Hardkill

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    5,195

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Hardkill

  1. Posted

    9 minutes ago, enchanted said:

    That's the question Democratic leaders can't seem to answer. Except Mamdani. 

    Mamdani is the right way to do leftist politics, and it's the method he borrowed from Bernie Sanders: 

    Focus on the working class and stand up to billion donors. Promise real change and seem authentic. 

    Even if he does win, his campaign strategy won't work for most Democrats outside of the city. He's way too far to the left for rural Americans, suburban Americans, those in the South, and those in Middle America.

  2. Posted

    49 minutes ago, Emerald said:

    That's the wrong way to think about the purpose of this protest... and protests in general.

    First off, it shows strength in numbers and that people aren't just going to stand down and allow the Trump administration to do what it wants.

    Secondly, the Trump administration is cracking down on the right to protest. You see, most authoritarian regimes don't need to take freedoms by force. The people willingly modify their behavior before they're forced to because they get intimidated by the authoritarian regime. What Trump hopes for is to crack down on some protesters so that people get afraid and stop protesting. So, it's important to use the right to protest... or we will certainly lose it.

    Third, it's a great networking event for grassroots political organization to get more average people pushing back in small ways.

    I mean, I suppose it's a good start, but what exactly are the people protesting going to be asking for?

    There is no unified or cohesive plan and no message discipline for sharpening any serious demands.

    What concrete demands do they want from the government and from the political parties? 

    Do they want these ICE raids to go away for good? Are they wanting free and fair elections, including the elimination of nationwide gerrymandering for future elections? Do they want Trump to stop these stupid fucking tariffs and pressure him to help fix the people's financial situation like he promised he would?

    We desperately need an MLK or Obama-like figure to step up and give some kind of incredibly powerful speeches that will truly grab the people's attention and move them towards getting the support we need to get some kind of major policy win from the government.

  3. Posted

    By the end of Obama’s two terms, Democrats had lost nearly 1,000 state-legislative seats, along with dozens of congressional seats and a dozen governorships—the party’s worst down-ballot wipeout since Herbert Hoover’s time.

    Even Democratic and Black commentators like Roland Martin have argued that Obama’s team prioritized his personal brand/OFA over rebuilding the DNC and state parties—contributing to those losses.

     

    Honestly, what makes this even harder to swallow is seeing how deeply the effects of that down-ballot collapse are still shaping the country today.
    Democrats haven’t held a majority of state power — not in legislatures, governorships, or trifectas — since 2010. That’s fifteen straight years of structural disadvantage.

    Republicans used that power to redraw maps, pass voter restrictions, reshape courts, and ultimately lock in control of the Supreme Court for an entire generation. The result is a political imbalance so entrenched that even a popular Democratic president can’t easily undo it.

    And now, with Trump’s movement still alive, the GOP controlling most of the states, and a conservative supermajority on the Court, it’s hard not to feel like democracy itself is hanging by a thread.

    Sometimes it feels like we’re watching the slow undoing of everything people fought for in the 20th century — civil rights, voting rights, environmental protection, women’s autonomy — all of it eroding in slow motion. It’s honestly depressing.
    Because it’s not just about Obama, or even the Democratic Party — it’s about the long-term failure to build durable power that can defend truth, fairness, and the rule of law.

  4. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

     I’ve heard Leo say several times that eventually at least 50% of Americans will wake up — that people will see through the lies, the tribalism, and the authoritarian slide, and that progressives and centrists will eventually fight back and regain control.

    But I can’t shake this feeling that it might be too late by the time that happens.

    The Left and the Democratic Party have always been far more circular and divided than the Republican Party. The Right operates like a top-down machine: disciplined, unified, and emotionally cohesive. The Left behaves more like a loose confederation of internal wars — centrists vs. progressives, idealists vs. pragmatists, activists vs. institutionalists.

    It’s not that the Left lacks moral or intellectual grounding; it’s that it lacks strategic unity. Every attempt to form a broad coalition seems to implode under the weight of purity tests, ideological infighting, and a near-religious obsession with nuance.

    So, my question is: What makes you think the Democratic Party and the broader Left will get it together in time for any of the most critical elections — 2026, 2028, or even beyond — before it’s too late?

    Even if 50% of people “wake up,” how does that awakening translate into coordinated, effective political power? How does consciousness overcome disorganization, ego clashes, and the structural advantages the Right already holds in media, the courts, and the electoral system?

    I’m not trying to be cynical — I’m genuinely looking for the mechanism that connects awakening to real-world results. Because from where I stand, awareness without unity might not be enough.

  5. Posted

    Lately, I’ve been feeling a growing dread that America might not even make it to 2028 with real democracy intact. This isn’t paranoia. It’s looking straight at the trends — the propaganda, the disinformation, the collapse of trust, the power grabs at state and federal levels — and realizing that we might be watching the slow-motion death of free and fair elections.

    And what terrifies me most is that I don’t see an easy way out of it. I don’t see any stable path forward that doesn’t involve massive social upheaval, disillusionment, or even violence.

    1. The Feeling of Powerlessness

    It’s one thing to know that democracy is fragile — it’s another to feel it collapsing in real time. You can sense the numbness setting in. People are so divided and confused that even blatant authoritarian behavior gets normalized. Lies don’t matter. Institutions don’t matter. All that matters now is tribal victory and emotional gratification.

    Sometimes I honestly wonder if there’s any peaceful route left. If elections themselves lose legitimacy, then what tools do conscious people have left to restore truth and justice?

    2. A Civilization Regressing in Consciousness

    From a developmental perspective, it feels like we’re witnessing a collective regression — from Green and Yellow values back down to Red and Blue. Fear and ego are swallowing empathy and truth. The system is too complex, too corrupted, too emotionally charged for most people to even perceive what’s happening, let alone correct it.

    It’s like watching a global mind fragment into incoherence. The higher functions are still there, but the organism is turning on itself.

    3. Searching for a Response That Isn’t Hopeless

    I know there are people who say, “Just organize, just protest, just vote harder.” But what if that no longer works? What if the very mechanisms of accountability are rigged or erased? What if truth itself has no authority anymore?

    Part of me wants to believe in collective awakening. Another part sees how deep the rot goes — how addicted people are to outrage, how incapable they are of nuance — and it feels almost irreversible.

    Maybe the only thing left is to hold on to inner integrity — to refuse to let cynicism or hatred consume us, even as the structure around us collapses. To form small communities of sanity, consciousness, and love while the wider system burns.

    4. The Hard Question

    If the United States truly loses free and fair elections — if the game itself becomes rigged beyond repair — what then?

    What do conscious people actually do when the political system no longer responds to truth or reality?

    Because right now, I honestly don’t know.

  7. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    Authenticity in the domain of politics is a very loaded and tricky notion. No politician is allowed to be truly authentic, otherwise they would never get elected and the public would take them.

    Politics is not a domain for authenticity, honesty, and truth because the entire political system is built on lies, fantasies, and corruption.

    So, then how are moderate/establishment Democrats going to be able to fix their messaging problem or win in future elections if they can't sound "too authentic", but at the same time have an authenticity problem, which is a big part of why Harris and the Democrats lost in 2024?

    Btw, have you watched this vid from David Pakman on this problem?

     

  8. Posted

    11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

    It is easy to be authentic when you hold no power and no responsiblity.

    Venting online is very authentic. But it's a freedom people in positions of responsibility and power mostly do not have.

    I kinda get what you're saying, but what about the presidents who actually became more fiery and populist after taking office — like TR, FDR, Truman, LBJ, Trump, and even Biden to some extent?

    Doesn’t that suggest that authenticity can evolve with responsibility rather than disappear under it? Maybe the real challenge for leadership today isn’t choosing between authenticity and restraint, but learning how to stay emotionally real while holding power. Especially now, when voters are so sick of polished, poll-tested language, do you think that kind of “strategic authenticity” might actually be what effective leadership requires?

  9. Posted

    So, progressives can’t win much power because they will always be too radical for most Americans. Meanwhile,  moderates are becoming less electable because people are tired of them sounding like soulless vessels who lack conviction, sound too rehearsed, don’t answer the questions like everyday people, come off as too pro-establishment/too pro-status quo, and have no clear bold reason for why they are running for office. 
     

    I really feel so dejected about all of this….

  10. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    That's a pretty good list of reasons why it will be almost impossible for Trump and his party to pull off a true authoritarian takeover of the country.

    Although I am still very worried about the elimination of free and fair elections as a real possibility.

    Then again, I now think that maybe we have too much democracy because of how many stupid people we really have in this country.

  11. 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.

  12. 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?

     

  13. 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?

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

     

  17. 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?

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  23. 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?

     

  24. 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