Hardkill

Couldn't agree more with Vlad on everything he said.

Hopefully, this becomes another political gift for the Democrats and for all other left-leaning parties throughout the rest of the world.

Yeah, I agree with your points. The question is how to make the voting power you're suggesting happen.

I know. Yet, the current system isn't working so well for the people. I don't buy the part that neoliberalism has greatly helped technological progress due to the principles of free market competition and the rapid commercialisation of new products. I believe that could've happened under a more modern newer kind of Keynesian model. I think that the neoliberal philosophy has become a bad excuse for corporate elites and the wealthy elites for getting away with increasing concentration of wealth for the very rich and corporations at the expense of everyday people and small/mid sized businesses. Neoliberalism has never really promoted free markets. It has really promoted private enterprise too much, which has allowed the corporate and wealthy elites to have way too much money and way too much power. It's not like the traditional Keynesian model during the mid 1900s involved the government controlling the entire US economy like Communism. It had a healthy mix of socialistic and capitalistic elements for the US economy. In fact, technology was rapidly developing back then including: 1. Antibiotics, vaccines, sanitation, and safer public health systems. This was not just “better gadgets.” It radically changed whether people lived or died from infectious disease. CDC says U.S. life expectancy increased by more than 30 years over the 20th century, with 25 years of that gain attributable to public health advances; it specifically highlights vaccination, clean water, improved sanitation, and control of infectious disease. Penicillin was scaled up in the U.S. during the 1940s and helped open the antibiotic era 2. Air conditioning and refrigeration becoming practical and widespread. This sounds less glamorous than smartphones, but it changed homes, factories, offices, retail, hospitals, migration patterns, and the habitability of huge parts of the country. DOE notes that modern electrical air conditioning began with Carrier’s 1902 system, and its later spread became one of the major quality-of-life and economic shifts of the postwar era. Gordon also specifically points to air conditioning and home appliances as part of the mid-century transformation still remaking the economy in 1950–70. 3. The interstate highway system and car-centered logistics. The 1956 Interstate Act created what the National Archives calls the nation’s biggest public works project. That was not just about driving faster. It reorganized freight, commuting, military mobility, warehousing, retail geography, tourism, and suburban development. In terms of physically reshaping American life, this was enormous. 4. Jet aviation. The jet engine did for long-distance movement what the internet later did for information: it compressed time and distance. The Smithsonian notes that jets made airliners bigger, faster, and more productive, transforming air travel. That was a major shift in business, tourism, diplomacy, and national integration. 5. Semiconductors and the integrated circuit. This is especially important because it shows the line between the “mid-century” and “post-1980” eras is not clean. The digital revolution did not just appear in 1980. The Smithsonian notes that in 1958, Jack Kilby demonstrated the integrated circuit, calling it a revolutionary enabling technology. In other words, one of the central foundations of the later computer/internet age was itself a mid-20th-century breakthrough. 6. The space program and systems engineering. Apollo was not only symbolic. NASA describes it as a defining event of the 20th century and a triumph of meeting extraordinarily difficult systems-engineering, technological, and organizational integration requirements. That mattered for electronics, materials, aerospace, computing, and engineering practice more broadly.

Right, but I wonder if the people should have a lot more power or say as to how the government should run the country, after really seeing how idiotic most people in this country are.

Yes, corporate interests and wealthy elites have greatly undermined our democracy and have played a major role in killing many good bills that would have improved our society in countless ways. However, too many people are too stupid, too uninformed, too disengaged, and too easily manipulated to elect the right leaders. Corporate elites are smarter than most people, so why not let them govern alongside political elites on behalf of the people? I’m not really saying that we should allow an oligarchy or corporatocracy to rule over the people. I’m raising this point to invite a response and to probe whether true democracy is really what is best for the country.

Leo, in your post about how right-wing media dominates social media, you argued that the left often turns into a circular firing squad, whereas the right is usually much better at rallying around one leader, one message, or one coalition. That got me wondering: have there been important examples where the right-wing coalition did fracture badly enough to cannibalize itself? I do not just mean ordinary disagreements or factional tensions. I mean situations where the right became so divided internally that it seriously weakened its own political power, media ecosystem, electoral performance, or ability to govern. A few possible examples that came to mind: 1912 Republicans splitting between Taft and Roosevelt Hitler turned Fascist Italy into a German-controlled puppet zone after Italy broke with Germany in 1943 The far-right ruling bloc turning on itself during the Nazi regime’s end 1976 Republicans with the Ford vs. Reagan divide 1992 with Bush weakened on the right and Perot disrupting the broader anti-Democratic coalition Tea Party vs. GOP establishment in the 2010s Somewhat in 2020 What's going on now between the anti-war and pro-war MAGA Republicans Never Trump conservatives vs. MAGA, although MAGA seems to have mostly won that fight So my question is: What are the best examples, historically or internationally, of the right actually behaving like a circular firing squad? And in those cases, what caused the fracture? Was it usually: class/economic divisions? establishment vs. populist conflict? personality/ego clashes? foreign policy splits? religious vs. secular tensions? regional divides? media ecosystem fragmentation? I am also curious whether people here think the right is inherently more coalition-disciplined than the left, or whether it only looks that way during certain periods because it has stronger hierarchy, clearer enemies, and a greater willingness to suppress internal dissent. Would be interested in both US examples and examples from other countries.

I don’t think that any of those boys and girls represent the full potential of an elite male athlete vs. an elite female athlete. look at the top men in the world vs. the top women in the world

Serena may be physically the most muscular female tennis player in history, but like Leo said, and even she herself said she’s still not a man. Men have many times the level of testosterone that women have, except compared to a very small percentage of women who take some kind of heavy doses of anabolic steroids like those extremely competitive female bodybuilders or female strength/power type athletes. Moreover, there are other reasons as to why not even an elite pro female bodybuilder, an elite pro female strength/power athlete, even an elite pro speed female elite, or even an elite pro endurance athlete can ever get nearly as muscular, nearly as strong/powerful, nearly as fast, or have nearly as much stamina as those of their respective elite pro male athlete counterparts, no matter what kind of PEDs she takes, no matter how much of those PEDs she takes, no matter how genetically gifted she is, no matter how great her diet regiment is, no matter how great her training regimen is, no matter how well she recovers from her training regimen, and no matter how hard she works. Men generally start from, and continue to maintain, a higher baseline and higher ceiling. Even when training adaptations are similar in relative terms, males generally have more total muscle mass and larger body dimensions to begin with, so equal percentage gains still leave them with higher absolute strength and size. And why is that? It's because adolescent boys go through puberty later and for a longer period of time than adolescent girls do, which means that boys/men have a longer/later growth spurt than girls/women do. Therefore, male puberty brings much higher testosterone exposure and growth hormone exposure, which produces lasting differences in size, muscle, strength, power, and oxygen-carrying capacity. Moreover, some experts say that androgen-receptor differences between males and females contribute, which is why boys/men respond more positively to androgens, including testosterone, better than girls/women do. This is why not even most genetically gifted female bodybuilders or most genetically gifted female athletes in the world will have nearly as many androgen receptors as men do, particularly compared to the most genetically gifted male bodybuilders and most genetically gifted male athletes in the world. Again, the reality is that late-teen boys and adult men generally have a large physical advantage over late-teen girls and adult women in many sports because male puberty occurs later and with a longer/later growth spurt, but above all because male puberty brings much higher testosterone exposure, which produces lasting differences in size, muscle, strength, power, and oxygen-carrying capacity.

Mark Cuban doesn't want to run for president. I'd like to see Jon Stewart run for president, but I don't see any real signs of him intending to. I guess no liberal celebrity out there really wants to be president because they may not really care about saving the country. They are probably too comfortable with the benefits they get as wealthy/high-status individuals themselves from the status quo of the economic system we live in.

That's why I've been sharing the same worry that progressives like Cenk have had about the 2030s. Even if say someone like Gavin Newsom wins the presidency in 2028 and the Dems also take back both the House and the Senate by then, Democrats could lose the entire government trifecta again by 2032 if Democrats don't enact enough new policies that will truly address enough of the working class and middle class to stave off another entertainment/business celebrity like maybe a Joe Rogan, Jake Paul, Tucker Carlson, or Dan Bilzerian from becoming another charismatic demagogue who could deceive enough desperate working class voters, middle class voters, and anti-establishment voters into electing them president to burn it all down and save America. In fact, this is why the more I think about it, more uncertain that Newsom is the best candidate for 2028 because he's already too much of an establishment Democrat instead of a charismatic outsider like Bill Clinton in 90s was or Barack Obama was in 2007-2008. Most people in the country hate and distrust the entire establishment more than ever before and are craving for someone who not only doesn't sound like another career politician, hasn't been corrupted by the political system, but also will truly be a fighter for the working class very much like FDR or a New Deal Democrat would.

I hope this turns out to be a real political gift for the Democrats in the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election.

That's quite a shock. Maybe the district has gotten so blue that it gave Mejia, the anti-israel progressive candidate, enough of an advantage over the more moderate Democratic candidates in the race. What I don't get is why AIPAC didn't go after her with a lot of attack ads on her when she was the main threat to them?

We don't have a recession yet and unfortunately it doesn't look like we will be having one this year. I hope that I am wrong.

It’s not just the donor class that’s contributing to this. It’s really that they are just too afraid to let go of catering to too many different groups of people unlike the Republican Party which has had no problem catering to a much less diverse coalition of interests.