Hardkill

I think that most corporations have been using that excuse too many times. Too many people out there are getting very angry about being able to barely survive while the fat cats at the top keep stuffing their pockets with way too much money for themselves. Corporations are indeed essential for every society, but they must all be held accountable much more than they have been.

How about an honorable, hard working, successful conservative like Mitt Romney vs. a hippie who is a lazy loser and has impractical ideas? Would the hippie still be more mentally developed than a Romney-like conservative?

But aren't there several millions of poor, working class people, and middle class in the country who are really getting fed up with not being paid a living wage? Do you think that there will be widespread angry labor strikes within the foreseeable like what happened during the Gilded age?

I agree. All big companies should pay their employees a living minimum wage.

Well, I am kinda disappointed that he is running, but most people were already expecting that he would. He actually has already stumbled out of a gate with his "disastrous" start of his campaign on twitter. https://www.npr.org/2023/05/24/1178070208/twitter-glitches-mar-ron-desantis-debut-as-presidential-candidate

In case any of you wondering if or worried about Tucker Carlson possibly running for president in 2024, his lawyer seems to have made it clear that Tucker is not interested in doing so. His lawyer has already a sent cease and desist letter to a PAC that has already been trying very hard to convince him to run for president in 2024: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tucker-carlson-2024-race_n_646c3053e4b0355739387b23 https://www.thedailybeast.com/tucker-carlson-hits-super-pac-trying-to-draft-him-into-2024-race-with-legal-complaint https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/may/22/tucker-carlson-shuts-down-draft-tucker-pac-2024-ta/ I think that's somewhat a relief for us for 2024 given that his appeal over Republican and conservatives, especially those at the far right, throughout the whole country has been very much on par with Trump's, but unlike Trump is still well in his prime and comes off as a bit more disciplined, a little bit smarter, less crude, and less chaotic than Trump. Of course it's always still possible that he might make a run in 2028.

Dude, you're getting into the territory of conspiracy theories. What proof do you have that Trump was able to win the GOP nomination by cutting a lot of deals with the RNC? Also, the RNC and the Republican establishment has always thought since 2016 that Trump will one ruin the Republican Party. Biden and the Democrats in Congress didn't have the votes in the Senate to fully bring back all of the laws that were removed from Trump.

Absolutely, there should be barriers to who should be allowed to run for president. It should only be those who are wise, compassionate, moderate, temperate, push for good practical reforms, have solid experience and competence in governance, well educated, well read, sound intelligent, and haven’t been involved in any serious wrongdoing. Presidents Washington, Jefferson, maybe Jackson, Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Harrison, McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK/LBJ, Obama, and Biden had all of the abovementioned qualities and that’s why they were all totally qualified for the job of being president went down in history as being the presidents ever in US history. The consensus amongst all top historians and political experts in the US is that Trump is one of the six worst president ever in us history. Trump furthermore has been the only US president ever who threatened to destroy our democracy. Osho was right when he said that democracy often results in "rule by the retarded for the retarded....." and that what we really need is ruling based on meritocracy. If you need serious medical help then why would you consult someone who did not earn a medical degree and a medical license to practice medicine, let alone doesn't have sufficient experience with competently diagnosing, treating, and curing a patient's illness? What if you are in trouble with the law? Wouldn't you hire a lawyer who has a law degree, license to practice law, competence and skill in legal matters, and has been successful with representing clients?

I already told you some of my reasons in my OP. Additionally, I really think that the fact that anyone in the US allowing practically ANYONE born in America and is over the age of 35 year to run for president, even if you don't have ANY experience at all in serving in the government as a state level, or at the federal level, or even in the military has been a terrible mistake. Even if have a history of having been an incompetent manager of a business with much less than honorable circumstances like Trump you can still be elected president. Even, if you have only had 5 years of working for the US government as an incompetent governor of a state, was a party boy who wasn't a great student in college or even in grad school, but just got by because you had a dad who paid your way through school like W. Bush you can still be elected president. You spread all kinds of dangerous conspiracy theories, particularly those from the right-wing, as a hyper-materialistic, narcissistic anchor for decades on Fox News like Tucker Carlson? No problem. You can be the next president of the United States if you are as popular, as charismatic, and as a well-spoken as Tucker Carlson. If like Reagan, you only graduated high school and a mediocre college as a C average student, were a Hollywood actor who played in a dumb comedy movie called Bedtime for Bonzo, and have only 8 years of working for the US government as a mediocre governor of a state? Not a problem at all, if like Reagan, you are a once in a generation charismatic individual who is able to pull off an Oscar winning performance as a presidential candidate, you can become one of the most iconic US presidents ever. I mean look at what happened when Trump got elected. He became one of if not the worst president ever in US history. He also will go down in history as the most undignified and the most dangerous president we've ever had. Reagan and Bush also ruined our country for the long-run.

Well, he's made it clear that he's not gonna in 2024, and by the time 2028 happens, he will be about 86 years old. I sincerely doubt that 4 and a half years from now he will run again. It already is worrisome enough that if Biden were to be re-elected that he would be 86 years old by the time he finishes his 2nd term. However, I've come to realize lately that his socialist movement might have been a good this for this country. He reminds me now of Eugene V. Debs, early 20th century socialist who ran as a prominent 3rd third party candidate for US president a number of times throughout the early 1900s progressive era. Even though he never came close to winning the presidency, he was still one of the most instrumental politicians and political activists in bringing about major liberal/progressive reforms for our country during that period of historic change in US history. In fact, Bernie Sanders himself has said that he's always admired him, having described Debs as "probably the most effective and popular leader that the American working class has ever had." Plus he even produced a documentary on him with Bernie having voiced Debs.

Right. But wouldn't the lazy, undisciplined, dishonest liberal be no more developed of an individual than a conservative?

What about a liberal who lacks discipline, has a weak work ethic, dishonest, irrational, and unrealistic left-wing views vs. a conservative who is hard working, disciplined, honest, temperate, and is measured in his right-wing views? Would the latter actually be a more developed individual than the former?

If the DNC "can stop" any left-wing populist like Bernie from being the Democratic nominated, then why couldn't the RNC in 2016 stop Trump, a right-wing populist, from being nominated as the Republican nominee? Explain.

So, would that mean that RFK has a serious chance of being elected president? Or not so much because of how extreme, weird, and off the wall he is?

We also DESPERATELY NEED our labor unions to regain the power they had during the mid 1900s. I think that that will be key to greatly reducing the power or influence that corporate donors and other megadonors have on Democrats. After all, one reason why the Democratic Party switched from being the party of farms, organized labor, and racial minorities to that of being the party of Wall Street, white collar workers, and racial minorities is due to the fact that labor unions have kept losing their power and size since the 70s. Rural America has also been on the decline since the mid 1900s, but at the same time still consist of virtually all white Americans who hold strong and largely archaic conservative American values, don't trust the government as much as suburban and urban Americans do, and have a much more homogenous culture that's more fearful and hold more resentment of racial integration and foreigners immigrating into this country. That's probably why farmers have continued to lose much influence on the Democratic Party, which of course since the mid 1900s has increasingly the represented liberalism/progressivism, civil rights, pro-immigration, urban America, and to some extent suburban America. This idea might also work to some extent on reducing the influence that corporations and the top 1% of wealthy Americans have on the Republican Party, even though the GOP has always been since the 1910s to 1920s the party of Wall Street, the most wealthy individuals, and conservative white christian Americans.

Well, I fear that all of what I showed you could very well happen again in the future. Dark times could be coming by the time all of us are old or have already passed away.

I know these are from the late 1800s Gilded Age and even a little after the turn of the 20th century, but I think they are classic reminders of examples of what happens when there's too much economic inequality, too much pollution, too much neglect for the natural environment, inadequate regulation of foods and drugs, and the people are essentially ruled by corporatocracy and plutocracy when capitalism runs amok:

Exactly. You know what? Instead of complaining that the Democrats aren’t doing enough or voting for a third party, which doesn’t work in America like it does in other countries that have a multi-party system such as Ireland or Scandinavia, why not create or join a movement on the ground that will help the Democrats gain enough support for more good policies to be passed by Congress?

What’s the point of voting for a third party that has no shot of winning? I don’t even think that the Green Party candidacy would even push the winner of the election to meet some of its demands. Furthermore, the Green Party has already done enough damage to this country. Ralph Nader, who ran as a Green Party candidate for president in 2000 caused Al Gore to lose to the disastrous George W. Bush. Jill Stein, who also ran as a Green Party candidate for president in 2016 was one of the main spoilers along with Gary Johnson, who ran as a Libertarian for president, who caused Hillary Clinton to lose to Trump.

I understand your anger. It still is despicable that African-Americans suffer from greater police brutality, unjust amounts of mass incarceration, economic inequality, and educational inequality, and subtle racial discrimination. I also agree that Democrats ideally should be able to get transformative domestic policies done on the scale of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon B. Johnson. However, looking back and having lately read so much on history of American politics since 1776, Democrats and liberals, never had such long-lasting supermajorities of liberals/progressives in Congress like TJ, AJ, Lincoln, TR, WW, FDR, and JFK. Also, Corporate/neoliberal Dems since the late 70s such as Carter, Clinton, Obama, and Biden never had the support of extremely powerful liberal/progressive nationwide movements nor governed during times of crises that were as horrific or as catastrophic as the kinds that TJ, AJ, Lincoln, TR, WW, FDR, and JFK all had. Abe Lincoln presided over the entire American Civil War, which was the bloodiest battle/war in all of US history and had immense support from the abolition movement during a time when there only 34 to 36 states in whole USA and the southern half of the states tried to permanently split off from the northern half of the states. Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and there respective parties governed during the Progressive era (1896 - 1916) each had nationwide support of liberal/progressive activists that arose from the Populist parties and other activist organizations during the 1890s and continued growing in America during the 1900s decade, and 1910s. Also, back during each of those decades, total US population was not even a quarter of what it has been since 2010. The reason why there was such widespread movement during the Progressive era was because of how much the bottom 99% of Americans were deeply suffering during the Gilded Age (approx. 1877 - 1896). The Gilded age caused the worse degree of economic inequality in US history, did not stop the development of the most excessive amount of monopolies that ever occurred in the history of all US economics, led to several periods of economic depressions and bank panics, allowed real child labor, let business owners get away with having the most unsanitary and abusive working conditions we ever had, created widespread pollution and the destruction of too much of the environment everywhere, contamination of foods and drugs in many parts of the country, resulted in historic levels of political corruption and violence, had decades of major social unrest throughout America, etc. Plus, during the late 1800s, the country was about as political polarized as we are now, and therefore had a terrible amount of gridlock in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Such gridlock meant that the government could not get much positive changes done for the country. Yet, there was much more political unity and bipartisanship amongst both parties during the progressive era because that was a time when the country had finally healed from the terrible political divide during the late 1800s, especially when the newer generations of Democrats and Republicans replaced the older generations of those who were in power before the 20th century. Also, Woodrow Wilson presided over WWI and was forced to have our country enter into it in 1917, which gave him even much more of a mandate during his 2nd term to transform our country again to the degree that happened during TR's two terms as president and Wilson's first term as president. FDR and the Democrats in Congress took over the presidency and Congress during the Great Depression, which was probably the worst economic crisis we ever had in US history and was so much worse in many dimensions than both the 2008 financial crisis or the Covid-19 2020 economic crisis were. Plus, those Democrats were strongly supported by such powerful labor movements all over the country. Moreover, there was still much greater political bipartisanship unity with both parties during the New Deal era than there has been in recent times. Additionally, FDR and the Democrats in Congress not only had to help their foreign allies during the first two years of WWII they later on were forced to enter into the second world war by 1941 and fight in it until the end which was 1945. Like what happened with Wilson and the Democrats during WWI, all of those years of the US working together with our allies during WWII, gave FDR and his party even much more of a mandate for their party transform our country again during FDR's 2nd and 3rd terms as president, to the extent that already happened during his first term. LBJ and the Democrats governed during a time when political bipartisanship consensus between both parties was at their peak in US history, when the power of labor unions were at their peak in US history, and when Dr. King and the civil rights movement had delivered such a shockingly powerful message to the whole nation that was effective enough to embolden Johnson to aggressively pressure congress for the series of historic civil rights and voting rights legislation that would end Jim Crow laws forever. Plus, after Johnson defeated GOP nominee for president, Barry Goldwater, in a major landslide due to Goldwater's perceived right-wing extremism along with LBJ's historic civil rights act of 1964, and the Democrats won even more seats in the US Senate and US House in the 1964 general election, Johnson and the Democrats did just end up with massive majorities of Dems in both the US Senate and US House in Congress, they got supermajorities of liberal Democrats in both chambers of Congresses. That gave Johnson and the Democrats even more of mandate to pass more civil rights and voting rights legislation and many of his other Great Society bills. Carter was president during the late 70s, which was when the New Deal coalition and the modern liberalism that had dominated American politics from the 1930s to 1970s dissipated gone and unfortunately got replaced by the new both the major conservative resurgence and the emergence of neoliberalism as the new dominant influence of US politics. This was all due to intense racial backlash from whites in the south and in rural areas of the country, the chaos caused by rebels in the late 60s and 70s who became disgusted and angry with the government/establishment especially after the events of the Vietnam War and the resignations of President Nixon and his first VP Agnew after they got caught with each of their major wrongdoings, the prevalence of horrific cults and growing number of sick and twisted murderers in America during the late 60s and all of the 70's, 70's stagflation which got to the worse it ever got by 1980, the very significant decline of labor unions since the 70s, increasing amount of foreign economic competition and off shoring of manufacturing businesses to other countries, the rise of right movements in the 70s such as the Christian Right, corporations and banks getting too much economic influence, rise of conservative think tanks, conservative federal level judges (including those in SCOTUS) in the 70s and 80s ruling in favor of allowing more corporate lobbying and big money in politics, etc. The political dominance of conservatism and neoliberalism of course really grew dramatically during the 80s with president Reagan and his immediate successor, H.W. Bush. After Clinton got elected president in 1992, he and his new third way centrist faction of Democrats took over the Democratic party, and unfortunately made the Democratic party cave even more to the pressure of neoliberalism in order to compete with the dominant force of Reaganism in the Republican party. Clinton and his party basically extended the Reaganism/neoliberalism regime and that of course. then, when Bush Jr. got elected president in 2000, he of course was more than happy to continue with what both Reagan and his daddy during their presidencies. By 2008, the Bush presidency, the do-nothing Republicans in Congress from 2001-2008, Reaganism, the war on terror done by Bush and the Republicans all turned to be historic failures. Obama won the presidency and Democrats won a supermajority of Democrats in both chambers of Congress after the 2008 general election due to Obama's once in a generation level of charisma and a massive referendum on the Republican Party having been a total disaster for the whole country. During the Obama presidency, his administration and the Democrats in the Congress were able to shift the country back to the left with historic healthcare reform that no president before him except Johnson could accomplish, major bank regulations close to the level of FDR, passed a bill that reduced disparities between mandatory crack and powder cocaine sentences that had put blacks behind bars longer than whites, commuted the sentences of nearly 1,200 federal inmates, virtually all of whom were incarcerated for nonviolent drug crimes, and more. Obama unfortunately wasn't able to transform the country to the degree that FDR or LBJ did because he had supermajorities in both chambers of Congress for only 2 years and he didn't have the support of strong enough left-wing movements. Plus, the rise of the right-wing media has had too much influence over too many idiots in this country since the 90s. The right-wing media before the 90s never had much influence over people. Even after Trump became president in 2017, he and the Republican party failed miserably with repealing Obamacare (except for repealing the individual mandate). In fact, the Republicans struggled to get much needed legislation to the point of having been one of the least productive congress in all of US history even when they had control of the whole government trifecta. When Biden and the Democrats took back control of the presidency and both chambers of Congress by 2020, they were able to get so much positive changes by reversing many of the Trump era executive orders and making legislative achievements that were the most significant and sizable since the 60s. Biden also pardoned thousands of people convicted of weed use, has asked the Health and Human Services Department to try to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to a Schedule II controlled substance, cancelled much student debt as much as possible, and signed other significant executive orders that further improved racial equity within the federal government and prisons in the US. According to a number of social science experts, Biden has already accomplished more domestic policy changes than any president since LBJ. If you think about it, this is quite exceptional considering that Democrats held only razor-thin majorities in both chambers during a period of intense political polarization during the years 2021-2023. Biden has been representing a transition from the "government is the problem" consensus since the 1980s towards social democracy like we had in the mid 1900s.

Actually, I just found a source that does mention the fact that other developed countries besides ours also sell weapons to 2nd and 3rd world countries such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, North Africa, and more. https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2021/07/23/are-european-arms-fuelling-wars-and-conflicts-worldwide So, I guess the valid point you're making is that given the world we still live in, even 1st world countries still cannot afford to not manufacture and sell much of their weapons to those primitive countries because global arms trade without much restrictions on doing business with 3rd world countries is still needed to sufficiently support and grow all 1st world countries. Though, I am sure that America sell significantly more arms to all other countries around the world than other developed countries do because as you're implying, the US is and has always been since the end of WWII, the number country for developing the best and most prolific military technology and weaponry in the world. Plus, America is still the most capitalistic, and therefore the greediest 1st world economy in the world.

Hmm...Well, do western European countries, Canada, Australia, and every other developed country in the world also sell arms to authoritarian regimes in third world countries in order to support and grow each of their own economies?

Bush said that "it breaks my heart that women in Afghanistan are going to be brutalize by the Taliban" when we withdraw from Afghanistan. But you're saying that he never really cared at all about women's rights and freedoms there. Well, I didn't realize how much more narcissistic or perhaps even sociopath many of our politicians are, even beside Trump, than I realized. I also had no idea that our military industrial complex has always been such a cold hearted machine. Eisenhower, in his 1961 farewell speech, was right when he warned all of us of the potential dangers of this issue.

So, Americans like Clinton, Bush 1, Bush 2, Obama, and Biden never really cared about developing democracy in other countries?