Hardkill

Trump has said that every conservative judge including all of the ones he appointed during his first presidential term are radical left or liberals who need to be impeached. He called Leonard Leo "a 'real ‘sleazebag' and 'bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America.'" 🤣🤣🤣 @Zen LaCroix You definitely called it! I didn't think that it would happen this soon though.

It wasn't 100% pre-planned or staged. The parts of the vids that were spontaneous: Freddy walked up to random girls. He started talking, flirting, even taking off his clothes. Girls laughed, reacted, sometimes gave a number or flirted back. spontaneous social experiment or ballsy prank. The parts that might've been pre-planned or controlled: He revealed afterward that it was a prank or social experiment, and the women gave verbal or written consent to appear in the video after the fact. Camera crew was perhaps positioned safely to avoid legal blowback No angry blowups, police arrests, or actual chaos are shown. Perhaps edited out any serious consequences He actually chose areas where I guess nudity is more okay. Norway (generally relaxed attitudes) San Francisco (nudity in protests and public events is common)

Oh yeah, you're right. I just realized that clicking on those I just posted on here doesn't take you to either of those vids on YT. Both of the vids are on the YT channel, FreddyFairhair. One of the vids is "Naked Guy Picking Up Girls" and the other one is "Naked Guy Picking Up Girls in USA (TEASER)". Freddy approached the girls naked mostly during the daytime. Btw, I would never do something like this. The point I am making is that I can't believe this guy was able to get away with it without having any of the girls calling him a complete freak or pervert, without any of them calling the cops on him, without him getting arrested, and actually getting genuine laughs and some phone numbers from young girls including some who looked cute.

Yeah, look — sure, that Freddy guy technically got away with it. But let’s not confuse shock stunts with real game. Walking up to girls naked isn’t seduction — it’s performance art mixed with a gamble. He wasn’t building attraction. He was hijacking attention. That’s a huge difference. You can get reactions doing anything wild — doesn’t mean it works as a repeatable seduction strategy. Let’s be real: the only reason he wasn’t arrested on the spot is because he’s good-looking, had a camera crew, and probably did this in liberal, party-heavy areas with tolerant social vibes. Try that in most parts of the U.S. or even Europe and you’ll get cuffed, canceled, or punched. Even hot guys don’t get immunity from being labeled a weirdo if they destroy the social frame. Leo and Aurum are right: this kind of “flash game” spooks women, not seduces them. Even if you’re attractive, the second a woman thinks, “He might be unhinged or unsafe,” you’ve lost the frame completely. No comfort = no attraction. A girl might flirt with a confident guy who’s edgy. But she’ll only sleep with the guy she feels is sexually in control, not socially off the rails. Be bold. Be different. But be calibrated. Freddy’s stuff makes good YouTube clips, but it’s not game — it’s a liability. @Raze Yeah, that's what I thought too. Those girls who gave him their numbers were probably thinking "God, I really hope he doesn't call or text me. I only gave him my number just to be polite, avoid awkwardness, and play along with him."

I didn't realize until today that Elon Musk is a major drug addict: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/30/elon-musk-trump-drug-use Though, I can't say that I am surprised.

Not at all too late. In fact, 26 years old is around the age when I began to make so many major improvements in my life mentally and physically year after year after year. Got my 2nd degree black belt in Hapkido at 27 years old. I became the strongest and most muscular I've ever been when I was 29 years old. Around age 30, I got my first real girlfriend ever in my life. Ran my first half-marathon ever at 31 years old and ran it well under 2 hours. About a month later I got my 3rd degree black belt in Hapkido. Around 33, I had already gotten my Master's in Education, and by 34-35 years old I got accepted into two top-tier DPT program. I am 37 years old and I will be graduating from the DPT program I am in next year. Also, over the past 4 years, I've learned about US History and Politics, world affairs, and economics way more than most people in America do. I also started learning some basics in finances last year. I could go on and on. However, it also depends on what your problems are and what exactly you are looking to achieve.

True, but Anand Giridharadas in that vid said that he's very disappointed with the fact that there are still too many Democrats in the party who have not really taken a deep, honest, and potentially uncomfortable self-examination on how the hell they lost to Trump and MAGA again in 2024 after almost losing in 2020 and lost in 2016. He and the other commentators in that vid are saying that despite initial promises of introspection and reform following the 2024 electoral defeat has largely failed to engage in meaningful self-examination or implement substantive changes. They talk about how the Democratic Party lost the 2024 election to Trump not just because of voter misinformation or Republican dirty tricks, but because of real internal failures—messaging flaws, elitism, strategic missteps, and a disconnect from working-class voters. The Democrats really have not come up with a message that clearly defines who they are and what they stand for and MUST take a page from Bernie and AOC on how to message the people on economic populism.

I often keep thinking about that, but the approval rating of the Democratic party is at such a historic low. What if the voters, including moderate and independent voters as well as progressive and Democratic voters just decide in 2028 to just stay home and not vote for either presidential candidate or either party? I thought or was hoping that the party was currently making a good amount of progress on this matter, but clearly not. Also, the best messengers for the Democratic party have been AOC and Sanders. They may not be electable at the presidential level, but unlike most of the spineless Democrats out there who don't clearly state what they stand for, progressives like them don't play it too safe, aren't too afraid of being deemed as partisan, excel at moral clarity in messaging, and using strong, simple, and unifying rooted in economic populism.

This is very sickening:

Yep. All because of Trump's idiocy, ego, and insanity. You know, if he really wanted to add more tariffs, then he should've done them more incrementally to begin with, kinda like he did during his first term.

This might seem like a dumb or crazy question—especially considering your political beliefs and mine—but if the country elects Trump 2.0 and embraces neoliberalism on steroids in 2024, with America still stuck in toxic Stage Orange mania, what then? Do you think the Democratic Party should start supporting more and more of Trump’s and the GOP’s policies—like more tax cuts for the rich, further deregulation of the financial system and environmental protections, and cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and so on? Or is that not what you are saying or suggesting?

Those Damn emojis....... But hey, there's nothing wrong with the bullet-point style format. It makes statements more organized and readable.

One thing that I don't think anybody has really been talking about is the fact that the Left has ceded the narrative of religion and God to the right-wing and Republicans way too much for far too long. Even the most religiously expressive Democrats, like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden still have never leaned into religion nearly as much as Republicans and the Right have. Democrats Lean In More Cautiously Because: 1. Their Coalition Is Religiously Diverse Includes seculars, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, and atheists. Leaning heavily into one religious tradition risks alienating others. 2. They Embrace Pluralism and Church-State Separation Even religious Democrats tend to be uncomfortable politicizing religion the way the GOP does. Democratic leaders prefer moral language rooted in compassion, justice, and inclusion, rather than invoking divine authority. 3. Their Activist and Academic Base Is Mostly Secular Many leading voices in progressive activism, media, and education view religion with skepticism or even hostility. 4. Democrats Think: “America’s Becoming Secular — Why Bother?” However, I now think that the Democratic party and progressives pulling back from visible, values-based religious messaging — especially after the 1990s — has become a costly mistake for them both electorally and culturally. 1. Ceded the Moral Narrative to the Right The GOP successfully framed itself as the party of “faith, family, and freedom”, especially to white Christians. Meanwhile, Democrats often sounded like the party of policy and rights, but not moral conviction. That opened the door for Christian nationalism to grow unchallenged in moral language, with Democrats mostly reacting, not reframing. “If Democrats won’t speak in moral terms, we’ll do it for them — our way.” 2. Lost Key Religious Voter Groups White evangelicals became solidly Republican. Mainline Protestants drifted right. Even Latino Catholics and Pentecostals have trended more conservative in recent cycles. Only Black Protestants and liberal Catholics have stayed reliably Democratic — and even there, turnout has fluctuated. 3. Missed Opportunities for Bridge-Building Faith communities care about: Poverty Healthcare Immigration Racial justice Climate stewardship These are Democratic-aligned issues, but Democrats rarely frame them as moral imperatives rooted in faith — leaving religious voters unengaged or unconvinced. 4. Allowed the Left to Be Branded as Anti-Faith Even though Democrats have many religious members and leaders, the lack of consistent public messaging made it easier for Republicans to portray the entire party as secular, elitist, or even hostile to religion. 5. Even in this current era, most Americans are still religious: Approx. two-thirds of Americans still identify as Christian Approx. 2 percent of Americans identify as Jewish Approx. 10 percent of Americans identify as belonging to some other kind of religion Only less than 25% of Americans identify as not being affiliated with any religion If Democrats combined the modern Jimmy Carter–style approach with a call for moral education rooted in the wisdom of religious traditions (especially Abrahamic ones), while being clear that this is about learning from religion, not enforcing it, they could: 1. Reclaim Moral Leadership By linking values like discipline, compassion, integrity, and courage to religious teachings, Democrats could show that faith traditions have long supported the very ideals they fight for — social justice, inclusion, and dignity. “We’re not telling kids what to believe — we’re showing them what generations before us believed about honor, service, and the common good.” 2. Respond to the Crisis of Meaning Among Young People Many young Americans today feel: Disconnected from tradition or community Overwhelmed by anxiety, digital overload, and political division Starved for a sense of purpose bigger than themselves Teaching about faith traditions (without preaching) could help offer roots, narrative, and community values — tools for anchoring their lives. 3. Bridge Divides Across Generations and Faiths Older Americans might feel heard when Democrats say: “We know our children are missing something. They deserve to learn not just how to succeed — but how to live.” Immigrant and minority religious communities would likely respond positively, seeing their traditions valued, not erased. Even secular voters could support this if framed as values education, not religious indoctrination. What This Message Must Be Careful To Do: ✅ Emphasize: Learning from religion, not practicing it “We’re not here to preach. We’re here to teach. About how different faiths, especially the Abrahamic ones, helped shape the ideas of service, duty, and compassion that built this country.” Frame it as inclusive and pluralistic. Include discussions of: Christianity, Judaism, Islam Humanism, secular ethics, Eastern traditions Moral questions like: What do I owe others? What gives life meaning? How should I treat people I disagree with? ✅ Tie it to civic purpose “We want young people to know they matter — not just to themselves, but to their neighbors, their communities, and their country.” Moreover, Democrats would need "cultural depth" to make that kind of religious-values message credible and not come off as just pandering. They would have to embed it authentically within their broader cultural, political, and moral identity, rather than just dropping a one-off talking point. Here’s how they could add cultural depth to a message encouraging voluntary religious participation for people: 1. Show Long-Term Engagement with Faith Communities Not just a campaign slogan — but consistent outreach and partnership with: Churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples Faith-based nonprofits (soup kitchens, youth programs, refugee aid) Interfaith coalitions working on housing, climate, and justice If Democrats are already working with faith leaders on issues like poverty, addiction, and education, then a message about “faith and moral formation” feels grounded — not opportunistic. 2. Highlight Faith-Based Democratic Voices Instead of vague nods to “faith,” platform devout Democrats who live their values: Black pastors supporting economic justice Catholic activists working on immigration reform Muslim leaders promoting civic engagement Jewish Democrats advancing civil rights Let them speak for the party — not just in religious language, but in moral, community-based terms that align with core Democratic values. 3. Tie Religious Values to Universal Democratic Goals Make the case that faith-based upbringing supports goals like: Empathy and compassion → social justice Discipline and responsibility → strong families and education Charity and service → anti-poverty programs “Whether you draw strength from scripture or conscience, what matters is that we raise children to care for others and work for justice.” 4. Include Pluralism and Secular Morality in the Message Balance the religious tone by: Affirming that secular Americans also raise moral, civic-minded kids Framing faith as one valuable path, not the only one Emphasizing mutual respect and shared public values “This isn’t about forcing belief — it’s about honoring the many ways Americans raise children to be compassionate, curious, and courageous.” They should also like Jimmy Carter make a strong call for moral education rooted in the wisdom of religious traditions (especially Abrahamic ones), while being clear that this is about learning from religion, not enforcing it. If they did then they could: 1. Reclaim Moral Leadership By linking values like discipline, compassion, integrity, and courage to religious teachings, Democrats could show that faith traditions have long supported the very ideals they fight for — social justice, inclusion, and dignity. “We’re not telling kids what to believe — we’re showing them what generations before us believed about honor, service, and the common good.” 2. Respond to the Crisis of Meaning Among Young People Many young Americans today feel: Disconnected from tradition or community Overwhelmed by anxiety, digital overload, and political division Starved for a sense of purpose bigger than themselves Teaching about faith traditions (without preaching) could help offer roots, narrative, and community values — tools for anchoring their lives. 3. Bridge Divides Across Generations and Faiths Older Americans might feel heard when Democrats say: “We know our children are missing something. They deserve to learn not just how to succeed — but how to live.” Immigrant and minority religious communities would likely respond positively, seeing their traditions valued, not erased. Even secular voters could support this if framed as values education, not religious indoctrination. What This Message Must Be Careful To Do: ✅ Emphasize: Learning from religion, not practicing it “We’re not here to preach. We’re here to teach. About how different faiths, especially the Abrahamic ones, helped shape the ideas of service, duty, and compassion that built this country.” ✅ Frame it as inclusive and pluralistic Include discussions of: Christianity, Judaism, Islam Humanism, secular ethics, Eastern traditions Moral questions like: What do I owe others? What gives life meaning? How should I treat people I disagree with? ✅ Tie it to civic purpose “We want young people to know they matter — not just to themselves, but to their neighbors, their communities, and their country.”

Yeah, economic issues are supposed to be bipartisan and unifying issues, but apparently too many Americans seem to prioritize or get too distracted by culture wars like Trans and queers vs. anti-Trans and anti-queer, gays and lesbians vs. straight people, white people vs. racial minorities, Immigrants vs. native-born Americans, men vs. women, religion vs. secularism, nationalism vs. globalism, pro-abortion vs. pro-life, and on and on and on. Okay, you got me. Some of what I posted on my original post was from using Chat GPT, but not all of it was. In fact, it took a lot of time to refine the kinds of responses and texts that I was looking for.

It's actually not a bad idea. Or it could be more like Judeo-Christian Democracy.

Yeah, and large parts of the country perceive the Democrats as overeducated, too urban, too coastal, and too secular.

@Emerald @DocWatts Alright, well you both have made valid points. Let’s hope enough people in America still care about their rights, despite the intense cynicism surrounding our country’s system.

So then, why haven’t the arrests of protestors in Russia led the majority of the population to withdraw their support for Putin’s regime?

@DocWatts @Emerald And what are protestors supposed to do if the police start arresting and imprisoning them without due process—just because Trump says so—and the legal system fails to stop it, like what happens in Russia? What if Trump declares martial law nationwide? He controls the most powerful military in the history of the world.

@Emerald @DocWatts I didn’t say that protests or protestors should incite or start any violence. However, every American has the right to bear arms and defend themselves against an intrusive, tyrannical government. Right now, we’re living in extraordinarily frightening times—times in which your rights and freedoms could be taken away with alarming ease. I wouldn’t count on the courts or the legal system to check Trump’s reign for long. Too many law firms have already capitulated to him, and if enough of them across the country bend the knee, there may be nothing stopping Trump from arresting protestors at his whim. Furthermore, Trump and his administration continue to ignore or slow-walk court rulings made against them, and it’s still unclear to me how—even the U.S. Supreme Court—will be able to enforce compliance if Trump refuses to follow their orders. If law enforcement or other aggressive groups start using violence against peaceful protesters, it could send a chilling message across the country—intimidating Americans into silence and killing protest culture altogether, just like in authoritarian regimes such as Russia. I am very concerned about this.

I feel like everybody at the protests need to arm themselves with a weapon protect themselves in case the federal government tries to arrest the protestors. I used to be against the idea of civilians having the right to bear arms, but I am now making an exception to that given the serious looming threat of government tyranny we are facing now.

Congratulations Leo! Now you're officially recognized as being the person closest to becoming God. 🤣

I never thought that this thread would turn into a heated debate over trans and corruption.