Hardkill

Hey OP, How have you been holding up lately?

Will several millions of people on Earth inevitably die from this climate change crisis? Progressives are very upset with establishment Dems for not seriously tackling this issue many years ago.

I know. But centrists are going to have to compromise as well as by accepting enough support from leftists in order to win many elections. Moreover, if leftists and centrists can't ever put aside their differences to unite, then how are they ever going to gain back real power again and stop both right-wing authoritarianism and the wealthy oligarchs from taking over this country before it's too late?

Yeah.... However, the centrist/corporate/establishment Dems can't continue to squash or ignore the growing left-wing supporters in the country forever. Otherwise, they will eventually lose too many big elections.

I find it odd that Democrats claim to be a big-tent party—welcoming center-right, centrist, center-left, and left-wing voters—while today’s Republican Party largely embraces only the right and far-right, with few true center-right voices. Yet the Democratic Party often tries to undermine Democratic Socialists.

I was aware of it months ago. They always said that Chorus was about putting together a mega network of Democratic aligned influencers to help fight against Trump, MAGA, the radical right-wing, and the Republican party.

Pakman has interviewed Leftists like Cenk, Noam Chomsky, and Hasan Piker. He seems to be genuinely aligned with their viewpoints. BTC has interviewed and supported Bernie Sanders and AOC. Guys like them are pragmatists who have a realistic understanding of how politics and business work, but also seem to be committed to fighting for our democracy, freedoms/rights, and progress. Pakman made a fair point when he said that the progress of human society happens incrementally to varying degrees even when you look at FDR's New Deal.

I thought David Pakman and BTC were the kind of sensible, pragmatic, and mature progressives that you approved of as opposed to the far leftists who are too whiny, too populist, and too anti-mainstream like TYT or Hasan or Breaking Points? Also, what about the fact that BTC also works with Pod Save America, another one of your favorite high-quality, wise, and balanced left-wing channels out there? In fact, all of the Pod Save America bros have been part of the idea of building up their left-wing/progressive media ecosystem including getting Democratic aligned wealthy donors to fund their project for it.

So, then who will we be able to trust as new sources? If we are stuck in these libertarian fantasies for the rest of our lives, then how will Democrats and progressives be able to effectively push their anti-oligarchy and economic populist message when independent private actors will be corrupted by such wealthy/corporate donors and dark money?

Yes, no one perfect. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be human. Good people have always had to pick the lesser of two or more evils on every matter since the dawn of mankind. Btw, isn’t it possible that once independent media gets large enough and prevalent enough that enough people will demand new regulations, standards, and laws for them in order to sustain some semblance of order and so that they are held accountable?

This is another reason why I miss the 1990s, because that decade was the golden era of democracy in America.

You (and folks like Cenk Uygur and Dan Pfeiffer) have argued for years that mainstream media’s business model (ratings, access, advertisers, owners) warps coverage—sometimes in anti-progressive, pro-establishment ways. Given that, how do you compare MSM’s profit pressures to the new influencer funding you’re warning about? Specific things I’m hoping you’ll weigh in on: Risk comparison: In your view, what makes MSM’s corporate incentives less/more/equally corrupting than dark-money/party-aligned creator programs? What are the distinct failure modes of each? Minimum standards (MSM vs. creators): If you won’t endorse “ops,” would you endorse a cross-arena baseline—for both MSM and influencers—like on-screen funding labels, public corrections logs, independence clauses, and annual third-party audits? Consumer guidance: Practically, how should a viewer triangulate trust when both arenas are profit-driven? What signals (habits, disclosures, behavior under criticism) make an outlet or creator trustworthy enough to follow? Accountability levers: What non-activist reforms would you support that raise the epistemic floor industry-wide (e.g., a public registry of political funding/contracts across MSM and creator ecosystems)? On Cenk/Pfeiffer’s critique: Do you think their MSM-is-profit-first critique is directionally right, and if so, what concrete fixes (short of “don’t watch”) actually change incentives? Not asking you to run propaganda—just trying to pin down your sense-maker’s minimum for a media environment where money is everywhere.

Cenk and Ana say that the Democratic party has to now realize that if any of the Democrats like Newsom becomes the Democratic nominee in 2028, then they are going to get slaughtered by a faux-populist Republican nominee whether it is someone like JD Vance or Tucker Carlson by then. Since 2016, they were right about their warnings of Trump and have been right about the Democrats needing to run hard as economic populists. However, how do they know which candidate is best to put up if hardcore progressives like them haven't even won most statewide elections? Also, why was Ana chumming it up with Tucker Carlson?

Interesting. So, does that mean that not centrist Dems may never win elections like presidential elections ever again, except for maybe once in a blue moon, given how many low-information and dumb voters there are, and people in this day and age want more "authenticity" in this new age media environment than ever before? If that's the case, then why would someone like Gavin Newsom have even a real shot of winning in 2028 when already many people find him to be too "slick" like a greasy car salesman or some kind of player?

Do you know how rare that is? Obama was even more of a rarity than Clinton who never even had true once-in-a-generation appeal that truly transcended all party lines. I guess we really need an economic depression and/or WWIII to reset and heal everything.

What would you say though about FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama?

What would FDR do?

Why are Dems not able to get away with being fake and corrupt but the conservative side has been able to? I never totally understood that.

Of course I am not asking you to really get involved in it. I get it, but I feel like the Dems and progressives have no choice but to fight back against this monstrosity of right-wing propaganda and misinformation if they want to win the big elections such as the presidency in 2028 or even 2026 and beyond. Otherwise, should the Democrats and the Left just hope that some TR or FDR-like saviour can one day rise from the ashes to save its party and the country? What are the Democrats supposed to do to win back more power and stop MAGA when this terrible media environment is skewed heavily in favor of the Right?

Sounds kinda like how Putin says that Russia has democracy even though we know that that's a lie.

Yeah, I am, and I also fear how much worse it will get for our country over the next several years.

A wealth tax of some kind is always essential. It makes the economy healthier and more productive because more people, more businesses, and more areas of government are able to spend more money on necessary goods and services for the betterment of the country.

So, it should be more like Pakman or the Pod Save America bros.

They claim that they doing it as part of the left wing or progressive movement and are holding both corporate Dems and Republicans accountable. They also pressure progressive politicians to fight hard. Yet, how should they criticize centrist/establishment Dems without causing Trump and the right-wing to win too many elections?

Good question. I am not right now.