't speak up against the war, there are reports of people being arrested for criticizing the war in their daily life, not to mention doing it publicly. But everything is fine because they are at war for you guys. Zelensky can hold elections at the moment he decides to and see if the people of Ukraine still want to continue this suicidal path, besides his legal term has ended.

I pointed two things specifically, the battlefield and the economy. I've seen you addressing them, your assessments are wishful thinking for the future, but not based in the reality but go on. Russia keeps advancing and stopping any Ukrainian offensive attempt and it has wonderful relations with so many big, medium, and small countries to maintain its economy immune to any Western sanctions. They reduced their dependency on the dollar-based trade system as a bonus.

Sometimes they do, Russia just had them. Ukraine could have them too, to the extent they control. The East parts were the most Russian-friendly ones in voting, so in a sense, he would have an advantage having to exclude the other side of the frontline. However, he knows he would lose them to any candidate offering a negotiated route with Russia, that's the main reason he won't have them. But okay, let's say exceptional circumstances can justify exceptional measures. I feel sorry for the Ukrainians though, all this is suicidal for them, they never had a chance to win. The Western countries are okay with losing some cash on this, but Ukraine is putting the bodies. You many times accuse others of falling into propaganda, but you are the one who does that, can't even admit the reality of the battlefield. Also the Russian economy collapse is total bullshit.

Especially the ones whose leaders know they are going to lose them. In this case, for prefering a negotiated but inevitable outcome instead of the certain death of their men for a lost cause against a more powerful army.

Man, I saw Zelensky sucking up to Trump, he said 'thank you' so many times in the begining. He wore a suit, he said he wouldn't until the war was over, and it is not over. Whatever, that's not important, but said it is. I don't think they would have ever needed to be so submissive to Russia if he had worked towards a mutual respect and commercial alliance with them, which is what he campaigned for, instead of opening the gates to its big neighbour's military enemy, NATO. I will give a point to Zelensky for the dart of telling Trump he would like to have a country with no elections, like his own. Good one! There is no ceasefire, obviously, why would Russia stop a fight that is winning to give its rival a chance to rest, regroup, and rebuild its army? Would Ukraine propose a ceasefire if it was advancing to the 91 borders? Well, no. Trump acting like he's a neutral party in this conflict is ridiculous though, as the USA is the main power of NATO, and he bragged about arming Ukraine more than Obama did in his first term personally. NATO won't win this war, so it won't be setting any security guarantees, any less by arming what's left of Ukraine. This is one of the main reasons that started the war. Losing a war brings many bad pills to swallow. If they want to continue, they can, and the fight will continue, but they risk an even worse outcome, as time has shown during these three and a half years.

I saw this video, and it reminded me of this thread. Maybe the Democratic Party needs some identity politics in this direction, pandering to men who also need to see masculine figures fighting for positions of power on the left. His main message is clear, the wealth-hoarding oligarchy is the cause of the problems that the working class is facing. As a bonus, stop spending on foreign wars, opposition to the genocide in Palestine, and medicare for all. Graham Platner is a candidate for US senate, I can't say if he is going to win, it depends on his district, but if it is a swing one, he wins. There's also Gavin Newsom, I think he is making some moves thinking about 2028. To awaken the base on the left, he's gotta have something to offer them. He's not gonna win trying to outcompete the right.

Holocaust survivor Stephen Kapos, visiting Israel opened his eyes to the realities of occupation and systemic discrimination against Palestinians. He condemns the disproportionate attacks on Gaza, the ongoing humiliation in the West Bank, and the UK government’s military and diplomatic support for Israel.

I read this, and I think you are right in some ways, but in the inverse, it's Russia that applied your pathway. Sick and tired of NATO and the US sneaking into their close neighbor countries, changing their regimes from allies to militarily hostile ones towards them, including countless destabilization techniques and cues, trying a diplomatic route in Minks where their cosigners repeatedly lied only to buy time, they finally said enough of this shit, and went on a real offensive. Good for them, because nothing else would have worked. They've always let ways out though, because they know the price of war is high for them too, but they have shown to be ready to fight and win. So you want to see new stories of the US meddling in foreign elections? What world have you been living in? Man, they've been doing that shit for decades. I see a lot of medium-tier countries like Indonesia, Vietnam, or Ethiopia tired of the Western ways and joining BRICS because it's better for their political and economic sovereignty. In BRICS there's a win-win approach, with the US you get a corrupt puppet in your country, and your national resources disappear. I do think Russia has been meddling in some ways too, they have been found to have funded many ultra-right-wing parties in Europe. Not going into the Russiagate rabbit hole, but just last year some YouTube channels were found to have been funded by Russia. It wasn't the ones like the Majority Report, but the ones like Tim Pool. Because they've found out the recipe, you want to fuck a country, fund their right-wing extremists. Trump himself is the worst that could have happened to the US internally, they had reasons to incentivise that as a geopolitical opponent. Europe has to wake up to the reality that the US is not behaving like an ally. The best example is what they did to the Nord Stream, which was a good and cheap energy supply for Northern Europe, it was blown up by the US, both Biden and Trump took credit for that. Europe can build a military for itself, that's fine in the world we live in, but going into war with Russia is stupid as fuck. Russia doesn't want to conquer Europe, and Europe doesn't want Russia either. Does Europe have to cut with the US? No, but they have to make clear that they are independent from it, and if the market in the East with Russia and China is good for their interests, they should make their own decisions about how they engage with them, the same way they do with the US.

I don't think the Alaska meeting between Trump and Putin is going to bring any peace. Putin won't accept less than the totality of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson, and NATO hands out of Ukraine. Trump is not going to offer that, and in the end, it's not that bad for the biggest producer of military equipment to have this ongoing, while making Europeans pay the bills. Ukrainian leadership doesn't want anything less than the 91 borders, they are deluded, and or making good profit themselves too. Russia will continue conquering more land, it may go further than these four territories. It seems it's going to be a slow pace, the human wave propaganda news are lies, Russia is not rushing things. In this attrition war, it's possible the pace changes at some point, but doesn't seem it's happening any time soon. The Russian economy's fall is another propaganda talking point, they are doing well, and can sustain this war better than their opponents, and their army is way bigger.

More target assassinations of journalists in Gaza, 28-year-old Anas Al-Sharif, along with other colleagues, were struck in their tent in Gaza city. The genocidal state and army of Israel want the land of Gaza empty of Palestinians, and no witnesses of their crimes. Al-Sharif, aware of the danger to his life, prepared a testament in case this happened some months ago.

One of the victims of Epstein asking for the files to be released fully, protecting the victims' identities, obviously. Not gonna happen though, Trump is deep in those files, as well as other powerful people. They have discussed how public opinion and also the MAGA base would react to different deals with Ghislaine Maxwell to clear Trump, which has not been good for them, because she is a convicted child trafficker. They are testing the waters. Epstein was probably killed, him gone before another trial was the best thing that could have happened to the powerful people involved. People who knew him closely, like his butler, have said that he wasn't suicidal at all. It's also a mess the recordings that have been provided of his prison door, with minutes missing, and other discrepancies. At least all this got big attention, I didn't think it would. However, the blonde politician from his administration, who claimed she had the files on her desk, then backed off, spiraled all this. Trump must love her so much now.

Well, yeah, Trump won. lol People can be fooled, and repeatedly.

Man, you're making odd questions and comparisons. Americans have the potential to make their general conditions for all of them better. The upper class successfully confronts the medium and lower ones against each other, and in the meantime, they hoard the wealth. In the long run, it's bad for them too, but they can't see it, it's like an addiction to hoard more money than they will ever be able to spend. The lower class having more money is good for the economy, because unlike the rich ones, they spend it in businesses, money circulates, and this creates jobs, spiraling even more growth. Inequality is the number one issue, it takes it's sub forms in the affordability of housing or healthcare. Families are bankrupted by medical bills, how is that good for the economy? Young ones will have to pay rent for life or mortgages of fifty years for normal houses. Vacation what? I'm not asking for a revolution though, just for the Democrats to adopt more progressive approaches to help the economy and the people.

Times are changing, I forgot to mention that he was too advanced for his time, and also boomers got it better than the millennials and zoomers. The traditional media still has a huge weight, but since the Internet, it's possible to spread some messages that in the 20th century wouldn't have made even a minute of screentime, and to be insulted at best, in the traditional TV channels. When something gets too big, even the media has to address it. So it's worth trying.

For many reasons, he has been swimming against the current of an already established party apparatus with donors that oppose his policies because they go against their interests, and the traditional media work for the other side too, so they massage the candidates they like, and demonize or just completely ignore the ones like him in screen time, or cut their interventions disingenuosly. Despite of this, he got a small niche in Vermont, and make some noise in the 2010s. Did he win? No, in the end he didn't, the powers he opposed did. But he has my respect for his life work and for trying, he did change some narratives, and put the healthcare right in the discussion as well.

No i'ts not, and I haven't. You have though, you gotta twist reality into saying things like the US system is not bipartisan, or that Bernie has not tried to change the Democratic Party, and gratuitously drop peyorative califications into him and socialists in general that are not based in truth, just for the sake of insulting them. That's low-level discussion. I've made a case of why I think Democrats should adopt a more progressive approach, emphasizing in the economic issues, and that people will respond positively to that. It's important to have charismatic figures as well, someone has to step in. If they do that genuinely, they win. The problem is they are sold out to corporate donors as well. Not as much as Republicans, but quite a lot too.

I haven't commented in this thread for a while. Trump's administration chose to continue fueling Ukraine in this war. I thought he wouldn't do it, he had a chance to score a goal as the peacemaker he sold himself to be. Ukraine would have to sit and accept the loss of four territories and sign neutrality, but the war would have ended there. Nothing is easy, but there was a route. Instead, Trump chose the Biden path, and even now has threatened with nuclear submarines. Remember NATO is not officially fighting this war, it's between Russia and Ukraine, so that's crazy. But it's probably for show, kind of what he did in Iran. It's irresponsible and stupid behaviour, but that's who Americans put in the White House. For their defense, Biden wasn't better on that, and we don't have any sign to say Kamala was either. The war continues, so the battlefield will be where the maps are drawn. Russia keeps advancing, and Ukrainians have to retreat or die at the front. After recapturing Kursk, Russia has entered Sumy. Now they have also started to put feet in Dnipropetrovsk. The longer it goes, the less has Ukraine in its hand to negotiate for a less bad outcome, and the weaker their army gets, which is a further risk.

It is a two-party system in practice, Democrat and Republican, Bernie worked within the Democratic Party. I'm not going to estimate anything, Kamala didn't get the votes she needed, we all saw the results, lost every swing state. I agree with you about taxing the richest, that has to be done. The system is running, I didn't say it isn't, but it's not getting better for more people, the opposite. Some of the things you list as good like taking vacations used to be affordable for a bigger portion of people, now it's a just a no for too many. Cost of education and healthcare is bigger too. The cost of housing where there are jobs is an impossible deal. That's not happening because people now is more stupid, it's happening because the politicians are legislating in favour of the companies and the richest. There is regulation, but in their favour. The wealth that used to be in people's hands and in circulation, benefiting the real economy, now just goes to the corporations that hoard it. This has to be reversed, and I'm not asking the Republican Party to do that, they won't, I'm asking the Democratic Party to do it, and with no hesitation. Socialists are neither lazy nor envious, that's stupid. They are normal people willing to improve things for the majority, using common-sense regulations and putting limits on the corporations so they don't fuck people over.

Bernie has been an independent, but due to the US bipartisan system, he has indeed worked inside the Democratic party, and he has tried to push some progressive policies, which is a way of improving it. He is not lazy, he has been working his whole life, neither are socialists in general like you say. No, I'm not trying to say what you wrote. What I said, and you can read, is that creating a new party in the bipartisan system of the US is inviable in practice. So the way for now is what Bernie did, try to get seats in a party hostile to them, winning the votes of the people by advocating for their rights and life improvement. Mamdami is kind of doing it now, but the challenge is huge, because they have the apparatus of the party where they are operating is against them. What I also say is that if the Democratic Party apparatus, instead of charging against those progressives, should try to integrate them and their good policies. The Democratic potential voters are more progressive than the party ever goes, but you gotta have their backs, so they got yours in exchange.

Look, Bernie lived in the time he lived, it's not on him that the good policies that he was advocating for have not been implemented, when there's everyone in the media and political establishment preventing it. It's on them, not on him. He made his choice to try to change things from inside the Democratic Party, which was the right one. It would have been good to start a new party, if the US system wasn't totally rigged against that option in practice. Maybe there will be a time to try that in the future, it wasn't on his. It's also a pain in the UK, not as much, but Corbyn grew some balls and is going for it. That won't really be splitting the left, but giving voice to it, because Starmer is rightwing. Margaret Thacher said that her best achievement was Tony Blair, which means that what was supposed to be the Labour left, integrated rightwing policies into it, which is the same that has been happening in the US Democratic Party, and in many other countries in Europe is similar too.

Most who would say that would be on the Republican side anyway, so that's a them problem. Neither Hillary nor Kamala were good candidates for different reasons. Neither of them, got the progressives on their boat. You need that to win, no matter your gender or race. Obama had it, Biden to a less degree, he kept Bernie closer instead of ostracizing him. If you get the progressive base and media enthusiastically pushing for you, you win as a Democrat, if you alienate them and have them demotivated, Republicans win, even if they get less votes than what they did before. It's a bit like MAGA base with the Republicans, they provide the enthusiasm dose needed in elections the very least. Then moderates move their asses too. The difference is progressive policies are good for the economy, unlike MAGA ones which are practically a scam, like Trump's big beautiful bill, like he calls it. It's a big ugly bill, Americans will pay the price.

That's a very superficial way of seeing this matter you have. If the person is not progressive, no matter what gender it is, it's not progressive. MTG is a woman and is not progressive. You gotta see what they run for, that's basic. Sanders was in politics for 50 years, indeed. But with very limited power, that's not being ineffective. He did what he could, advocating for the working class and denouncing the billionaire corporations and inequality. Obvioulsy it's another case of swimming against the current in his country's general politics, his own party's and not to speak about the media. Sometimes you plant the seeds, but the trees have to grow, that's what he did. He was too early, and it was too late for him when he got some success. If he had had the Democratic Party rowing with him in 2016, he would have won against Trump. When the Democratic Party puts its machinery to work for more progressive outcomes with charismatic, genuine candidates, people are going to respond, and push them to victory. It's true you some policies like M4A would face objection from the establishment and different insurance or drug companies, nobody said it would be easy, but you still fight and push. If you don't, you certainly won't get anything done. Well, I'm more progressive than what Obama showed to be, but there's indeed a limit on what he could achieve, so I'm not going to completely reject him either. Trump is destroying the economy, and has still stupid fools applauding him. If it wasn't an important matter, it would be even funny. The problem is Democrat presidents seem to go one step forward, while Republicans make two backwards. Inecuality is not being reduced if we count the last four decades, it's going up, so whatever the Democrats are doing when they are in power, is not enough. The table is getting more and more to the right, and it's not progressives' fault.

Women running is inevitable at this point in history. Hillary won her primaries, but Bernie was the progressive candidate. Kamala wasn't even chosen in primaries, but she was the VP when Biden showed his decline. Neither of these women were progressive in what matters, policy. Being a woman politician doesn't make you a progressive, look at Nikky Haley or MTG. You gotta see the content the figure provides, that's what matters. No progressive woman, gay, black or latino person rejected Bernie for being an old white straight man. There is support for many progressive policies, Medicare for all for instance, but you have the Democrat establishment fearmongering about it like it's some kind of monster for start, so progressives have to swim against the current, and finally they get tired or even drown. Why does the establishment do that, because they work for their donors instead of for the people they should, not to talk about the media, same bosses. You are making a mockery about some progressive figures and how they only campaign for something because it's right, and that's all their messaging, which is just not true. There are books written about M4A, how much cheaper it is and how doable. Obama implemented his halfass ObamaCare, things can get done once in power. Look, I'm not sure how much student loan relief Biden provided, but what I remember about that is that in the real moment he hesitated and let a legal loophole prevent it from happening. If he did something in January 2025, I didn't even hear from it, so there's a messaging failure there. Weren't the elections in November anyway? It's true progressives are the underdogs, so they have to concede more, and they do. But if the moderates pretend to win without them, they are not going to. Kamala didn't do a good job, you are trying to minimize a disastrous result. Fooling people like Obama did promising a change that never pretended to provide is going to work less and less.

There's always some wearing and backlash every term, and people take for granted the little economy healing that happens more under left-leaning policies in such an individualistic society that the propaganda media encourages, so they turn to the right again, but then reality bites. In both cases, Trump won against a woman, there's a factor of antifeminism that a lot of men buy, that was more clear in the 2016 one, but it was Hillary's fault, because she made it more about that, and Trump gladly did too. Hillary didn't integrate Bernie votes, Biden did. Biden didn't forgive the student loans in the end, he should have, he lost thousands of votes there. Then he supported Israel no question and lying to the face of everyone, saying he personally saw the 40 beheaded baby pictures that never existed and was called Genocide Joe. He also supported the war in Ukraine, liberals liked that, but not progressives. He could have taken a way out of that that liberals would have bought if he wanted to. Trump was ambiguous enough to sell that for his benefit too, although he is continuing Biden's path on both fronts in the end. Kamala represented a continuation of Biden, and she was a weak personality candidate on top of that. Hakeem Jeffries will never win anything, he's worse than Kamala, what a bland man, there's nothing genuine about him. He has made it to the top positions of the party by being a yes-man to its establishment, but there's no way he can appeal to the people to generate any real movement that winning an election requires. He should be put on the backside because he is not public figure material. He is a cryptonite to winning elections, just hear him speak. Kamala didn't appeal to enough people, she lost all the swing states, even if the third parties didn't get that much, it's clear she didn't either. Trump fooled a lot of people once more, many have regretted their vote already, and more will do, because he'll keep breaking the economy, as well as he already has. It's true he talked about the tariffs in his campaign, but people is not informed enough to understand how these policies will affect, which is negatively. Tax cuts for the corporations and billionaires so they multiply their hoarding, in expense of the real economy of the people, that will see some consequences in services like medicare and in job destruction. A lot of farmers already regret their vote, you see, some of the cuts of the food aid the US was providing to the third world was also what was sustaining US production, the food was going out, but the money was staying in the US farms. There has not been any saving anyway, it's all spent in the military industry and billionaire tax cuts as said. All the tariff wars, China knows it has an upper hand too, soy is one of the things they stopped buying from the US, instead they get it from Brazil, well done, Trump. Latinos for Trump are not happy either, they have a target in their back now, that will affect Florida votes, indeed.