Hardkill

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    5,058

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Hardkill

  1. Posted

    19 minutes ago, Apparition of Jack said:

    Any genuine attempt to understand the world’s problems inevitably lead to a progressive outlook. Capitalism as it stands has turned into a nightmarish leviathan that exists to suck the life out of modern society.

    Being a moderate means to live under the delusion that somehow this leviathan can be tolerated or reasoned with. It can’t. That’s why we got Trump. 
     

    But being a hardcore progressive/leftist doesn't work for winning the greatest amount of power.

  2. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    Lately, I’ve been reflecting on something I’ve noticed in U.S. politics — specifically within the Democratic Party.

    Progressives often feel more authentic than moderate Democrats. Even when people don’t agree with their ideas, they often say: “At least I know what this person really believes.”

    Meanwhile, moderates tend to sound more calculated or scripted — even if they may actually be more pragmatic or experienced in governance.

    So, why is this?

    Is it simply that:

    Progressives’ messages align more closely with their moral convictions, giving off a stronger sense of integrity and passion?

    Or that moderates, by definition, have to balance multiple constituencies and compromise, which naturally dilutes perceived authenticity?

    Or could this be a media/psychological phenomenon, where our brains reward moral clarity and “unfiltered” communication — even if it’s less nuanced?

    From a Spiral Dynamics or consciousness-development perspective, maybe progressives are expressing Stage Green idealism (values-based authenticity), while moderates often operate from late Orange/early Green pragmatism — more focused on results and systemic stability than on “vibe” consistency.

    It also raises a deeper question:

    Is political authenticity about being true to your values, or about being honest about the trade-offs you’re willing to make to get things done?

     

  4. Posted

    1 hour ago, Daniel Balan said:

    Bro I'm literally 25 and I never worked a day legally. I have 0 money put aside for retirement. If I injury myself I go bankrupt, I have no health insurance. I work at whoever needs something done. Like bucking wood in the forest, construction work and agriculture work. I litteraly go to farms to shovel cow shit for 20$ a day. And I never complained or bitched or moaned for the government to give me a handout. I am happy the way I am. I don't expect anyone especially the government to help me. I help myself.

    I think welfare is more than needed, but not financed from deficit spending. Welfare should be financed solely from tax money. Not from public debt. Public debt should finance subsidies for large sectors of economy such as infrastructure, energy etc. Debt should be used to build factories and businesses that generate revenue, not to give UBI to lazy individuals. 

    What do you mean you never worked a day legally?

    Also, how are you going to pay for any healthcare services that you'll need in this day and age?

    How will you plan to retire comfortably?

  5. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    3 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:

    Yes you make good points but look at France, Italy, The US, The UK, Germany etc. Those countries have trillions upon trillions in public debt. At some point you can no longer sustain welfare when it is all financed via deficit spending. To have a strong welfare you need high taxes. Much higher than today's taxes. France has one of world's most robust welfare system. It is great to have such welfare, but look at its public debt, look at the giant deficit spending every year, look at the out of bounds inflation. In the end inflation will hurt the people more than the welfare can help them ease their life. What is the point of having a cool welfare state if you have to work 3 jobs just to have money for rent and groceries? I'd rather have no welfare and the grocieries and rent to be as low as possible than to have welfare and have 0 free time for myself because I have to work non stop to keep up with inflation to be able just to survive. 

    So, why not raise taxes back to what they were in mid 1900s?

    Also, what will you do if you don't have a job or any welfare during an economic crisis?

    Btw, if I were you, I would worry more about the rise in corporate tyranny and corporate extremism that's spreading like a cancer in many parts of the world.

  6. Posted

    32 minutes ago, Daniel Balan said:

    Actually all the countries you look up to have a gigantic problem called a Mammoth Public Debt. And unless a more carefully spending government is appointed, all those welfare programs you appreciate will go to hell. 

    Only the centre right can solve the problems of gigantic public debts and deficits. 

    The left will double down on populism and welfare and it will collapse the whole economy and society. 

    People don't realize how severe and dangerous deficit spending and enormous public debt is. Inflation that is caused solely by the giant deficit spending generated on inefficient welfare, is taking away any benefit that the welfare is offering to the population.

    Regarding the right/left outside America, I'll give my country as an example. The party I vote for is centre right, and is the only party in parliament that acknowledges same sex marriage and other progressive social issues. Whereas the social democratic party is conservative AF and also anti climate change, pro corruption, pro status quo. The party I vote for is neither conservative nor pro status quo, yet it defines itself as right or center right. Basically the party I'm talking about is the corporate dem wing from the Democratic party of your America.

     

    There actually isn't “Mammoth debt” in many of those countries, and debt level alone doesn’t tell you whether a welfare state is doomed. 

    On standard gross-debt measures, the Nordics are generally moderate by rich-country standards (Norway and Denmark are low; Sweden is mid-range; Finland is higher). Check the IMF WEO dashboard for current ratios rather than memes.

    Norway actually runs a giant sovereign wealth fund (~NOK 19.6–20+ trillion in 2025), which supports its public finances. That’s the opposite of “unsustainable.” Even though Singapore has high gross debt, its government has a strong net asset position and actually budgets a recurring revenue line from investment returns (NIRC ~3.5% of GDP in recent years).

    Furthermore, interest burden matters more than just the stock. OECD data show debt-service costs have risen with rates, but the squeeze is concentrated in a handful of large borrowers; many smaller, high-trust/high-tax states still carry low-interest bills relative to GDP. Sustainability is about servicing costs vs. tax capacity and growth.

    Moreover, countries like Sweden have a public pension with an automatic balancing mechanism (ABM) that adjusts indexation/benefits to keep the system solvent—one reason its “big welfare” doesn’t implode when demographics or markets shift.

    Inflation isn't solely caused by giant deficit spending. It happens when the supply of goods and/or services is too low in proportion to the demand for such goods and/or services.

    What developed countries need to do is protect the corporate base, raise and equalize capital-income taxes at the top, broaden VAT/carbon/land bases with rebates, enforce hard, and pair it with cost-curve reforms in health/pensions and pro-growth housing/productivity moves.

  7. Posted

    7 minutes ago, Daniel Balan said:

    Thats not correct. Study many countries in Eastern Europe, countries from the former USSR and you will notice that the left there is more corrupt and evil than the right in those countries. When Leo says that the left is more developed than the right that is solely explicit for the US. Leo says that propgresives are more developed than conservatives. In the countries of the former ussr actually the right is more progressive than the left. In my country the most progressive party in the parliament is center-right. And they advocate for small government.

    I'd argue that there are more stage yellow politicians at centre right than at centre left. The centre left seem to be stuck at stage green, whereas stage Yellow is like a natural evolution towards less welfare and a more individualistic approach towards society as the pendulum swings once again towards individualism.

    Limiting welfare and having more limited government intervention backfires in the long-run.

    Mixed economies like in the Nordic countries have the most progressive, most fair, and most sustainable type of economies for everyone. Central European countries, Western European countries, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Taiwan, Singapore, Japan, and South Korea have the second 2nd fairest and 2nd most sustainable types of economies.

    The kind of Left that you are talking about in the former USSR was far-left in economics, whereby there was state ownership, central planning, and redistribution of EVERYTHING. That doesn't well work for long either. Plus, the USSR's extreme left-wing regime had no liberal democracy, was authoritarian with a one-party rule, implemented censorship, had coercive security services, and had top-down bureaucracy; the promised council democracy never materialized.

     

  8. Posted

    1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

    A centrist will certainly be a capitalist. They can't think far enough outside the box to be anything else.

    Being anti-capitalist either requires serious brainwashing or serious thinking. And no one is doing serious thinking.

    Wait, I just realized something. If today's liberals in America are centrists who rather keep the status quo/capitalism, and the broad middle or moderates are still the largest percentage of people in America, then does that mean that today's liberals in America are the largest percentage of people in America?

  11. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    33 minutes ago, Joel3102 said:

    It’s funny how many of the former Republican never-Trumpers like The Bulwark, David Frum, Kinzinger etc are far more steadfast in their Trump resistance than these “both sides” liberals like Tapper have become.

    Yeah! It is very interesting even though they are conservative-leaning individuals with healthy and good Blue values and Orange.

  12. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    18 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    Some liberals are solid Orange. Although in today's radicalized culture war environment a solid Orange person is likely to get pulled into the anti-woke or right-wing liberterian camp. Example would be Owen Cook or Joe Rogan.

    If you are solid Orange today then you are probably pro-Trump, which makes it hard to call you a liberal. But in practice Trump is quite neoliberal in his policies.

    The best example of liberals today is CNN news achors like Jake Trapper or Anderson Cooper.

    I've had it with news anchors like Jake Tapper or Anderson Cooper for not doing nearly enough to warn the people about the dangers of Trump and their constant bothsideism.

    I am also disgusted with Owen Cook and Joe Rogan.

    That means that everyone associated with Chorus and Pod Save America must have a lot more Green in them than all of the abovementioned names.

  14. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

    Today there is a clear difference between liberals (centerists) and leftists (progressives).

    The difference is that liberals are mostly okay with the status quo/captialism and leftists want radical systemic changes to capitalism, sometimes going as far as socialism but not always that far.

    It is a spectrum. "Liberal" is a term co-opted by leftists to call out neoliberal capitalists and centrists.

    Most liberals are too moderate and most leftists are too radical and utopian. So the correct place to be is somewhere in the middle of liberal and leftist.

    But liberalism and progressivism are both examples of stage Green, whereas the status quo/capitalism in America is primarily stage Orange.

    So, you mean that liberals are center-left, whereas progressives are solid leftists?

     

  15. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    Hey Leo,

    About six years ago you wrote:

    On 8/24/2019 at 3:07 PM, Leo Gura said:

    @Serotoninluv 

    I would say progressives are usually more left than liberals and progressives really care about making structural reforms to the system without too much concern for maintaining the old norms. One of those old norms is the dogma that capitalism is the only viable system and an absolute good.

    To me a progressive cares most about making serious changes to society to improve it. A progressive sees not making enough change as more dangerous than making too much change. Which is the polar opposite of a conservative. A progressive has a vision for how great society could be if we get our shit together and act big as a unit.

    I’ve been thinking about that after studying how the terms liberal and progressive have evolved.

    Historically, figures like TR and Wilson called themselves Progressives, while FDR branded himself a Liberal—yet FDR’s reforms were even more transformative and “progressive” in practice.

    Today the boundary between the two feels even blurrier: mainstream liberalism dominates U.S. politics, while progressivism functions as a reformist minority inside it.

    Do you still view progressivism as that deeper willingness to redesign the entire system rather than merely improve it?

    And how do you distinguish progressivism from liberalism now—from a developmental or consciousness perspective?

    Has your view shifted as politics has evolved since you first said that?

    Would like to hear your updated take

  17. Posted

    39 minutes ago, kguirnela said:

    I get that, but what if he's been told the answer so many times? Also who is he listening to, pragmatic progressives like David Pakman, Thom Hartmann, Hutch etc, or some blackpill leftists like TYT, Secular Talk, Vaush etc? I'm also asking in a general sense. Ik I'm hypocritical to an extent but at the same time if I don't try to lower the content I consume or at least try to learn how the government works, I'm gonna end up a blackpill liberal. Does this make sense to you or I need to clarify more

    These days, I've been listening much more to pragmatic progressives like David Pakman, Pod Save America, BTC, Thom Hartmann, Hutch, IRI, etc. I still hate-watch TYT and Secular Talk, which I know I gotta stop doing.

  18. Posted

    2 hours ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

    Republicans have both the House of Representatives and Senate, and yet they can't pass a budget bill. The bill to fund the government failed in the senate of all places, which is how the shutdown happened at all, where the Republicans have a comfortable lead of 53 out of 100 seats.

    You would expect the bill to fail in the house, where the Republican's majority is very slim, but no, it failed in the Senate.

    Edit: Never-mind, it turns out that according to the constitution, 60 votes are needed for a budget, not simply a majority.

    I was wrong and stand corrected.

    This is partially the Democrats fault, its both parties fault.

     

    I'd be very careful with your "bothsideism" if I were you.

  20. Posted

    9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    Of course!

    He will not leave office peacefully. He will attempt to hijack the whole government. They are working on it every day.

    He will not hold back. And as the left pushes back more, he will double-down in his power-grab.

    America is going full MAGA dictatorship. MAGA is too stupid not to try it.

    Key insight: MAGA is too stupid to not create a dictatorship. They cannot help themselves.

    As someone once told me before: Canada is looking real good now.

  21. Posted

    12 hours ago, Elliott said:

    The stat you just qouted me posting says the opposite.

    How so?

     

    12 hours ago, kguirnela said:

    Are you saying local elections don't matter??

    I didn't say that they don't, but the electorate is just not the same. 

    Here's a quote from Dan Pfieffer about this: 

    "As many of you know, Democrats are the party of high-propensity voters. As data from Catalist, a Democratic analytics firm, shows: the more frequently someone votes, the more likely they are to vote Democratic.

    That means as overall turnout increases, the additional, less-frequent voters who enter the electorate tend to lean Republican. In 2024, those voters broke for Trump — which explains how Biden could be trailing Trump in the polls even as Democrats were winning down-ballot races in red states like Kentucky."

    https://www.messageboxnews.com/p/democrats-keep-winning-special-elections?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share

  22. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    1 hour ago, Elliott said:

    It's typically democrats that do better in presidential elections compared to other elections.

     

    "2022 midterm example: A Pew Research Center report found that in the 2022 midterms, a higher percentage of 2020 Trump voters (71%) turned out compared to 2020 Biden voters (67%)"

    Yeah, well not so much anymore. They lost to Trump and the GOP in 2016, they barely beat them in 2020 when they should’ve killed them in a landslide, and they lost to them again in 2024.

  23. Posted

    5 minutes ago, Elliott said:

    It's in the bag

     

     

    Newsweek

    Map Shows Where Democrats Are Overperforming in Special Elections

    Sep 10, 2025 — Special election results, some of which have seen Democrats overperform Harris by 50 points or more,

    FB_IMG_1759198649054.jpg

     

     

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/economy/major-bank-raises-red-flag-on-us-economy-warns-of-93-chance-of-recession-based-on-hard-data-here-are-5-crucial-money-moves-you-need-to-make-now/ar-AA1NxOnq?ocid=BingNewsVerp

    Again, special elections don't have a lot of those dumb, low-information, and less engaged voters like in presidential elections.

     

  24. Posted

    4 hours ago, Elliott said:

    What damage? 'Republican' has been damaged, 'Democratic' has been strengthened by the overt republican corruption.

    Democrats have been winning in red districts.

    It's not about talent, democrats win on policy, it's republicans only way to win is by smoke and mirrors shows.

     

    https://www.npr.org/2025/09/24/nx-s1-5551198/democrat-wins-congressional-seat-in-arizona-narrowing-gops-slim-house-majority

    The Democratic brand is still more damaged than the Republican brand, sadly. So even though many people dislike the GOP, even more dislike the Democrats.

    Before the 2024 election year, I thought that the Democrats’ strong performance in special elections, midterms, and off-year elections was a good sign for their chances in 2024. However, it’s clear to me now that the electorate in special elections, midterms, and off-year races is too different from the general electorate in presidential elections.

    Presidential general elections bring out a much higher percentage of low-information, less engaged, and less politically developed voters than special, midterm, or off-year elections do. I don’t see how Democrats can win over enough of those voters when so many are too misinformed, too disengaged, or too deeply influenced by right-wing and alternative media.