Hardkill

Of course we can’t rid of all oil now or for the foreseeable future, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do more to transition from oil usage to renewable energy. Wasn’t that the main point of the climate provisions in the IRA? Didn’t you say before that transitioning to renewable energy as fast as possible is more important than ever?

So then, isn’t Finkelstein exaggerating the leverage the US has over Israel for stopping this war?

Yeah, but most people believe climate change is a very serious crisis in our country and want new-age reforms done for this issue. Also, why haven't the growing large progressive and youth movements on climate change been enough to make it an exceptionally important issue in people's minds? I can understand why if say a majority of old people wouldn't care or worry about this issue for themselves at all because they've already lived out most of their lives and know that they only have a relatively short amount of years left to live. Yet, most young and middle-aged people in our country know that they will have to live with this serious problem for several decades and that this issue will continue to get worse and worse and worse for the rest of their lives. Is it because most people are still prioritizing financial affordability and other things over climate change at this point in time?

Israel may go through with this truce deal at least momentarily because of how worn out their military is, but it's more likely than not to be temporary:

Pornstars like Mia Khalifa, Kendra Lust, Abella Danger, and Kira Noir have millions of followers. How are they able to get about as many followers as a lot of mainstream celebrities do when they've been heavily shamed for the kind of work they do?

I know the far-left doesn't like anything about Newsom out of purity politics, but do you think that anything TYT said in this vid about Newsom are fair criticisms of him?

Well then maybe we shouldn't make it a secret guilty pleasure anymore.

He would definitely be the Trump of UK if he became PM of the country. Though I think the parliamentary system makes it a lot harder for someone like him to become Prime Minister because members of Parliament decide who the prime minister is and they would not be thrilled about the idea of Tate running the whole country.

But the reason it is more progressive than red states are is because of how developed they are and the demographics they have. Leo talked about this before. I don’t know what happened with the LA fire department. I am they’ve made mistakes that need to be urgently addressed but they are still ahead of most states on climate change and taking care of the natural environment.

I get that, but California, Illinois, and New York are blue pro-environmental states because of those factors I mentioned. Those same factors also exist in Florida. It's not some backwards rural state with older and less educated folk like in Alabama or Mississippi. Besides, Florida already has a lot of floods, hurricanes, and other weather-related problems for many years. So again, why have states like California been more on the ball and proactive about climate change than other very developed states like Florida?

Miami is sinking and will continue to sink and has floods even when it's not raining. Not to mention the hurricanes it has every year. Despite Florida's shift towards being a solid red state, its demographics remain remarkably similar to those of Illinois, New York, and California. In terms of GDP per capita, education levels, urban and suburban development, population size and density, cultural and racial/ethnic diversity, age diversity (including a very sizable young population), and level of secularism, Florida's profile aligns more closely with these states than with traditionally conservative states like Mississippi or Alabama. So, why aren't there enough people and organizations in Florida pushing back hard enough against the bad environment policies enacted by DeSantis and his radical right-wing state government?

Sadly, these natural disasters are very likely going to get worse and worse during the next 4 years as Trump and the GOP deregulate a lot of environment. The radical right-wingers on SCOTUS have already been striking down a number of environmental protection-related laws for many years, especially during these past 4 years. It's remarkable that the Republican Party was once a staunch advocate for environmental protection, from the early 1900s to the 1970s. Even President Nixon, not typically known for his environmentalism at heart, implemented significant policies for improving the natural environment during his presidency, that made up a comprehensive environmental program including the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Hopefully, Newsom finds some way to mitigate this disaster and make the optics of the situation not bad for him for his potential presidential run. He already has had a lot of problems that have happened under his watch such as previous big wildfires, high levels of homelessness, and previous high levels of crimes in various cities.

But then why don't we talk about pornstars as a more everyday topic like we do with mainstream celebrities?

It's very frightening that he's saying all of this, especially given the newfound power he will have as president. However, I think he would need the votes in Congress to do something that insane and barbaric and I don't even think that the Republicans in Congress would approve of it. Many of them like the new Senate Majority Leader Thune and Speaker Mike Johnson aren't that crazy or that extreme.

Then, why do societies with higher levels of education tend to be more secular than countries with lower levels of education?

I don't know much about Canadian politics. However, from what I understand, Trudeau's party is in trouble because they are being blamed for similar things that have been going on in the US including the lingering effects of inflation, housing shortage, economic inequality, toxic polarizing media landscape, xenophobia, racial demagoguery, etc. Although, those factors seem to be even worse in America.

OP, don't tell me the right-wing media got you. Do you realize that America has more mass shootings than every other developed nation in the world combined? Also, while I'm uncertain about the future of America under Trump's potential second term, I'm honestly still ambivalent about the need for everyday citizens to own guns. Throughout America's history as a sovereign nation, there hasn't really been a significant instance where citizens needed to protect themselves from government tyranny. Given the current level of freedom and fairness enjoyed by people of all backgrounds in America, one could argue that there's even less justification for widespread gun ownership. Historically, the Second Amendment originally meant that only US Citizens who were part of a well-regulated militia could own a gun; however, SCOTUS in the early 2000s twisted the interpretation of that amendment by ruling that the right to bear arms extends to individual ownership and use. Has there ever been a time when the people of your country needed guns to protect themselves from government tyranny? Also, watch professor Lichtman explain why there needs to be heavy gun control throughout the entire nation:

Wait, how do you know about that for certain?

I get what all of you are saying, but how do you reconcile that with the fact that most people again tend to be centrist and prefer more of the status quo or incremental change? I don't think there was a strong mandate for major change, considering that there was no real major crisis that occurred under the watch of Biden/Harris and the Democrats, no dominant right-wing movement throughout the entire country, and the Republicans did not win substantial majorities in either chamber of Congress. Although the Republicans regained control of the Senate and gained four seats, their majority in that chamber is still not that sizable. Notably, the Democrats even managed a net gain of one seat from the Republicans which led to the Republicans maintaining an extremely slim majority of 220 seats in the House, the narrowest majority for either party since 1930.

Most voters tend to prioritize familiarity and stability over innovative ideas, opting for the comfort of the status quo rather than taking a chance on radical change, unless there's a major crisis, a powerful movement, or supermajorities of one party controlling both chambers of Congress and a president of the same party. So, why did Kamala Harris need to present a bold vision of change, as many people claimed they wanted?

I see. So, it was the younger generations of the people back then who were more inclined to move on to a new modern system for their country.

We may not have another free and fair election ever again. Also, I am so far not optimistic about the Democratic party and the Left being able to effectively combat both the right-wing propaganda and extreme anti-mainstream propaganda machines before either the 2026 or 2028 elections. Otherwise, we’ll just keep losing the messaging war in this abominable media environment and if that continues to be the case then it won’t matter how strong any of the Democratic candidates will be in either the 2026 or 2028 elections. They’ll just keep losing more and more big elections.

Oh, very interesting. So, did he say that the people in his country really hated the whole USSR regime?

I acknowledge that most people in America are not well-informed about politics, not very bright, and not well-educated. However, Donald Trump's advanced age and increasingly lethargic demeanor have been noticeable. Most people hate him and his first term as president was truly abysmal, which is why he lost in 2020. In contrast, Kamala Harris presented a starkly different image when she entered the political scene. As a relatively new figure, she brought a sense of fresh youthful energy, appeal, and vibrancy. Harris's appeal was further enhanced when she chose Tim Walz as her running mate. Walz is a well-respected politician known for his authenticity and relatability to everyday working-class Americans. His working-class background and commitment to progressive policies have earned him a reputation as a champion of the people. She ran on our country moving on from the same old tired shitshow of Trumpism and representing a future where our country would have greater justice, greater housing affordability, and greater healthcare access and affordability. Moreover, Harris didn't come off as patronizing or out of touch like Hillary Clinton did. Trump gives off the impression of being too weak, too lazy, and too demented to govern.

And what did Trump have to offer that was popular? Also, why weren't people sick and tired of Trump?