.jpg.3c04741955d62a5239fc02efa035ca7b.jpg)
Hardkill
Member-
Content count
5,168 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Hardkill
-
-
I am glad the Democrats didn't let the funding for this tyrannical government continue. Hopefully it lasts for weeks.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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,
Again, special elections don't have a lot of those dumb, low-information, and less engaged voters like in presidential elections.
-
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.
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.
-
It's still not clear that Newsom can pull it off.
What if the damage to the Democratic brand has been so great that they never want to elect another Democrat for president again, no matter how talented any Democrat out there is?
-
Some Leftists are already freaking out about this:
-
48 minutes ago, Raze said:The top issues are healthcare, inflation, and economy. Democrats still have healthcare, so really all that matters is if people continue being unsatisfied with the economy and start to blame Trump more and think democrats could do better.
So, what do you think about what David Pakman is saying?
He's already interviewed many establishment/moderate Democratic politicians and says that none of them have been willing to learn how to be good at doing interviews in independent and alternative media. I worry that if Democrats don't fix their credibility, messaging, and media strategy problems soon, then the majority of Americans may never believe in electing any Democrat for president, may never be able to stop the radical right courts, and may never win back control of Congress, except for maybe just the House.
-
10 minutes ago, Mayonnaise said:@Leo Gura What do you think it will take for the majority of our society to elevate past toxic orange? how long do you think it will take? Also i know this is kind of a random way of thinking about it, but if God is infinity, then wouldn't it have to be included for a "timeline" or something for society to be toxic orange/ blue or red , etc. as a necessity to be included within that infinity? (but if thats the case, then at some point things will have to shift to other stages too) what do you think?
I think that another economic depression and/or another World War or some extreme collapse of our country maybe the very best shot of getting the past this toxic orange.
-
-
7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:I'm talking about today's left in America.
White supremacist, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic.
Kirk was all of those things.
Learn what those term actually mean, not just as memes.
Even though Lenin was a Hard Leftist he was still fundamentally a conservative. He was never a true liberal or progressive, correct?
-
On 9/17/2025 at 1:01 AM, Daniel Balan said:Conservatives are right on:
- Migration
- Not allowing late term abortions.
- Pushing back against lgbtq trans propaganda
- Tight and secure borders
- Pushing back against demonic climate change action such as deindustrialization that leave millions of factory workers unemployed.
- Strong police and military
- Wanting to stop offshoring and having manufacturing jobs back in their country as opposed to offshoring manufacturing overseas.
Liberals are right on:
- Well thought Climate change action. We need climate action as fast and as strong as possible but we also need to not have millions of people lose their jobs because of it.
- Protecting sexual minorites, making sure the lgbtq community is safe and protected and has the same rights as the regular community. Although without propaganda in schools or obnoxious parades.
- Protecting womens right to have abortions but only up until the 12th week of pregnancy. After 12 weeks abortion should be banned.
-
Everything else
You're mistaken about conservatives wanting to stop offshoring and having manufacturing jobs back in their country as opposed to offshoring manufacturing overseas. Trump and the right-wing pretend to care about that. In fact, manufacturing jobs during Trump's first term continued to be offshored even more.
Biden, progressives, and Democrats actually were responsible for the historic onshoring of manufacturing jobs during Biden's presidency with the American Rescue Plan, Chips and Science Act, Inflation Reduction Act, good stewarding of the economy, and so on.
As for having strong police and military, yes that has traditionally been a right-wing characteristic; however, as I explained in another thread, virtually every liberal has been very pro-military and police, and that if you look at US History, many liberal/progressive presidents upgraded our entire national security and law enforcement. Truman, who inherited the mantle of New Deal liberalism right after FDR died in office, presided over the most comprehensive, permanent redesign of the U.S. security state: the National Security Act of 1947 created the DoD, NSC, CIA, and a separate U.S. Air Force, regularized the Joint Chiefs, and his 1952 memo stood up the NSA—the core architecture we still use.
Obama was the one who successfully presided over the assassination of Osama Bin Laden and Biden was the main leader of the world who united NATO and Ukraine against Russia, which saved most of Ukraine from Russia and dealt a very serious blow to Russia's standing in the world. All types of major crime throughout the entire country had plummeted to historic lows by the last two years of Biden's presidency.
Btw, what proof is there that the so-called “demonic climate change action” has caused deindustrialization and left millions of factory workers unemployed? If anything, the historic action on climate change during Biden’s presidency has sparked reindustrialization—creating hundreds of thousands, if not over a million, new good-paying working-class jobs across the country since 2022 for the next several years. Sadly, much of the IRA got gutted by Trump and the Republicans, especially after their passage of the OBBB.
As for immigration, progressives such as Bernie Sanders and those who are Center-Left like Joe Biden are for improving border security, and also are for more fair and legal immigration pathways in our country.
Do you understand that the only main things that virtually every right-wing and Republican political actor in US History has only ever really done are enacting more major tax cuts and more deregulation policies for the very wealthy, very powerful, and big corporations at the expense of the everyday people, small businesses, and fair trade practices?
Since the 1980s, most forward-looking national efforts to boost demand, rebuild industry, expand worker power and benefits, widen health coverage, and modernize infrastructure have been initiated by liberals and progressives. Only during times of great crisis, or when they are under intense constituency pressure, do Republicans back major packages (such as ARRA, IIJA, CHIPS, and the IRA) that provide broad relief and materially improve the lives of everyday Americans. Yet, since the 1980s, the right-wing politicians, their donors, and every conservative propagandist out there have generally prioritized tax cuts and deregulation over long-horizon industrial policy and broad, bottom-up social investment. Conservatives and the GOP usually revert to pro-capital priorities once the emergency passes, whereas Democrats and progressives continue to push for lasting, bottom-up gains outside of crises.
The Right and the Republican Party have just been better than the Left and the Democratic Party at LYING to the people about how much they care about helping the working-class, middle-class, and working poor in economy, while the Left and the Democratic Party are worse at messaging than Right and the Republican Party and have had a much weaker media ecosystem for their side than the right-wing has for decades.
Even the right-populist rebrand and rising right-populist interest in antitrust, industrial policy, and “worker power” rhetoric has just been talk on their side has been more rhetorical than programmatic.
One more thing. Do you realize that almost every liberal or progressive president since the year 1900—except for Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter—has ended their presidency with a booming economy and major net job creation in both the private and public sectors across the entire country? Meanwhile, did you know that almost every conservative president since 1900—except for William McKinley and Ronald Reagan—ended their presidencies with a recession, stagflation, depression, or even the looming of the worst economic crisis in American history, the Great Depression?
-
50 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:His audience is not being lost, it is being absorbed by some other right-wing epistemic pervert like Ben Shapiro.
Why aren’t enough centrists and Independents, even those who follow politics regularly, out there are not able to see that the Republican Party is much worse than the Democratic Party like?
Are most centrists and Independents too afraid to take a side? Are they just more corrupt or more foolish than liberals and Democrats are?
Or do centrists and Independents generally not follow politics and are not as informed as much as left-wingers, right-wingers, and highly engaged party loyalists do?
-
1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:They completely ignore how corrupt the conservatives have become.
This is not merely an issue of left vs right. It's an issue of corruption. Objectively, there has never been a more corrupt, dishonest, unfit, criminal, and authoritarian president in American history. To act like this is the fault of the left going to far is just brain-dead.
Trump literally planned and executed a coup. And these assholes dare to speak about the left going too far left because of some trans stuff. Their level of analysis is embarassing. They have the political analysis of children.
Yeah, I am totally with you. It fucking pisses me off.
Though their "rationale" is that it's not just the Democratic party that has gotten "too extreme" and "too partisan." They are saying that both major parties have gone insane and gone too far from the center, which is their reason for becoming Independents like you are. lol.
They also say that they want Trump to succeed as president for the "good of the country" and so far give him at least a "C" grade overall for the job he is doing as president. Can you believe this nonsense? Trump doesn't deserve anything close to a passing grade.
-
18 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:Lol.
This is like saying:
"I grew up owning slaves and things were cool. But then those crazy leftists ran so far to the left that now I'm fighting for the Confederacy. What a crazy world! Those crazy leftists!"
No shit. Society evolves. If you don't evolve with it you become a dinosaur.
When Owen Cook was born, beating blacks and gays to death was considered normal. It is no virtue to say that you haven't evolved in your politics. These guys say that like it's some virtue.
Yeah, if PBD and Owen were born in 1910's Germany they would be proud Nazis.
What about centrists like Manchin and Chris Cuomo saying that the Democratic Party and liberals today have gone too far to the left?
-
12 hours ago, DocWatts said:Pro tip, but you might want to consider renaming this thread 'Are Liberals More Epistemicly Developed Than Centrists' or something like that, since evolution doesn't have an end goal.
Based on anecdotes from my personal life (so take this with a grain of salt), it's my observation that centrists tend to be folks who don't want to pick a lane. Engaging deeply with issues involves far more than picking the middle point between two extremes and assuming that this is the reasonable or correct position (is the Fallacy Of The Middle).
But what about moderates like Washington and Lincoln and center-left leaders like FDR?
-
1 hour ago, Emerald said:Moderate from the perspective of the powers that be... yes.
Conservative and moderate (in this regard) tend to mean the same thing... because moderates argue for the maintenance of the status quo and to keep the power structure as it is.
We have lost sight of the meaning of the word Conservative in today's world, because our current "Conservatives" are actually acting as agents of radical change who are attempting to make revolutionary changes to American government and culture towards a Christo-Fascist dictatorship and/or a Technocratic Plutocratic Fascist dictatorship.
But to be truly Conservative is to be a moderate. So, moderates in contemporary American culture are Libertarian-leaning Capitalists with mildly liberal social values... but in a disengaged way.
The reality is that moderates and centrists are the true Conservatives as they are always trying to maintain the status quo for the power that be. And loyalists of the crown were moderate from the perspective of those in power, despite being a minority amongst American colonists.
But among the oppressed lower-powered colonists, revolutionary ideas gained a critical mass of people who wanted to break away from the norm. And they did so by force against the powers that be.
They were radicals from the perspective of the moderate status quo (which is determined by those in power).
And radicals only come to power by force. Nothing that's radical ever gets accepted through the established means of the powers that be... not by democratic voting nor by mandate of the king.
But, given that the radicals became a plurality of the low-powered colonists, it gained a sense of normalcy within the American colonial population. So, it became normal in the context of the colonies to become a radical from the perspective of the powers that be.
And they fought with force and won. And eventually, the radical position became the status quo... and therefore moderate.
But the colonists were still radicals. They were just radicals who gained a critical mass... which does not make them moderate.
The thing that made them moderate is that the figure-head American revolutionaries eventually got accepted as the powers that be.
There is mainstream conservatism, mainstream centrism, and mainstream liberalism.
but I get your point. What was once an unthinkable or radical form of progress eventually becomes mainstream.
-
5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:Banning guns in USA is simply impossible. But raising the age to own is possible and reasonable.
We had a federal assault weapon ban passed in Congress in the 1990s during Clinton's presidency with the 1994 crime bill that was sponsored by then Senator Biden. Sadly, it only lasted for 10 years. Bush actually wanted to renew that law but never got the support he needed in Congress for it.
Federal law banned the civilian transfer and possession of new machine guns as of May 19, 1986, through the Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA).
-
14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:But guns are much rarer than USA so it is acceptable.
USA needs stricter rules because guns are too available.
Then, we have to somehow replace the 2nd amendment with a new amendment and/or overthrow the radical right-wingers on SCOTUS to ban most guns for all civilians except for hunting guns, federal level gun permits, and major federal level background checks.
-
17 hours ago, Emerald said:About 40% wanted independence from Britain and about 20% were British loyalists. So, the plurality of American colonists wanted independence... which is the critical mass.
But those in power are the moderates... which was the crown itself and those in the colonies that were loyal to the crown.
So, American colonists gathered enough support for Americans to fight for independence.
Wait, are you sure that all of those in power and were loyal to the crown were moderates?
Imperial power (the Crown/Parliament) was, of course, the incumbent. But in the colonies, power was split: many Patriot leaders were also local elites (planters, merchants, lawyers, officeholders).
“Moderate” in 1775–76 often meant reconciliationist (stay in the empire but with reforms). Some of these moderates later drifted Patriot once reconciliation died; others stayed neutral or Loyalist.
Across both eras, conservatives generally favored less and slower change than moderates, who were more open to positive reforms short of radical rupture.
-
45 minutes ago, Emerald said:Yes to the abolition of slavery AFTER the Civil War... and yes to the New Deal... as these were honored by the presidents in power as the moderate 'normal' position to hold. And time normalized them even more.
The American Revolution was a different story though, as it was a group of radicals that eventually gained enough support from a critical mass of people who were fed up with taxation without representation.
And that was achieved through force and radicals winning out in battle against the moderate establishment... and not democratically through being accepted as the moderate position by those in the center.
The moderates of the time were loyal to the British crown. Most people in the Southern colonies during that time were British loyalists.
Moderates always preserve the powers that be. And moderates of that era wanted to stay under the rule of the king.
But after the American Revolution, American independence became normalized and moderate. And now, it would be considered very extreme to want America to be back under British rule.
But it wasn't moderate to be pro-American independence when the American Revolution was going on.
Makes sense.
Actually, I thought that some majority of Americans during the American Revolution were either for Independence from the British empire or were undecided/indifferent to the issue.
Also, I thought that a majority of all of Americans wanted slavery to end towards the end of the Civil War.
-
9 minutes ago, Emerald said:No one radical will ever be in power, except if that power is taken through top-down authoritarian force.
That will never change. It will always be the case that moderates and centrists will be in power in a democracy. Radicals do not get elected.
And if a person gets elected, they are not radical in the eyes of society.
But what is radical and what is moderate are purely socially constructed and plastic... and public opinion can shift quickly.
So, Nazism was moderate in Nazi Germany.
Likewise, that which we now consider progressive can also be considered moderate in a future era.
The most important thing is to insist that kindness is normal and moderate... and that cruelty is radical and extreme.
People struggle with that though... even though it's very simple to insist on. People over-complicate things in a way that normalizes needless suffering and hatred... and treats basic human decency and common sense as radical and extreme.
So, America breaking from the British Empire became moderate during the American Revolution, the abolition of slavery and grants some basic rights to blacks became moderate during and after the Civil War, and the New Deal agenda became moderate during the Great Depression.
-
1 hour ago, Emerald said:Manchin identifies himself as a centrist because people are uninformed and will assume him to actually be in the center in terms of his political opinions relative to the general populace.
But he's really a center right corporatist who is nowhere near the center of public opinion. He's a Centrist based in the center position of establishment politics.
But he's a different bird than what I'm talking about. Joe Manchin has actual viewpoints of his own, at least.
Centrists are usually people who believe that it's always wise to take the dead-center position on every issue... as they see the center as the most moderate and sensible position by default.
So, if one side is pro-slavery and one side is anti-slavery and those are both normalized positions within the Overton Window, someone who identifies strongly with Centrism would be pro-slavery with better conditions for slaves.
Or in Nazi Germany, the Centrist might be someone who might advocate for work camps rather than death camps.
Centrism in the way that most self-described Centrists think about it is that the dead-center is always the most wise position. And it's a way to phone in one's political opinions by defaulting the more normalized opinions in society... even if the most normalized options cause a lot of harm.
So, if it's normalized and taken-for-granted in the society to see dogs as vermin and murder them and the fringe position is not to murder dogs.... then Centrists will be pro-dog-murder and will see anti-dog-murderers as crazy radicals that want to save the vermin.
Being a Centrist is to lack a perspective of one's own.
Yeah, I get what you’re saying and that’s what Leo said a while back.
Though no great leader or president in US history was ever truly a hard left-winger. Not even Washington, Lincoln, or FDR. Even though they were historic forward looking figures they were all relatively moderate for their time.
Do you think that’s because those leaders governed during times when certain crises and/or certain mass movements were able to push progressive revolutionary ideas move into the center of political spectrum?
in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
Posted
I'd be very careful with your "bothsideism" if I were you.