Hardkill

Here we go again.... Yes, his backdoor funding to Israel's military is still not good; however, there has already been a noticeable transition in both rhetoric and policy from the Biden administration and the rest of the US government. The US actually abstained from voting against the latest UN resolution vote on the demand for an immediate Gaza ceasefire. I know that's still not ideal or not good enough, but that already has been a big break from the norm in US military/foreign policy with Israel: The American government and the general electorate as a whole are center-right culturally, but are still center-left in policy overall.

Yeah, I thought about those ones for a long time. It was a tough call, but I decided to put them in both Left Wing/Progressive category and the Far/Radical Left. I do believe that their policies and stances are bold, solid left-wing policies, but they are not radical or extreme left-wing to the point of wanting to completely replace capitalism with some form of Socialism/Communism. These individuals believe in having a mixed economy of some sort, while promoting as much social justice as possible. That's my reason for putting them in the Left Wing/Progressive. However, their rhetoric has also has gotten to be increasingly toxic, too polarizing, and too vitriolic. They never used to sound this way before years ago. I am also getting really tired of the nonsensical long-shot ideas they keep coming with, such as Cenk's idea of running for President, trying to primary every Democrat out there including Biden who aren't left-wing enough, even in the most red areas of the country. Cenk, Ana, Kyle, Krystal, David Dole, Sam Seder, Emma Vigeland, and others like them really don't have a clue as to how to really win many big elections, particularly when it comes to winning the presidency because none of them have ever won any elections themselves or even worked closely with any successful politicians on any big campaigns. Furthermore, none of them have any real experience in having worked in any part of Washington or in any part of the US government at all, which means they don't really understand the political reality of negotiations and policymaking. Moreover, instead of complaining so much about how the whole system is rigged and how Democrats never do enough, why aren't they out there canvassing a lot more on the ground like the original progressive activists did in the early 2000s or the civil right movements, or like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, AOC, and Jamaal Bowman and all of those contemporary progressive have been doing everyday? Lastly, I really don't like how they've been saying and have been influencing so many of their followers to say that AOC, John Fetterman, Bernie Sanders, Warren, and many other progressives in Congress have sold them out and calling Biden "Genocide Joe." They are taking this shit way too far.

Speaking of southerners, Beau of the Fifth Column (Justin King) and James Carville are southern liberal Democrats: James Carville is a well known center-left Democratic strategist, who I've mentioned before became a brilliant campaign strategist for Bill Clinton's presidential campaigns and other Democrats in the 90s. After Clinton's presidency, he continued to be a well-respected campaign strategist and pundit for the party: Beau is more left-wing than Carville, but he is still a sensible, pragmatic liberal/progressive Democrat:

Haha. Yeah sure. Actually, maybe on some views like economic populism/nationalism. Many southerners and rural folk in America are actually socially conservative, but more economic liberal. A lot of more of them used to be that way during the extended New Deal Era (from the early 1930s to the mid to late 1970s) because they knew much help they desperately needed from not just the state and local levels of government, but also from the federal government starting officially with FDR's presidency and the Great Depression. They of course have always never really liked any kind of big government intervention policies unless it only benefited white christian American citizens in their areas economically. The Deep South has especially always been the most opposed to any kind of big intervention ever since before the Civil War. but it was obvious to every southerner and rural America throughout the entire country, during the Great Depression, that like what happened in the aftermath of the Gilded age, they once again had absolutely no choice but receive as much emergency assistance from the federal government as possible from the federal government. As a matter fact, they were willing accept to FDR and the Democratic party's idea of taking big government intervention action to a much greater level than ever occurred before in US History, as long as it didn't disproportionately benefit people of color or challenge the racial hierarchy of the South. Eventually, by end of LBJ's presidency, there became a growing number of southerners and rural Americans who no longer wanted anymore liberal/progressive economic reforms by federal government, especially because of the fact that the entire US government finally put an end to all Jim Crow laws in America by the mid to late 60s. This growing backlash among some Southern and rural Americans against anymore liberal and progressive economic reforms continued to grow as a decades long trend throughout the 70s, 80s, and 90s, early 2000s, and early to mid 2010s. However, I think ever since the mid to late 2010s, that trend has been reverse amongst southerners and rural Americans, with rise in economic populism and economic nationalism along with Bidenomics. Hopefully this relatively new trend continues the way the Democrats have been steering it.

Thanks guys! Even with the assistance of AI, it still took a lot of time and effort to put it altogether in the most accurate way possible. I'd like to also have this thread continue on as a place for me or anyone else on here to add on any more points or examples about each of these specific categories the US political spectrum. Another obvious example of an extreme-right/radical right/far-right/hard-right organization in America and has only existed in the USA: The KKK They have always been a white Protestant terrorist hate group known for their extreme racism, antisemitism, violence, and white supremacist beliefs. Just as horrible as Neo-Nazis, White Skinheads, Aryan Nations and any other white supremacy groups in America are. This group originated in the Southern United States after the Civil War and has historically been associated with the South due to its origins in the Reconstruction era. The organization has had chapters and members in various parts of the country, including the Midwest and even some in the Northeast. The size and influence of the group continued to occur primarily in the South during the late 19th century, early 20th century, and mid 20th century. However, after Jim Crow laws finally came to an end, the size and influence of the KKK went on a very significant decline for decades through the 70s, 80s, 90s, the aughts, and 2010s (even during Trump's presidency), and 2020s. Over time, the Klan's influence and presence have fluctuated, and today it remains a fringe group with scattered activity rather than a dominant force in any particular region. cross-Ku-Klux-Klan-Tennessee-1948.pdf

We are living in a Gilded age 2.0 and it MUST be followed by a Progressive Era 2.0..... Otherwise, it will be the end of all humanity....

Certainly, could happen, but I don't see any real sign of that happening with either Trump or Biden. At least not yet.

Biden and Trump officially secured their parties' presidential nominations after winning the majority of the delegates in each of their respective primaries. This of course was expected given the fact that ever since last year, Biden has had overwhelming unified support from the Democratic party and Trump has had way too strong of a hold over the Republican party. So, whether any of us likes it or not, Biden and Trump will have their rematch in the 2024 presidential election. At least this time around, Biden has the tremendous advantage of being the incumbent president, whereas Trump no longer will be in the 2024 general election. I believe that the main factors that will really determine who wins the election will be: 1. The level of public order and domestic tranquility. 2. The state of the economy during the election year. 3. What will happen with the war in Gaza towards the end of 2024. 4. What will happen with the war in Ukraine towards the end of 2024. 5. Whether or not there will be a significant third party campaign that would spoil the election. 6. The Trump trial(s). 7. The liberal backlash against the growing authoritarian regime of Trumpism/right-wing extremism in America.

Yeah, with all due respect to Nivsch, idk what in the world he is talking about. I mean just because she's a woman of color doesn't at all mean that she would be a good president. She can't even compare himself anywhere close to Hillary Clinton, who before 2020, was arguably the most qualified woman or person in the country to be our country's next president as a liberal or center-left Democrat and is practically a political genius like her husband is. Hillary would've been a wonderful president along with having made history as the first woman US president and another liberal/semi-progressive POTUS right after and like Obama's presidency. Hayley, on the other hand, is a corporate neocon conservative Republican. She's not even brilliant or inspirational at all and has nothing new, popular, or good to offer in terms of policy for the general electorate as a whole. She would've been as disastrous of a president of our country as Bush was. Plus, quite frankly why would the conservative/Republican voting base in America, which has for decades has becoming increasingly more of the party of angry white men and racism (particularly after the rise of Trump and MAGA), ever like the idea of a woman of color such as her becoming their party's presidential nominee, let alone become the next POTUS?

Jack Smith MUST find some way to switch judges or courts. The courts in our country have become much more corrupt than I thought. The federal judges in our country don't seem to care that they have been contributing to letting our democracy and rule of law be at the brink!

David Pakman makes a very sensible point here as to why voting for Biden is a MUST: He also has mentioned in other videos before how incredibly successful Biden has been as president:

Well yeah of course she a guy with both if one is available, but it seems like hot girls most of the time either hook up or get into a serious relationship with guys who either have sex appeal, game, and strong character or have just social status and money with no backbone. Besides if I don't have a lot of money or an elite level social circle, then am I supposed to expect to just settle for average looking women as being the best that I can possibly get? Or just wish upon a star that maybe one day I might be lucky enough to find a beautiful attractive woman who will be attracted to me if I play the numbers game long enough until I am an old man?

Most men look unattractive or average and have don't have good game, especially given the continuing decline in masculine men in the west. Besides, why would any hot girl be sexually turned on more so by a guy or have more respect for a guy with money and status, but has poor game, looks unattractive or homely, and is a wimp, easily fooled than a guy with looks, game, strength, and shrewdness?

That wasn't 50 cent. Those video were from dating coaches Miles Cunningham and Mr. Locario.

Why isn't being an alpha male who oozes sex appeal and charisma enough to stand out as a top 1-3% man with very high value that all women are appealed to?

This is beyond red pill. Why would I want to be with a woman who isn't compliant or cooperative for the long haul? Why I would want to be with a woman who is disrespectful, embarrasses me in front of others, or doesn't want to support my goals and purpose? Why would I even want to be with a women who doesn't show herself as someone who is happily willing to truly invest her time, energy, and resources to me? A woman being submissive in a healthy manner does not mean that a man has any right to force a woman to do something against her will or forcing her to be in any kind of situation she doesn't want to be in. It also doesn't mean that a guy should manipulate a woman in any devious manner to trick her into something that she doesn't want to do. It's about her freely making the choice to invest in a guy and follow him as a leader she would be happy to be compliant with. That's one major reason why a man's gotta play the numbers game to find the right woman or women for him who is or are wanting to submit to him. He of course should try to seduce her with charisma and sex appeal to tilts the odds in his favor with the women he's interested in.

a woman will enjoy doing this for a man she has extremely sexually attracted to, especially if she ends up falling in love with him because that is the nature of being feminine. Otherwise, a woman will just end up losing respect for the guy in the long-run. It's just the way it works. Now if she's not interested in me, then she doesn't have to do anything for me. I'll just have to move on to another woman or women who will hopefully be sexually attracted to me enough so to be willing to be submissive and cooperative with me.

That's what makes most women feel feminine. Also, she will enjoy doing this for a man she has extremely sexually attracted to, especially if she ends up falling in love with him. Most women in 1st world countries have lost their ability to get in touch with their femininity as they keep trying to do what men and keep trying to talk more like what men say in the working world. There's nothing necessarily wrong with women wanting to be as successful as men financially and professionally. However, I think that most women in advanced societies have been so focused on trying to be on equal footing with men and have equal opportunities that they often forget about embracing the positive qualities of being a woman including doing some traditional feminine activities and treating/looking up to their men as their leaders. Most men in 1st world countries are arguably more at fault for not taking on the responsibility of being true men who are strong, wise, capable of leading, able to stand up for themselves, can be a rock or mountain for women, make a woman feel feminine and attractive, able to protect their families and their communities, work hard for themselves and others, and so on.

Well, gradually I would help her out more and more but there has to be that masculine and feminine dynamic between a man and a woman. Women are attracted to a guy's looks to some extent, but they usually aren't as visual as men are from what I've learned. They instead are more turned on by a man who can inspire a woman's emotions in a very compelling manner, persuade her to perceive you as a cool guy to date and sleep with, and knows how to sexually escalate the vibe with her well. That's what seduction is supposed to be about.

By demonstrating for about 3-5 years that she doesn't cheat, doesn't disrespect me or embarrass me in front others, is compliant, willing to work hard at supporting my goals and purpose, likes to do some traditional feminine activities like cooking and cleaning, shows herself to be ready to be good mother, etc.

Of course I want a hot girl. I am very visual. She also has to have a great feminine personality. I also thought that women are sexually stimulated primarily by a man's looks and charisma. The money, status, and resources would only be necessary for maintaining a solid happy relationship. Donald Trump may be able to get with a lot of different hot women, but I am very sure that all of his LTRs and marriages with women have been absolutely hollow and miserable. Btw, where has his wife Melania been? We haven't really heard much about her and her relationship with Trump. I wouldn't be surprised if they have been estranged or separated from each other ever since he left office.

I didn't say that women owe me anything (unless any of them are in an LTR with me), but I want a woman or women to be attracted to me by both my looks and personality. Even if I was rich and famous I still wouldn't want any woman, no matter how hot she looks, to just get with me mostly for my money and status. Women who do that are gold diggers. In fact, I want a woman to earn the right to use my finances, status, and other resources by having her prove to me over the course of a few years that she is a worthy enough to be a loyal and devoted partner to me and is willing to treat me like a king. That's actually how it's supposed to work in order for a man and a woman to establish a successful happy relationship with each other in the long-run.

He's basically saying that hot women are primarily looking to use men who are rich, have high status, and have great resources because they know they can just by using their physical beauty.

I am not really saying that, but that's what Leo seems to be implying. I mean if Leo says that if I can't get a lot of money or status, then does that mean that I should only expect to get average girls at best, even if I had really good game, charisma, or sex appeal?

So, hot women are just whores for looks, money, and status? What if you don't have looks, money, and status but are still very charismatic and have great sex appeal? Wouldn't you still stand from most men who don't have charisma or sex appeal?