Hardkill

I am not saying that it has to be like US. Though are you saying that a nation doesn't have to have a high level of democracy in order to become a 1st world country?

Well, alright that does sounds a lot more reasonable. Okay, I'll try to see what I can come up with for society.

Well, I guess that's somewhat true. During the 80s and early 90s, our country did regress in a lot of ways thanks to Reagan, H.W. Bush, and the Goldwaterite liberatarian movement. Then during the 90s, the country got stabilized but actually didn't really make any permanent progress at all for the country during Clinton's presidency as far as I am concerned. Afterwards, throughout almost the entire 2000s decade, the US regressed in some ways once again under W. Bush. However, it was during Obama's presidency that our country finally began to make significant long-term progress for our country including major acknowledgement and support for LGBTQ+ rights, repairing economy and improving it's level of development, Obamacare, taking down Bin Laden, and perhaps a few other things. Though since about the late 1970s, America has been progressing at a slower rate than it was before thanks to both the emergence of massive amount of corporate lobbying and the growing political polarization of our country since that decade.

Ahh, I see...that's interesting. By true 1st world democracy I mean a democracy in a first world country like the US or Israel, whereas a 2nd world democracy would be one in a 2nd world country like India or Mongolia. Actually, according to the experts on this matter, the US has sadly dropped from being a full or liberal democracy to being on the level of a flawed or illiberal democracy very similar to that of Israel. However, according to the democracy index, the US and Israel still have a much higher level of democracy than countries like India or Mongolia. So, you could say that the USA did begin with some kind of democracy and then from there, the country's level of democracy continually increased overtime in a gradual manner over the course of almost two centuries. Correct?

You said before that America was extremely Blue during the 60's and anytime before that. So, if that's the case then does that mean that America was never truly a 1st world democracy before the 70's?

I gotcha. Yeah, progressives and really are highly sanctimonious. Yet, they are hypocritical and sometimes sound dumb when they about their views on hierarchy, borders, warfare, combat, capitalism, corporations/businesses, economics, some medicines/drugs, etc. Corporate Dems are more practical than progressives; however, they are more hypocritical than progressives when they talk about corporations/businesses and capitalism because they have been corrupted by corporate donors. However, I do believe that generally both progressives and centre-left dems are indeed still morally superior to those who are centre-right or right wing. So, the higher up the stage the less hypocritical they are and only those who are SOLID YELLOW and above are the only few people in the world who have out-grown hypocrisy.

Okay, that makes sense. However, do you think it's possible for each individual to make some kind of unique major contribution to the world?

I see what you mean. I actually think that all of the progressive YouTube shows especially TYT and Secular Talk have strongly influenced me to feel very depressed and upset about our world, particularly with America. Though are you saying that poor people, minorities, and oppressed don't need from others or from governments in order to survive and thrive? That's kinda sounding like an American right-wing talking point, no?

What a selfish manipulative prick he really is.

Progressives have already tried for many decades since Eugene McGovern and Jimmy Carter in the 1970s to create a much more progressive society and yet they haven't been able to make any real progress at all for our country. I don't even think that I can realistically create a business that would substantially improve our world because I am not as intellectually gifted as someone like Elon Musk is. I also wasn't born a child prodigy or a born a natural genius in anything like Einstein was. Furthermore, it's extreme unlikely that was not born with the potential to become incredibly charismatic like Obama was. Even becoming an influential world wide celebrity of some kind would be a 1 in a million chance of that ever happening to me. Yes, celebrities and legends like Musk, Einstein, Obama, and what have you work extremely hard throughout their entire lives to get to accomplish what they achieved. No doubt about that. However, they also were all genetically gifted in their own unique ways. No amount of hard work can ever change that. That's why a lot of times, I am like what's the point of even trying to change the world for the better when that's probably an absurd laughable fantasy for someone like me?

But how can poor people and minorities ever be happy when they have always been constantly oppressed by the social inequalities that are still going on around the world?

That really saddens me because it means that we will all be missing out on the more evolved function and greater level of happiness of a solid Green society.

I see. But are those who are about 50% Orange 50% Green much more consistent and much less hypocritical about capitalism than those who are 50% Blue 50% Orange?

Damn. So, it won't decline until all of us currently alive will have become very old or have passed away in the far future?

Do you think that libertarianism in the US will ever decline in the near future or is it only going to get worse before it ever ceases to become a dominant philosophy within the country?

If Blue does moralize capitalism, then why are American conservatives and Republicans, who have a lot more Blue in them than liberals and Democrats do, for smaller government including much less economic regulation, whereas libs and Dems have always been for bigger government including much more economic regulation?

Well, I guess Ben does have some degree real compassion for others. However, his level of compassion probably isn't as great as someone else's who is at stage Orange/Green or above.

How much risk is there in being noticed as a local creeper when doing daygame compared to when you are do nightgame?

We know that corporate donors always want conservative legislation to be enacted by Congress. Though, is it possible that there are some corporate donors out there who do want some kind of liberal legislation to pass? According to this article down below, "A group of big-dollar donors who have spent millions electing Kyrsten Sinema and other Democratic senators threatened to sever all funding to her due to her opposition to changing Senate rules in order to pass voting rights legislation." https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/19/donors-threaten-cut-funding-sinema-527413

That’s very sad.

yeah, but there are WAY MORE confederate flag waving right-wingers who are insane and primitive than progressive or liberals who are crazy. In any case, I wonder why JP still has a big Green shadow.

Well, I wonder what things influenced him to not become a true intellectual?

Why does JP, who is a very intelligent and highly educated psychologist, rail against the liberal and progressive movements? Why is he afraid of changes happening in our world and why doesn't someone like him not have as much genuine compassion as those who are Orange/Green, solid Green, or above?

Yeah, I doubt that Bernie would've gotten anything passed through Congress. I don't even think that he would've gotten the bipartisan infrastructure bill passed given how hyper partisan he is.

You guys should read this article by this blogger named Ross Douthat, who explains in this op-ed for the New York Times, why Biden shouldn't have tried starting off going so big with his agenda and how his failure to enact almost all of the policies that progressives wanted him to do both with executive orders on his own and with legislation through Congress has been hurting his overall approval rating: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/15/opinion/sunday/joe-biden-presidency.html When Biden ran in the 2020 presidential election, he campaigned as a moderate pro-establishment Democratic candidate who would focus on unifying the country and eliminating much of the chaos in our country. However, as soon as he took office, he started off his presidency by trying to be like FDR, LBJ, or a lot more like Bernie Sanders in order to appease the progressives. Yet, he has only had razor thin Democratic majorities in both the Senate and the House within Congress, which means that he was never going to be able to get a major amount of liberal legislation enacted through Congress like FDR and LBJ were able to during their times. Even Obama started out his presidency with much greater majorities in both the Senate and House than Biden did. Additionally, considering the fact that our country has become the most politically polarized it has ever been since the 19th century, that further has made it even harder for Biden to get even anything passed through Congress. His failure to get any progressive or any kind of major liberal legislation pass through Congress along with not having signed certain liberal executive orders that would cancel way more student debt than he already has, decriminalize marijuana, reverse more of Trump's bad immigration/border policies, etc. has already been making a lot of people in this country feel like he's not showing enough strength or political savviness. Biden probably should've just started off his presidency much more like Bill Clinton in the 90s did. Let me know your thoughts down below.