Hardkill

Biden should've pushed harder for regulation of right-wing information during his presidency.

For decades, the Democratic party hasn't had simple, emotionally resonant phrases like the Republican party has, except for few of them like Bill Clinton's "Bridge into the 21st Century" or Obama's "Hope and Change." I thought that the Harris/Walz campaign's "Reproductive Freedom" was a really good one for messaging on abortion rights for women in America. However, their campaign still never had a bold, unified vision for the whole country's future. Their slogan, "We're not going back" emphasized a desire to prevent a return to previous policies but lacked a forward-looking message that could inspire and unify a broad coalition of voters. Hillary Clinton's 2016 message "Stronger Together" lacked clarity and impact and so did Biden's "Build Back Better" message. So, what messages do Democrats have that really connect with the people and really emphasize that they are on their side? They need to revive the New Deal-style messaging by: 1. Refocus on Universal Economic Messaging – Emphasize economic security, jobs, and wages over culture war issues. 2. Simplify Their Messaging – Republicans excel at short, emotional slogans; Democrats need to do the same. 3. Strengthen Party Unity – Reduce internal divisions that lead to mixed messaging. 4. Invest in a Stronger Media Infrastructure – Build messaging platforms that rival the GOP’s Fox News/talk radio ecosystem. 5. Rebuild Working-Class Trust – Appeal to blue-collar voters (especially in swing states) with concrete benefits rather than ideological rhetoric. Also, now more and more Democratic commentators like the Pod Save America bros and even those on MSNBC are saying that the Democratic party should emulate the messaging style of AOC and Bernie Sanders. I never thought I'd see this day happen this soon in my life.

I want to believe that, OP, but that may not happen if the Democrats and the Left fail to create a strong enough messaging machine to effectively counter the dominance of right-wing propaganda. They also need to develop more emotionally compelling and easy-to-understand messages that clearly present a positive liberal agenda for the country. Otherwise, I fear that the majority of the country will continue to be brainwashed in an Orwellian manner into believing that Trumpism and the GOP are fine or still preferable to the Democratic Party running the country by 2028 and beyond. It's like in the book 1984: "War is peace," "famine is plenty," "poverty is wealth." Yet, I am still very uncertain that the Democrats and the Left will be able to figure out their messaging problem in time. That's why, as of now, I honestly think our country will need not just another severe recession to turn against Trump and his party, but something even more drastic. To annihilate Trumpism and the radical right-wing in this country, it may take both another economic depression—like the Long Depression of the late 1800s or the Great Depression of the 1930s—and/or another national security crisis, such as World War I, World War II, or the Cold War, to push voters to elect a new Democratic or progressive president in their prime, running on a bold liberal populist vision for the country, and to elect overwhelming Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress." The next president may also need to be a once-in-a-generation, charismatic leader and true class warrior—like Theodore Roosevelt or FDR—capable of rallying the American people against corporate oppression and right-wing extremism.

Ah, so now your views on their opinions on the matter have evolved lately. How surprising is it that Mearsheimer has been both commending Trump for "genuinely wanting to broker" a peace deal with Russia and saying that Zelensky failed to protect his country, will probably be forced to step down, and has damaged his legacy?

I agree with what you're saying, but why does Mearsheimer claim that Biden is a warmonger responsible for provoking Russia into invading Ukraine and that he made a mistake by continuing to support the war? Furthermore, I'm stunned that he describes Zelensky as a failure who should resign, will likely be forced to, and will be remembered in history as a leader who let down the people of Ukraine. He also argues that this war probably wouldn’t have happened if Trump had been president instead of Biden because Trump really wants peace with the Russians. I'm shocked that someone as brilliant as Mearsheimer really believes that.

Mearsheimer is saying that Zelensky never should've tried to join NATO. He warned Ukraine and NATO for many years not to agitate Russia by constantly expanding NATO eastward.

Well, Professor Mearsheimer has turned out to be right about these matters more so than the mainstream media analysts have been. I know that Leo doesn't always agree with him on some things, but he still considers Mearsheimer to be one of the best experts on military/foreign affairs. That being said, Leo said before that pundits like Mearsheimer tend to overdramatize the problems the Western world has and like to sound contrarian. But I don't get why he's greatly blaming Zelensky and Ukraine for the hell they are in. I mean, maybe Zelensky did make the mistake of not trying to keep his country a neutral territory, but there's no way that he as well as all of Ukraine deserve so much blame for "starting this war" and for suffering immensely from it.

I am shocked that Mearsheimer went as far as to say that Zelensky is to be blamed for failing to protect Ukraine, should step down, and that that will be legacy:

I didn't say that my dad necessarily did much better than the market. However, most investors have failed at it, especially those who are self-taught because of lack of proper education & strategy, emotional trading & poor risk management, overtrading & high transaction costs, not enough starting capital, and the market can be brutally competitive. Yes, his main strategy has always been the buy-and-hold strategy with serious stocks and keep riding the wave no matter what happens. Fortunately, for people like him who started seriously investing in stocks around 2009, our country went through the longest-running bull market in US history (March 2009 to March 2020), then went through an extremely sharp, but extremely short 2-month bear run, followed by this current near 5-year bull run. Besides, My dad practically taught himself and has been doing all this work on his own since 2009. Unlike Warren Buffett or other brilliant investors like him, my dad never had direct personal mentorship or formal finance education. He built his knowledge purely through self-education (reading books from top investors, not being personally taught by them). Moreover, ever since 2009, he as never relied on financial consultants or experts, even after becoming successful. Also, there's nothing inherently wrong with massive money printing, especially when the economy is in a serious downturn.

That's interesting.... Are you more supportive of Ukraine because of how much the country has already been suffering for almost 3 years now? Wouldn't that be the opposite of what Professor Mearsheimer and Noam Chomsky have been saying NATO should have done long ago—that is, having the U.S. make a stronger effort to negotiate a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine? Also, it is becoming increasingly clear that Ukraine can't win the war, Russia has kept taking more and more land from Ukraine slowly but surely, and the longer this war continues the more territory Russia will keep gaining.

I will say that my dad used the 2008 financial crisis as a major opportunity for buying a lot of solid stocks while learning how to invest in the stock market in a serious pragmatic way for the long-run. He became so successful at it through hard work, discipline, commitment, street smarts, reading books on it by real gurus like Warren Buffett, learning a lot from real experts about the economy, etc. that he made our family much more well off financially than ever before with no serious debt at all over the past 16 years. His trading strategy has still kept making us more and more money every 1-2 years. In fact, if it wasn’t for his amazing success at it, then my family and I would probably be living paycheck to paycheck and/or had to leave California.

You'll come to sorely regret that. Just like how most Americans who voted for Bush deeply regretted voting for him. Even most Republicans and conservatives to this day have said "You know, looking back I think that Bush was a total disaster. He was a bad leader who didn't have a clue about how to run the economy and his handling of military/foreign affairs, especially with the wars in the Middle East, in the end were a terrible mistake. I can't believe I was a Bush supporter."

Sorry OP, but quite frankly you don't deserve any empathy from anyone on here for that. What you did wasn't just a big mistake. You made a truly abominable and truly stupid choice. I applaud you not only for being openly honest about that but also for realizing that what did was such a grave mistake. However, this is something that you are going to have to live with for probably the rest of your life. Elections have consequences. Voting has consequences. Selfishness has consequences. The next step for you is to now take a serious hard look in the mirror and start to question a number of things in your mind: 1. "Why did I really believe that such an absolute monster who already ruined our country before as a failed president was better to have as POTUS than someone like Kamala Harris was who was eminently qualified to be president, much more in her prime, and had serious economic plans for improving people's lives? 2. "Why didn't I do serious research on all of the great things Biden, Harris, and the Democrats accomplished and how well they genuinely governed during the Biden presidency instead of listening to the lies and brain rotting misinformation from right-wing media sources like Fox News or the Daily Wire or Alex Jones?" 3. "Why didn't I before think to myself 'What would some other great president in modern US History like FDR or Obama say or do?" 4. "Why didn't I believe in the real facts put out by real news sources such as NYT and MSNBC. 5. "Why didn't I listen to left-wing media outlets such as Pod Save America, BTC, Democracy Docket, Politics Girl, Majority Report, and Allan Lichtman"? 6. "Why didn't I listen to top independent economists like Paul Krugman or Mark Zandi about how the economy works, real economic policies, and what a president and his/her administration are able to do to manage the economy?"

I guess we'll have to wait and see if he really goes through with these tariffs, eventually.

A typical example of Trump making a grand promise, but then doing something that's the opposite of that. According to top independent economists if Trump really implements his entire tariff plan, then the average American will have to spend about $2600 more from their pocketbook and/or from their business revenue. Also, this move ironically contradicts the decades-long Republican principle of promoting the free market. Tariffs are a form of government intervention that can disrupt private enterprise. This approach is the opposite of Reaganism, which emphasized free trade. Trump is trying to implement an outdated idea used by conservative Republicans like Coolidge in the 1920s and McKinley before that. Their tariff policies had severe negative consequences, particularly with the Smoot-Hawley tariff, which worsened the Great Depression.

That's a really good question, OP. I believe it's because white-collar workers have never felt the need to have a union for their respective fields. Historically, white-collar workers have generally enjoyed better compensation, benefits, and working conditions compared to blue-collar workers. According to Meta AI: Factors contributing to the lack of unionization among white-collar workers: Higher wages and benefits: White-collar workers have typically received higher salaries, bonuses, and benefits, making them less inclined to seek collective bargaining. Perceived job security: White-collar workers often have more job security and stability, reducing their need for union protection. Professional identity and autonomy: White-collar workers often identify strongly with their profession and value their independence, making them less likely to seek collective representation. Lack of exposure to labor abuses: White-collar workers have historically been less vulnerable to labor abuses, such as wage theft, unsafe working conditions, and unfair labor practices. That being said I think there really should be unions for white-collar employees. Why not? After all, there's always the possibility that even very high-skilled workers who are very well-educated and have a high ranking job can still subjected to various kind of labor abuses from their employees. In fact, with the advent of AI, white-collar workers are more likely to be negatively impacted by the AI revolution than blue-collar workers are. Therefore, may need to form unions more than ever before.

Damn, I am really sorry about that, OP. Definitely keep us posted to let us know how you're doing. You can PM if you want.

This media environment we are in will really be the death of us all. If no one or no agency fixes this whole media problem before it's too late then it could spell the end of America and maybe the whole world.

Another heartbreaking disaster. I can't imagine how horrific this must have been for all of the victims and how much their families and closed ones are now suffering from this.

You know, I am now kind of open to the possibility of that. I am seeing this guy talking about it in more large left-leaning shows: However, I am still skeptical about it because if what that guy is saying is true then why haven't the major voting rights organizations such as the Lawyer's committee or the LDF brought this up as well? Also, in some blue states like New York, Illinois, California, and Massachusetts Democratic voter turnout decreased and Trump made some significant gains in each of those states when comparing 2020 to 2024.

There are some Dems out there who are good at communicating in this new media environment like AOC or Newsom. But it's still not nearly enough. They really have a lot of work to do if they truly want to win the messaging war. Otherwise, their voices will either be drowned out by both the dominance of the right-wing propaganda machine and the growing anti-mainstream media or their voices won't be heard at all by enough voters, particularly with those who are less engaged voters. That's the biggest reason why Democrats lost in 2024 and why they could very well lose again in 2028. Even the Pod Bros have been very disappointed by the Democratic party lately:

Sure, but they are still struggling a lot with getting all of that out there to the public. They need to be much louder, respond faster, and get on more social media/internet outlets/shows on everything that happens under Trump.

Well, I am not so sure that future generations may ever care about this if the Democrats can't even win the messaging war. So, far most of the Democrats in Congress and the Democratic consultants are doing a terrible job at communicating to the public about everything that has been going on so far with Trump's 2nd presidency: Democrats really suck at messaging, have a really weak infrastructure for messaging, and are already coming off as if they are capitulating to Trump and MAGA! Republicans have no principles, Democrats have no spine!

I don't see much point in these confirmation hearings. Any nominee has been able to get away with lying to the Senate about what they plan to do if they get the job as long as they know that they will have enough votes to get confirmed anyways.

I guess this is all part of a New Age version of Jim Crow laws in America. I feel terrible for members of the military who are trans. I get your point @LambdaDelta, but what Trump is doing is still a form of social injustice.