Hardkill

Yeah, that is certainly a real concern. Anything with the label socialism/communism is usually a killer for any candidate in American politics. Then again, Bernie and AOC have become successful members of Congress, even though Sanders in 2016 and 2020 in great part because he calls himself a socialist. We really have to see how this whole thing goes. Exactly! It really doesn't take that much more of a tax increase for the government and the people to get the funding they desperately need.

I really appreciate the depth and clarity you bring to a wide range of topics, particularly when it comes to political ideologies and societal transformation. I’ve noticed that you often discuss the importance of compromise, moderation, and personal development, but you also emphasize the need for bold change in areas like social justice, economic reform, and climate action. This got me thinking: when you reflect on your views, do you see yourself as more of an enlightened centrist or as an enlightened progressive? Specifically: Do you see radical, systemic change (like universal healthcare or climate action) as something that’s necessary but must be implemented gradually through compromise and pragmatic solutions, which is more in line with centrism? Or do you consider yourself more aligned with progressive ideals, advocating for transformative, bold reforms even if they require pushing against the status quo? I understand that these labels can be limiting, but I’d love to hear your thoughts on how you navigate this balance between the moderate, pragmatic side and the more radical, progressive ideals. I'd like to know for my own edification. Thanks for everything you do!

Well, it is closer to the old-style socialism/communism, but still not nearly close it. Democratic Socialism still allows for more freedoms and voting rights compared to original socialism/communist states. It emphasizes a democratic political framework where people have the right to vote and participate in decision-making processes. While it advocates for public or collective control of key industries and services, it maintains a multi-party democracy, with free and fair elections, civil liberties, and individual freedoms. The goal is to shift economic power toward the people through democratic governance, which means that citizens still have a say in how the country is run. Historically, communist states like the Soviet Union, Maoist China, and others have been authoritarian, with single-party rule and no real political freedoms. These states would frequently suppress opposition, restrict freedoms of speech, assembly, and press, and really curtail individual rights to maintain control over the economy and society. The political system in these states was highly centralized, with leaders exercising near total control over political and economic life, and elections, if they existed, were often a mere formality with no real democratic choice.

"Yeah! Everything is okay! Nothing to see here, folks!" "The American Dream is alive and well!" "If you don't have a job, then it's your fault. You have to take personal responsibility."

What dark secrets are you hiding?

That’s a valid point. However, we are right now in such an unchartered territory of darkness and the worst hasn’t even come anywhere close to happening yet.

Prepare for bread lines in many parts of the world.

I absolutely don’t think this is magical thinking. I believe the truth is far more brutal: we’re in a horrible mess, and the price for getting out of it may very well be a crisis of some kind—one that shakes the system to its core and forces us to re-evaluate everything. The idea that something radical could come from chaos or upheaval isn’t some idealistic fantasy—it’s a brutal reality that history has shown time and again. Crises, while painful, have often been the catalysts for the most transformative change we’ve seen. For instance, after the 2008 financial crisis, the disastrous War on Terror, and the election of Obama, many of us thought that this moment would heal the country and usher in a new era of progress—like the New Deal Coalition of the mid-1900s. We believed that with Obama’s election, the U.S. would unite, address issues like economic inequality, and make strides toward social justice. Yet, instead of ushering in great progress, we saw the rise of Trumpism and a retreat to nationalism and authoritarianism. Similarly, after Trump’s defeat in 2020, many of us thought that Biden, the COVID crisis, and the greatest recession since the Great Depression would heal the country and lead to moderation and some reasonable progress for the coming years, if not decades. But, despite the crises, we still find ourselves in a deeply divided country, facing growing inequality and polarization. It seems like even the most significant crises don’t necessarily lead to the transformative change that many of us hoped for. At this point, it’s starting to feel like we might need a crisis or a series of crises that are even more severe than either the 2008 financial crisis or the 2020 recession. Those crises were monumental, but they didn’t fully disrupt the entrenched systems—capitalism, political polarization, and corporate power—that continue to perpetuate the status quo. I’m afraid that we might need something more drastic, something that forces a true reset of the system. We may need a crisis that’s so severe it shakes everything to its core, not just pushing back against entrenched interests but completely dislodging them. I’m not suggesting we wait passively for a catastrophic event to solve our problems, but I do think we have to acknowledge that some of the systemic issues we’re facing—whether it’s climate change, corporate control, or political dysfunction—are so entrenched that they may require a radical shock to finally force meaningful change. Without disruptions, we risk continuing down the same destructive path, stagnating while those in power maintain the status quo. While incremental change is necessary and often the most practical approach, I believe that, at times, crises do provide the necessary catalyst for pushing through the deep, systemic reforms we need. Yes, it’s harsh, and it’s not ideal, but if history teaches us anything, it’s that change often happens in moments of extreme difficulty, when the old systems collapse under the weight of their own flaws. That said, I understand where you’re coming from in terms of realism. It’s important to keep a balanced perspective and not simply rely on hope that something will suddenly “reset.” But I’d love to hear your thoughts on how we can push for transformation without waiting for a crisis, while also recognizing that we might be at a tipping point where a major disruption is the only way to break the grip of the current system.

The reality is that we sadly need another crisis on the level of an economic depression or World War to reset everything back to normal. At this point, while nobody can predict that far out ahead in the future I have a terrible feeling that we have to brace ourselves for dealing with another truly dark moment of extreme suffering around the world that we haven't seen in ages within the foreseeable future.

So, then would you say that you're both a mix of an enlightened centrist and an enlightened progressive?

These are valid questions. Some of them are pilot programs that Zohran is willing to try out only in certain parts of NYC. If say the idea of having city run grocery stores doesn't end up working at all then he will cancel it. If it works then he will continue that and gradually expand it. That being said he doesn't want to make ALL grocery stores in NYC be run by the city. FDR had a very similar mindset during the Great Depression, whereby he was very open to trying any bold new approaches even if they were socialistic.

I’ve actually had it analyze and judge my face pics, body pics, and dick pics. It works! 😂

Some are now worried that if Mamdani runs NYC, then it could potentially damage the Democratic party brand nationally:

Socialist/Communist regimes in the past or in countries like in Cuba or North Korea don’t allow for really any personal property.

Although, Democratic Socialism allows private ownership of personal property and small businesses.

Basically, the same as the Scandinavian way of running things. That being said, that doesn't necessarily mean that someone like Mamdani would be able to dramatically reform NYC if he becomes mayor because of the constraints of the political reality he would or will have to deal with including the lobbying against him during his time in office, how much resistance there will be from the more moderate to conservative-leaning members of New York's city council, how competent Mamdani turns out to be at his job, etc.

No, he's not a traditional socialist/communist. I used to think that leftists such as Bernie Sanders and AOC were for Socialism or Communism like in the old days of the Soviet Union because they are self-described socialists, I used to believe my parents who said that people like are naive radical left-wingers, was easily convinced by all of the propaganda out there that smeared DSAs and progressives as commies who have ideas that would never work in America, and I didn't really know much about politics before until I started to seriously learning and following it about a few years ago. However, I eventually learned what Democratic Socialism is and what exactly are the ideas and policy positions of DSAs are. Democratic socialism doesn’t aim to get rid of all private ownership, unlike the primitive authoritarian style of Socialism/Communism which does involve pushing for total state control over pretty much everything—including private property. Democratic Socialism is more about making sure things that are super important for everyone—like healthcare, education, and infrastructure—are run by the government or the community, rather than being profit-driven. But people can still own their own homes, small businesses, and stuff like that. The idea is to make sure wealth and power aren’t just in the hands of a few people, while still keeping things democratic and letting people own their personal property. Moreover, Bernie Sanders, AOC, Mamdani, and other DSAs aren't truly Democratic Socialists. When you look at their policies and ideas they are really Social Democrats, that are for the Nordic style or Canadian style governance and economy. I don't know why they've called themselves Democratic Socialists when they aren't exactly that and is a bad label from a marketing standpoint when trying to appeal to as broad of an electorate as possible. Yet, they just decided to call themselves that.

Incredible! It looks like it’s over for Cuomo! He even conceded that he lost tonight!

What about the people who do porn for a living? Even though every man watches it and a lot of women watch it too, I sometimes get concerned about the actors, especially the female pornstars, who do it.

What if she's also a thirsty horn-dog and really isn't looking for anything serious either?

It's also because of some other reasons that were discussed in this thread I made a while ago:

Although, some women say that they enjoy the no-strings-attached relationship and are sexually liberated, especially if the guy made it clear to her that he's not looking for any serious.

If they can build their nukes Deep underground, then how would or did the official inspectors in the US and around the world know whether or not Iran was secretly building their nukes underground when the Iran nuclear deal was in place? Do you think it's naive to ever trust Iran to ever hold up their end of a deal, especially given how primitive they still are and how much they've threatened the US and the rest of the Western world for decades? Also, what about the fact that Khamenei is the leader of a regime that sponsors terrorist organizations, has used proxy warfare to extend its power in the Middle East, and the government he controls has enabled terrorism abroad even though he doesn’t directly lead a terrorist group?

Trumpism never ceases to horrify me. More chaos, more destruction, more grief, more idiocy, more disasters, more failures, more betrayals, more darkness as usual…. God help us if this truly becomes Iraq 2.0.

Part of it is what @GroovyGuru just said especially with the rise of the internet, social media, partisan echo chambers, provocative messaging in this day and age being able to influence and amplify people's anger, frustrations, fear, and other negative emotions more than ever before. It's also because a lot of people are worried about our country possibly getting into another forever war by sending our military troops on the ground like Vietnam or the War on Terror in the Middle East. Not to mention the economic implications that would occur from such a wide regional war in the Middle East.