Hardkill

The Right since the rise of Trumpism has only presented itself as being more inclusive on the surface through their messaging and media strategy. However, they are fundamentally against diversity and more about cohesion and homogeneity.

Again, why didn't Bush or Trump during his first term ram through an aggressive border security bill through Congress when they each had the government trifecta? In fact, why hasn't Trump worked with Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority leader John Thune to pass their own version of a border security bill when they have the government trifecta right now and would have no problem eliminating the filibuster for it? It's very sad that Trump and the GOP killed that bipartisan border security bill that Democrats tried to pass last year. Trump and the Republicans always like to talk a big game about being tough on illegal immigration, but at the end of the day, all they really care about is just owning the libs whenever it's convenient for them instead of enforcing and upgrading our border's security in a competent manner.

I gotta say, he’s so far coming off as very presidential in his own right. However, if he really wants to win the nomination—let alone the presidency—he needs to present himself as at least as economically populist, pro-working-class, and pro-union as Biden was during his time in office. So far, I haven’t seen that from Newsom. I worry that if Democrats don’t put forward a true “New Deal 2.0” Democrat like FDR, or a real class warrior like Teddy Roosevelt, they could lose again in 2028 and cause even more people to lose faith in the Democratic Party. Even though Bill Clinton, Obama, and Biden were great presidents, too many Black, Brown, and working-class people in the U.S. felt like each of them ended up being just another career politician, Washington establishment, tied to Wall Street who let them down. As you know, that disillusionment played a big role in why we got Trump in 2016, and again in 2024—and it’s a major reason why people across the country are becoming increasingly angry and cynical about the entire political system. I also still have several concerns about Newsom running for president, especially the widespread perception that he’s “too liberal” because he’s from California, along with some of the unfortunate things that have happened under his watch. Being from a blue state didn’t used to be a political liability for Democrats, but we’re now more polarized than ever—one of the reasons why California is as blue as it is. Combine that with the rise of the internet, social media, disinformation, and the dominance of right-wing media, and most Americans are now exposed—within seconds—to nonstop propaganda about how “California has become an urban, coastal, far-left woke state” overrun with crime, illegal immigration, unaffordable housing, sky-high living costs, wildfires, socialists, progressives, hippies, Hollywood elites who are out of touch with everyday people, atheists, and condescending, overeducated liberals from secular schools and universities, and so on. Of course, many of these preconceived notions that most Americans have about California are misleading and outright false. But facts don’t carry the weight they used to. As you know, it’s all about perception, vibes, messaging, and having a strong media ecosystem that can push back against disinformation and reach people effectively—without being drowned out by the flood of toxic right-wing media or the “both-sides” talking points pushed by mainstream corporate outlets. So, my question is: how is Newsom going to overcome all of that—without a truly severe recession, or even a full-on economic depression like we haven’t seen in over 80 years, taking place under Trump and the Republican Party and lasting through the end of their administration?

I overlooked that post yesterday, but I agree with it. Also, doing things like that—or burning the American flag on camera—is a really bad look politically for the Left and for many Democrats.

I agree with you on the importance of nationalism. However, during the first six years of his presidency, George W. Bush and the GOP controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate. Similarly, Trump and his party held the full government trifecta during the first two years of his term. Now, you might say, “Yeah, but the Republicans in the Senate didn’t have the 60 votes needed to overcome the filibuster during any of those years.” That’s true—but Republicans tend to use the power they have more aggressively than Democrats do. They could have chosen to eliminate the filibuster or create a carve-out to push through a strong border security bill, including provisions for building the wall, during any of those years. By the way, only a few extreme left-wing members of the House have ever supported the idea of open borders or unlimited illegal immigration. In reality, almost every progressive—and certainly every moderate-to-conservative Democrat in Congress—has said they support improving border security and reducing illegal immigration. Even Cenk Uygur and The Young Turks have acknowledged, since around 2022, that excessive illegal immigration has become a serious issue and that Biden was late in responding with tougher border control. Also, what about the fact that Trump and the Republicans killed that much-needed bipartisan border security bill that Biden and the Democrats tried to pass last year?

What effective border security policies did Bush or Trump (1st term) have during their presidencies to minimize illegal immigration? Moreover, why aren't Trump and his party working on passing a new border security law to update the infrastructure for it?

You're not wrong about how damaged both the Democratic brand and the reputation of establishment Democrats. I honestly am still not sure if Newsom would be the best Democratic candidate for president. AOC right now is arguably the most electrifying Democrat in the country and currently has the strongest and clearest messaging compared to virtually every other Democrat in the country. That being said, I no longer see a woman of color ever becoming president for the foreseeable future. How is AOC going to be able to allay the fears of the majority of Americans that she doesn't believe in Cuban style Socialism/Communism when she's far leftist who already calls herself a Socialist? Moreover, it's still too hard for women and colored people even in modern America to aggressively push for economic populism on a nationwide scale. If a woman president came off as "too aggressive," even for the right reasons, she would likely face a double standard that male leaders are rarely held to. Voters, media, and opponents might say she’s: “Cold,” “harsh,” “shrill,” “Overly ambitious,” “trying too hard to prove herself," “too emotional,” or “unstable.” If a woman of color became president and was perceived as “too aggressive,” the backlash would likely be even more intense and layered than it would be for a white woman — due to the intersection of racial and gender stereotypes. We need an alpha male who's white, has traditional social values, but is a true economic class warrior like TR or FDR.

Of course, the police are supposed to enforce immigration laws, but what Trump is doing is totally unconstitutional. I pray that maybe this cause a major backlash on him and his party one day. Then again, maybe we are getting closer to some kind of real war.

Dude, have you met and talked to many people who are about age 40 and older in the South and asked them what they think about Bernie Sanders? Have you talked to many people who are about age 40 and older in Middle America and asked them what they think about Bernie Sanders? Remember, more than 66% of voters throughout the whole country are middle-aged to senior age, including most black voters, most brown voters, and most white voters in the USA. I bet if you ask most Democratic voters in the South and Middle America what they think about Bernie Sanders, most of them will tell you how crazy or extreme he is because he calls himself a socialist, doesn't seem to believe in God or Judeo-Christian values, can't relate well to them culturally, and doesn't even really visit their areas often like more moderate or center-left Democrats do. Hell, even my parents who are older than 75 years old, have been lifelong Democratic voters, and have only ever voted for Democrats up and down the ballot, have said that they don't like Bernie Sanders.

I just watched Roland Martin call out Bernie supporters for how they talk about Black voters—some of it borderline racist. He made strong points about how progressives often overlook the lived realities of African-American communities. I really respect Roland’s sensible take on politics, especially when it comes to race and power in America. He brings clarity most progressives seem to miss. Curious what others here think—why do you think Bernie never won most Black voters, even with his policies?

Although many women under 24 have bfs or stay in long-term relationships for many years. In any case, unfortunately, younger women, especially younger attractive women, have lost all sense of what it means to be a feminine woman who shows compliance and respect to men, especially to masculine men. That's another reason why most women these days end up settling for beta males. They don't know how to handle a real man who has sex appeal and has traits of Grounded Masculine Energy including integrity, competence, physical and mental resilience, being the leader, being emotionally centered, disciplined with Physical Health & Fitness, etc.

Brad Pitt was an alpha male in his prime. Also, at the height of his sex appeal he looked like a Greek god with a lot of muscle and definition. After I watched the movie with my mom she was like "ohhh...my god...he looked so unbelievably handsome! So gorgeous! He really was so divine!" Henry Cavill, Chris Hemsworth, and other attractive-looking male celebrity actors like them are very muscular and lean and are worldwide sex symbols. That being said, being extremely muscular and ripped like Arnold in his prime or the Rock is really unnecessary. In fact, most women will think that you just look like a steroid freak.

The political system in the USA has really failed. I envy all the other developed countries in the world—each of them has a much better system than the U.S. for filtering out the worst kinds of candidates, both in terms of personality and qualifications. They also appear to experience less political gridlock and dysfunction than the American system.

Let’s kill the illusion: The modern Republican Party and American Right have never truly believed in freedom. What they believe in is control — control over who gets to live freely, and who doesn’t. They scream about “freedom” while: Controlling women’s bodies Banning books Censoring teachers Outlawing drag shows and gender expression Letting cops act as an occupying force Building a surveillance state in the name of “law and order” Flooding corporate America with subsidies and tax cuts while calling food stamps “socialism” That’s not liberty. That’s authoritarianism in red, white, and blue. They talk about “small government,” but they: Expand military budgets endlessly Use the state to impose religious morality Dictate what history can and can’t be taught Ban medical care for trans people Criminalize abortion even in cases of rape The truth is, they don’t hate government. They just hate a government that helps people they don’t like. The Right’s version of “freedom” is freedom for me, not for thee: Corporations can pollute the planet, but you can’t decide what happens in your uterus. Billionaires can dodge taxes, but you can’t read The Bluest Eye in school. Cops can beat you down in the street, but God forbid a drag queen reads a story to kids. This isn’t about liberty. It’s about preserving a hierarchy where power stays with: Rich white Christian men Corporations The status quo You know what's hilarious? The same people who’ve spent years whining about “cancel culture” — crying about how the Left is “silencing them” — are now openly fantasizing about jailing their political enemies, banning books, controlling classrooms, and shoving right-wing ideology down the throat of every institution in America. Trump and MAGA aren’t even trying to hide it anymore: He’s been talking about mass deportations Using the military on American soil via the Insurrection Act Purging the government of “disloyal” bureaucrats Investigating media outlets that “disrespect” him And empowering states to crush dissent and minority rights This isn’t “anti-woke.” This isn’t “free speech.” This is authoritarianism with a cheap reality TV veneer. Let’s be real: the Right has never been against cancel culture. They’ve just always wanted their own version — where they’re the ones doing the canceling. And now that they are in power again? They’re not canceling college professors or comedians — they’re canceling entire groups of people: Women who want control over their bodies Teachers who teach real history LGBTQ+ people who dare to exist publicly Scientists, journalists, civil servants — anyone who won’t kneel to MAGA orthodoxy Trump’s movement is no longer “conservative” in any traditional sense. It’s a cult of raw power, driven by fear, resentment, and fantasy grievances. And the louder they scream “free speech,” the more aggressively they work to criminalize dissent and purge nonconformity. How about Elon Musk? He claimed he was going to “restore free speech” to the platform. Instead, he: Boosted far-right conspiracy theorists Reinstated white nationalists and fascist accounts Suspended journalists who criticized him Censored content in foreign countries to please authoritarian regimes Amplified his own tweets with an algorithm rigged in his favor Mass fired moderation teams while the platform flooded with hate speech That’s not free speech. That’s a vanity project for a billionaire with a messiah complex who thinks his wealth makes him the arbiter of truth. This is what fascism actually looks like in the 21st century: Not blackshirts or goose-steps — But a narcissistic billionaire demagogue, a base hopped up on culture war delusions, and an army of keyboard warriors screaming about “wokeness” while cheering for real oppression. So the next time someone from the Right cries about cancel culture, ask them this: "If you really cared about freedom, why are you so obsessed with punishing everyone who disagrees with you?" The answer, of course, is that they don’t want freedom. They want dominance — and a country where everyone who doesn’t think, look, or believe like them is silenced. It’s never been about “freedom” vs “big government.” It’s about who gets crushed, and who gets to keep their boot on everyone else’s neck.

I remember watching this totally crazy prank years ago of the Scandinavian pranskter approaching girls completely naked in public in Europe and in the US: He got phone numbers from girls and tons of laughs from both girls and guys. None of this means that he got dates or got laid from doing this, right?

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.