Hardkill

Yesterday, I was talking with a friend of mine about what gonna happen when automation increasingly becomes the norm all around the world, particularly in 1st world countries. He believes that it will make poor even poorer as the rich get richer. My response to that was that it will momentarily make more poor people, but that more automation means more people are going to have no choice but to become more educated in order to learn how to operate new kinds of more advanced machinery, especially the kind that involved more automation. His response was that it was a liberal theory, I am living in a bubble, because the suffering is already happening and that many middle and working class people are not gonna get better educated when they end up living in a tent and worry about where next meal comes from. I said to him that he thinks that I am sounding idealistic, but that the thing conservatives don't accept is that given the trend history, things can never stay the same forever. He agreed with that, but said that automation is still gonna be a game changer labor force wise, he doesn't see rich lobbyists going "ok people need a living wage" hahhahaha, and that they already fight on hill they pick to die on to not raise minimum wage. He then went on saying that all of the current middle class even will be eating rats, while a taco bell meal will be 65 dollars. He also said that the rich and corporations aren't going to lift up and educate the poor. What are your thoughts on this?

Didn't Osho, who was a stage Turquoise being, have a cult of his own?

Didn't you read my posts on this thread? Look up the historical trend of the presidential elections and the US congressional elections for the states of Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Montana, and Idaho, starting from around the year 2000 and onward. You'll see how within each of those states the Democrats have kept increasing their vote share while the Republicans' margin of victory has kept declining since 2000. That's why both Georgia and Arizona shockingly already turned into purple states and look like they are on their way to becoming blue. This has been happening over the past two decades is not because the Democratic Party has done something to convince tons and tons of Democrats and liberals to moved from blue states to move in droves to these red and purple states. The reason this has been happening is because there have been many Democrats, many black people, many brown people, and many young liberal leaning people from the Northeastern states, West Coast, and urban areas of the Midwest who have been moving to these red and purple states due to financial reasons and cultural reasons. The red states are generally a lot more affordable to live in than blue states. Also, according to wikipedia, "since 1970, deindustrialization of cities in the Northeastern and Midwestern United States, growth of jobs in the "New South" with lower costs of living, family, desire to reunite with specific Black cultures (such as the Gullah people), kinship ties, the perception of lessening discrimination and religious connections have all acted to attract African Americans to the Southern United States in substantial numbers." Nevertheless, I think that the Democratic Party should actually try really hard to persuade even a lot more Dems and Libs from the blue states to move to the red states. lol As, to your point about Republicans countering this by have more Repubs and Cons move from red states to blue states, unfortunately that's kind of been happening with Florida. The reason why that state has become more conservative and Republicans over the past few years is not just because of Trump and DeSantis. It also because of significant percentage of Cubans who have a great fear of socialism/communism, and the influx of conservative white retirees flocking from the Northeastern region and urban Midwest to Florida.

That's already been one of the root causes as to why the voter demographics in southern states including Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, and even South Carolina have all have been shifting more towards Purple to Blue since around year 2000. Utah, Montana, and Idaho have also become increasingly less Red since 2000. According to wikipedia, due to The New Great Migration of blacks in America, which has been going on since the 1970s, "African American populations have continued to drop throughout much of the Northeast, especially from the state of New York and northern New Jersey, as they rise in the South." Many Latinos, Asians, and younger liberals have also been moving from the coastal and northeastern regions of the country to the Southern and more middle regions of the country.

I don't believe that chart is correct. Look, we need a new progressive reform era on the level of what Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, or JFK/LBJ did ASAP.

Do you have any reason to be optimistic that things will truly get better for our country in any meaningful way?

You’ve mentioned a number of times before about how devilry may win in the short-term but in the long-term it always loses. Yet, many corrupt politicians like Manchin, W. Bush, Cheney, Bill Clinton to some extent, Trump, etc. have never been punished by the criminal justice system for all of their crimes against humanity. The only punishments Trump has ever gotten was losing all of his social media platforms and losing the 2020 election despite every abominable thing he has done throughout his entire life. A lot of corrupt clergymen throughout history like the Borgia pope did countless despicable things and still lived a very long and free life without facing any accountability from anybody ever. There have been plenty of criminals who have committed some of the most heinous acts ever but never faced any justice by going to prison or even paying a heavy penalty throughout their entire lives. Numerous tyrants like Henry VIII, Putin, the North Korean Kim family, those in the House of Saud, never got their comeuppance for any of the atrocities they committed. So, could you please explain how devilry always loses in the end even if it may not always be so obvious?

At least that country seems like it has a promising stable future and has a much higher level of democracy, whereas ours is on the precipice of Armageddon. I honestly am losing so much reason have pride as an American. The USA is the most overrated country on planet and is becoming the worst 1st world country in the world to live in. Why should I even believe that the American dream is still very possible for me to achieve when the growing economic inequality and rise of authoritarianism throughout the country is only going to get continually worse for the next 2-3 decades?

I am seriously considering it. Though I don’t know how possible that would be for me.

Women have now shown themselves to be able to invent gadgets and doing logical problem solving just as well as men. So, wouldn't that actually mean that women in general have an overall greater intellect than men because they have shown themselves as intelligent as men are academically and intellectually plus they have naturally higher emotional and social intellegence than men?

This is absolutely crazy and frightening! It is looking bad now, but there have been varying opinions from many top economists. Some are saying that inflation will eventually come down by next year with a severe recession, some are saying that it will go back down to normal with a mild recession, and some others are saying that inflation may come down by some soft landing. I thought that polls were also showing that Trump has been losing a lot of steam from the GOP. After everything that has happened with the Republican Party since the 70s including the Nixon Watergate scandal and his resignation, the scandal and resignation of his first VP Spiro Agnew, the disastrous presidency of Bush jr. and the 20008 financial having been on the Republican Party's watch, and all of the devilry that Trump caused, having been banned from all social media platforms, and how much he damaged his own reputation and that of the entire GOP....I mean, if the majority of the electorate won't ever care about any of that, then does that mean our country could be electorally doomed for the next 2-3 decades? Could this also mean that we can even count on the younger generation of Republicans to replace the older generation Republicans as more evolved voters? Should progressives just totally give up on their crusade for a progressive era and the entire Democratic Party instead needs to actually shift even further to the right like the Clintonian Democrats did with the whole party in the 90s in order to compete with the GOP in the future? Or are we going to need some kind of nationwide movement like the civil right movements that succeeded in the past in order to stop the terrorism of MAGA and the GOP and save our democracy and avoid the disastrous consequences of climate change? Or do we need to let the GOP cause such untold suffering and profound horrors in our society for 20-50 years with their abominable fascist policies in order to make enough poor saps in America finally realize how dangerous and monstrous the Republican Party has become? Or can we only pray that the Democrats get a strong presidential candidate in the future like Bill Clinton, if not one who has historic levels of charisma like Obama despite the chances of that ever happening are probably very slim?

Economy is still very strong with a very tight labor market, but yeah inflation has been hurting democrats politically. But you did say before that enough people are now aware of Trump's con: You also said before that: You even told me before when I got worried about Trump being able to run again that:

I think that most Republican voters either still won't believe that Trump was behind it all and instead will keep believing the right-wing conspiracy theories that say that the insurrectionists were all Antifa or some other kind of extreme left wing organization. Even if most Republicans voters do end up finally believing that Trump was totally responsible for this, they may still may rationalize it in their minds as being justifiable because it was all for the greater good of the country and the GOP.

Of course, Fox News didn't cover it. Fucking scum of the earth. Tragically, Given that Fox News is the most popular cable news channel in the US and the rise of many other right-wing echo chambers out there that millions upon millions of other folks have been trapped in for years, I am worried that these public hearings won't even be disseminated to at least half of the people in America. Besides, virtually every conservative in America won't want to watch or acknowledge these public hearings. Also, I am not sure that a majority of swing and independent voters, who generally lean to the right, will seeing or realizing how dangerous the right-wing has gotten even if they watched these hearings. For some odd reason, most of these voters have in recent months been favoring the Republican Party more than Democratic Party even after everything abominable thing that Trump, his cronies, the right-wing terrorists, and so many other deranged Republicans have all already done over the past few years. Hopefully I am wrong.

No doubt was Jackson an extremely racist slaveowner. However, his nationwide expansion of democracy to every white man in the country regardless of class, money, background, etc. was such a historic step forward for America that fundamentally changed all of society for the better right after the Jeffersonian era. I don't see how I am cherry picking dates and events, when each of those periods I mentioned in my first post all FUNDAMENTALLY REFORMED THE STRUCTURE OF ALL OF THE USA approximately every 10 to 30 years. Legalizing gay marriage in every state is definitely some kind of significant progress just like Obamacare and Dodd-Frank were too. However, all of those progressive wins along with every other positive smaller things that happened during the Obama era all together still didn't end up creating nearly as much progress for society as Teddy Roosevelt's Square Deal did or as much as Wilson's New Freedom agenda, or as much as the New Deal programs did, or as much as the Great society policies did. That's one major reason why many people including many liberals, many black and brown people, and many poor people in the US have felt like Obama let them all down. By no means were TR (Teddy Roosevelt), Wilson, FDR, and JFK/LBJ perfect, but I don't think that most people have ever really believed or said that any of those guys let them down when it came to domestic affairs. It's only been hard conservatives who have hated everything those presidents did. I mean our country desperately needs to undergo some kind of progressive historic transformation on the level that each of those legendary presidents were each able to accomplish during their times as president in the 1900s. I know that this hasn't happened since around 1969 because no liberal president since then has ever had the votes that either TR, Wilson, FDR, or LBJ had with Congress. But isn't there some way that we can get those massive amount of votes in both chambers of Congress needed for some kind liberal or progressive president who would be able and willing to pass a flood of new laws that would make dramatic structural reforms for America that people like me are talking about?

I've just realized that according to US history, ever since the very beginning of America, there have been eras of fundamental social, political, and economic reforms that have occurred about 10 to 30 years. - (1789 - 1820s): George Washington became elected as the country's very first president, approximately 13 years after America officially gained complete independence and sovereignty. Also, a bill of rights was created in 1789 and then permanently ratified for all white citizens in 1791. Additionally, the Jeffersonian democracy movement began in the 1790s. This movement stressed the fundamental importance of American Republicanism for all white American citizens. By 1801, it dominated all of US politics and government until the 1820s. - (1825 - 1854): Jacksonian Democracy emerged in 1925, which was a nationwide movement that lead to universal white male suffrage over the next few decades. - (1865 - 1877): Occurred right after the Civil War ended. During this time the Union gradually readmitted all of the Southern states back into the US. Also, the US government enacted the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments in the US Constitution, which respectively abolish slavery, gave black and brown people a significant amount of citizenship rights and equal protection under the law, and gave black and brown people some basic voting rights. Additionally, the Republican Party promoted big government spending for the development of nationwide infrastructure and a national banking system. - (1890 - 1916): The Progressive era. Massive government reforms were made that addressed nationwide problems caused by widespread industrialization, urbanization, immigration, and political corruption. Teddy Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson were the three progressive presidents of the era. - (1933 -1938): The New Deal era. FDR's domestic policies resulted in transformative heroic government policies and programs that created much needed public work projects, tremendous amounts of financial reforms, and sweeping amounts of regulations for all of Americans right after the Great Depression. - (1964 -1969): The Great Society era. LBJ's progressive domestic polices during this period were as immense if not greater than FDR's domestic agenda. One of these policies include the historic 1964 Civil rights and voting rights act of 1965, both of which finally gave blacks throughout the entire country true full US citizenship and near full voting rights. Other Great Society laws that got passed by Congress during this time included Medicare, Medicaid, and the Older Americans Act, policies that significantly addressed education, urban problems, rural poverty, transportation, and more. There may have been other historic periods in the US history I didn't here that may that may have fundamentally reformed the country as well. Yet, since 1970, we haven't had another historic era of fundamental social, political, and economic reforms on the level of any of these above mentioned ones for 50+ years. Furthermore, it used to be the case that Congress and state legislatures enacted a new constitutional amendment at a minimum of every few years to about every 40 years at the most. It's now been 51 years since we had any new constitutional amendments added to the US constitution that would meaningfully improve the lives of all Americans. Plus, the kind of social, political, and economic issues that America is going through right now is really resembling that of what happened back during the Gilded Age, which right away led to the Progressive era at the turn of the 20th century. So, is it possible that a new kind of historic era of progressive government infrastructure reform could be coming sometime in the foreseeable future for America?

So, no progressive era soon?

1) Okay, that's true. However, moderate or centre-left Democrats are still more useful for the Democratic Party. 2) Alright, well I do think that the progressives actually have been able to shift whole Democratic Party more to the left. However, what's the point of that if the Republican Party keeps shifting more and more to the right and if the entire country has been swinging back in favor of the GOP for many months now? In fact, aren't progressives actually making the Democratic Party increasingly less electable by making the party really come off as being too far to the left for most Americans? 3) I have no problem with Progressive officials at both the state and local level. At least those progressives can actually get something concrete done, albeit at a smaller scale.

All of these progressives in Congress including AOC, Jayapal, Bernie, Warren, etc. haven't been able to get any of their progressive agenda passed in Congress for years. Even though they haven't been corrupted by corporate donors like the centrist Democrats have been, the progressives have always had a weaker hand than the centrists Democrats. This is because the progressives always genuinely care about making as much progress as possible for their constituents and for the country as a whole, whereas the centrist Democrats (particularly the most conservative ones like Manchin and Sinema) have always cared much less about changing the status quo. That's why the progressives last Fall had to eventually capitulate to the centrist Dems (especially the right-wing Dems) in Congress with regard to the negotiations on both the BIF bill and the social spending BBB bill. So, what's the point of any progressives in Congress if they are never able to have any real leverage over any of the neoliberal Dems in the establishment?

Over the past few years, there have been countless protests for various issues pertaining to racism, xenophobia, Trumpism, abortion, election results, shootings, vaccine mandates, getting democratic Congressmen to pass key liberal legislation, etc. Yet, it seems like none of that has worked at all to address, fix, or improve any of those issues at all. Even the current political activist groups like the sunrise movements haven't done anything at all to influence a lot more people, business leaders, and government officials throughout our whole country to take climate change seriously. Protesting and political activism used to work in the older days. So, why isn't working anymore?

No I know that. That’s why I am questioning the use of progressives in office, particularly in Congress. I mean do you think that Bernie Sanders, Jayapal, or the progressive squad gotten even one piece of their progressive agenda passed in Congress? Or have all of these congresspeople been totally useless?

hydrogenated substances have trans fats and trans fats are absolutely no good for your health. Even trace amounts of trans fats stay in your blood stream and liver for many weeks or many months, especially if you don't have a healthy diet overall. Trans fats lower your testosterone levels and can cause other hormones in your body to not function well. Plus, they cause build up of plaque in your arteries to a significantly greater degree than bad cholesterol levels and excess triglyceride levels do.

Yeah, but it doesn't seem like the progressive's shifting the conversation further toward progressive values has been accomplishing anything. Am I wrong?

So, you guys think that progressives may not ever be able to win no matter how hard they fight with all of their political activism and protesting and campaign?

I just came back from a bar tonight and actually cold approach a girl there who happened to be a sex worker. She had a bull nose piercing like the kind that pierces your nose septum. I didn't know that she was a sex worker who has done some amateur work until I got to know her during the conversation. She also said that she is polyamorous and bisexual and I talked about that with her. I also asked her questions like does the size and shape of a guy's penis matter, what she thought about anal, the genres of porns she's into, her thoughts on girls getting breast and butt surgeries, why she got into sex work or porn, how it works from a financial perspective, etc. She asked me if I am truly a fan of porn or if I am one of those guys who just watches porn here and there. I told her that I've watched a lot of it since I was about 12-13 years old, and that I've become kind of a porn addict for a very long time. So, she then asked me if I have a pornhub premium subscription, to which I said that I don't and that I've never ever paid for any kind of premium porn subscriptions. She then said that that means I am actually not addicted to porn because otherwise I've would've bought some kind of premium porn subscription and that I actually gotta buy one. I asked her why and she explained to me why that is how and where you can get the best quality of porn. She also told me that she does custom porn vids too and we talked about that. Haha. After she told me her amateur porn screen name, I looked on my phone for some of the preview clips of her vids and told her how much that clip I found of her sucking off this guy in the vid already turned on me. She said thanks. I found a pic of her ass in very sexy shorts on online on my phone and told her that she has a nice phat ass. She was like "yeah some thing like that." I asked her if it was okay if I showed her a pic on my phone of my nude body from the side. She said "Sure. Thanks for asking." After she saw it, she ask why I was posing like a girl. I said that it's because I like to show off my ass. She was like "Oh I see." So asked with a smirk if she liked my body, and she said that it's okay but that she's more into the dad bod kind of look. Then I looked at her ass in person and asked if she liked doggystyle. She said "that's a dumb question." I then chuckled and said "So of course you do." She said "yup." I said "Me too. You know, this may be inappropriate but I would love to do you both standing doggystyle and you on all fours doggystyle as I grab you sexy brown bubblebutt cheeks. I'd also whisper sweet nothings into your ear." She then went "wtf!" So I said "Oh, sorry if that creeped you out." Her response was "right" in a sarcastic manner. I then said "that was probably too much information that I shared." she said "yeah." I apologized and steered the conversation towards more normal everyday kinds of topics. We talked about more regular stuff for several minutes longer. By the end of the conversation we exchanged numbers. I know that in general that shouldn't talk explicit about sex with a girl you just met until you have had sex with her. Leo also said in his how to get laid series said that the reason why you don't ever talk explicitly about sex with a girl or just go up to a girl and right away tell her bluntly that you want to fuck her because sex is generally too taboo. But this chick was a real sex worker and highly sexually liberated. Yet, I did end up making her feel very uncomfortable when I told her how I'd fuck her. So, is that because even girls like this one still feel that it is too taboo to be sexually explicit with a guy she just met and hasn't had sex yet?