Hardkill

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    4,888

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Hardkill

  2. Posted

    37 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    By building companies that provide massive value.

    Leftists don't understand how basic business works. Value doesn't fall from the sky, you have to build companies to generate it.

    Just because Musk is a douchebag doesn't mean don't build great companies.

    Most great companies are built by douchebags. 

    I get all of that. Of course, he has created immense value for society and the rest of the world through Tesla and SpaceX. Yet, you know greedy pigs like him still need to be held accountable—just as corporate tyrants such as John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and Cornelius Vanderbilt were by the early 1900s—even though their companies provided enormous benefits to America and the world.

    In any case, why wouldn't Musk be able to use some of his assets from Tesla, SpaceX, or elsewhere in his net worth to buy more stocks during a dip?

  3. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

    Musk is not a robber barron.

    Musk doesn't have any cash. All his money is invested in Tesla already. He's all-in. If the market crashed, Musk would not get rich, it would be bad for him and his companies.

    How is he not a greedy corporate tyrant who has amassed vast amounts of wealth through ruthless and unethical business practices, similar to Jeff Bezos or like John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and Cornelius Vanderbilt in the late 19th and early 20th centuries?

    Even if he doesn't have any cash, how has he been able to buy media companies like X, donate large sums of money to political campaigns, and bribe voters with million-dollar checks?

  4. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    2 hours ago, ZenRocker said:

    Thanks Leo - I always value your insights on the stock markets --- As a note: so many of the talking heads and analyst on wall street have no idea about the phycology of Trump like we do on the forum here..... They all think this bounce is the start of another new bull market and that he would never crater the economy or it just the "art of the deal" etc --- I am convinced that something he does over the next year will crash the markets.....

     

    19 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    It's hard to say.

    Robber barons like Musk probably want a recession so that greedy pigs like him can buy an ample amount of new stocks on the dip.

    They also believe that their right-wing propaganda machine, the ignorance and conservative-leaning beliefs of the majority of Americans, the Democratic party's far-left stances on social issues, and using all of the levers of power they have now to subvert future elections will protect them from being punished in the 2026 midterms and/or in the 2028 presidential election. I fear they may be right.

  5. Posted

    6 hours ago, DocWatts said:

    This brings to mind an article I read awhile back about the rise of Left-wing Conservative parties in Western Europe, which combines Left-wing economic populism that's framed around more culturally conservative values.

     

    https://open.substack.com/pub/discoursemagazine/p/the-rise-of-the-conservative-left?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1riug7

    Oh yeah, that article mentioned politicians like John Fetterman who basically have been doing what I've been saying. Sherrod Brown from Ohio was like that too.

  6. Posted

    39 minutes ago, integral said:

    @Hardkill 
    Not a single point he made matters because both parties have no chance of any kind of progress. This is all going to go downhill from here no matter what anyone does.
    The housing crisis, inflation and the cause (Rising inequality) created by a purchased government has nothing to do with the liberal party.

    Everyone is insane.

    Well, I'll admit that I don't know much about Canadian politics, I am aware of the economic problems that have been occurring in your country, and I have a certain degree of bias towards center-left to left wing parties. However, from what I know, Carney and the Liberal Party are still the lesser of the two evils.

  8. Posted

    5 hours ago, DocWatts said:

    The consensus I've seen is that Trump won due to perceptions about the economy - inflation, the cost of living crisis - rather than cultural issues. Incumbent parties on the left and the right lost pretty much everywhere in the world in that same year, as other nations deal with the same issues under Late Stage Capitalism.

    This goes hand in hand with Biden's approval reaching its high water mark - %57 - when he passed expanded benefits to help people survive during COVID. This approval rating dropped off at an almost 1:1 ratio as these programs ended.  Kamala could have made a clean break with Biden like Mark Carney did with Trudeau in Canada, and signaled that her presidency would be a bold new direction for the country. But she chose not to.

    Add to that the fact that 4 million voters were strategically were purged from voter rolls in the months leading up to the election, and that almost certainly was a factor in tipping the outcome in Trump's favor.

    But to your larger point, I agree - the Dems should abandon performative Rainbow Capitalism, and run on bold Left-wing economic populism ala the New Deal. The problem that we need to address over the coming years is that Rainbow Capitalism is preferable for the wealthy donor class that the old-guard is beholden to, due to our corrupt campaign finance system.

    Interestingly, while none of the Democratic candidates are 'popular' with conservatives, Bernie and AOC do much better than establishment Democrats and centrists like Harris and Biden. Americans are hungry for substantive change, and in lieu of genuine economic populism from the Dems they'll continue to be marks for grifters on the right.

    Yeah, I largely agree with everything you're saying. 

    Though, what if Democrats and progressives start talking about how corporate greed has ruined family values, traditional gender norms, true patriotism, real Judeo-Christian values, law and order, and other traditional values in America?

    It's not just older voters, rural folks, white voters, Protestants, men, and working-class people who feel like Democrats don't really speak to them culturally. Even a significant portion of middle-aged voters, younger first-time voters, suburbanites, Black and Brown people, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, women, and highly educated folks think the Democratic Party has been pushing left-wing social issues too hard and too quickly.

    Here are examples of how Democrats and progressives should frame traditional values through economic populism or frame economic populism through traditional values or both:

    Family Values: "Corporate greed forces both parents to work overtime for low wages, robbing families of time together. That’s not freedom — that’s economic tyranny."

    Patriotism: "Real patriots don’t offshore jobs to China or hide profits overseas. That’s betrayal, not patriotism."

    Law & Order: "The biggest looters wear suits — corporations steal wages, poison water, and walk free while poor folks get prison time."

    Judeo-Christian Values: "No religion teaches that billionaires should hoard wealth while kids go hungry. The donor class mocks faith with every tax loophole they exploit."

    Traditional Gender Norms: "It wasn’t feminism that pushed moms into 60-hour workweeks — it was low wages and unaffordable healthcare."

  9. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    On 4/28/2025 at 8:23 AM, Raze said:

    The issue is we live in a two party system, so his weakness is only in proportion to the strength of his opposition, and currently democrats are even weaker.

    Also, Americans are more conservative than people like me had thought before and the country is going through a serious right-wing populist backlash.

    However, if Dems sounded a lot more like right-wingers on virtually every social issue, except on climate change and abortion rights, and ran on more New Deal economic populist type of messages, then they could eventually win back the solid majority of the people including the majority of white voters and rural voters in this country.

    I hate to say it, but it's become clear to me now that most of the social justice stances the Democrats have taken since the late 1900s have hurt their party way too much by scaring too many older voters, rural voters, white voters, protestant voters, men, and working-class voters. 

  10. Posted

    On 4/24/2025 at 4:07 AM, Breathe said:

    I don't understand that. Bernie is a broken record. He just goes on about affordable healthcare, affordable education, and living wages.

    Who the fuck can't relate to that.

    He does, however, need to shut the fuck up about being a "democratic socialist". :ph34r:

    Yes, people say they want the kinds of things that Bernie proposes, but most Americans don’t trust the government to enact those progressive policies to the degree that liberals/progressives believe in using the government as an agent of human welfare.

    Also, the way he sold M4A was bad because he said that it would replace all private health insurance with government run health insurance. Most Americans still prefer private health insurance over government run health insurance.

  13. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    7 hours ago, DocWatts said:

    Bernie Sanders is a great example of how to do this well - while he's clearly very progressive on social issues, pretty much all of his messaging is laser focused on how ordinary Americans are getting screwed over by a system that favors billionaires and corporations at thier expense.

    When he's asked about social issues, he's very adept at framing his response around economic populism in a way that ordinary people can understand.

    There's a reason that Bernie has the highest favorability rating of any US Senator.

    Yet, he lost the Democratic nomination in 2016 and 2020. It wasn't even close either times.

    It's because he doesn't come off as someone who can relate to most everyday Americans culturally. 

  14. Posted

    12 minutes ago, Daniel Balan said:

    Totally right! But actually climate policies is also what made the afd in Germany get so much votes! Many factories and industries that were powered by coal were decommissioned in Germany and as a result many people were left unemployed! I think that climate action is needed badly but unfortunately it was done very foolishly by the rulling left govt. They have shut down the main industrial pollution centres while offering no suitable green energy substitute. Also does climate change stop if Germany or Europe or the US use 100% green energy? Of course not, you still have 70% more of the planet that doesn't give a damn about climate change. For climate change to stop there should be a global effort in that direction. The current approach only will accelerate climate change because of the huge backlash and deregulation that comes when the far right ultimately takes the power from the left due to these policies that directly impacted the citizenry. The citizenry doesn't care about climate when they are fired from their job because of measures to stop climate change.

    Climate change needs to be framed in a way that has to be with providing the working class, middle class, and working poor good-paying green jobs like the IRA has been on its way to doing. They also need to talk about how renewable energy will be the future backbone of our economy and will bring about perpetual energy independence in the US.

  15. Posted

    Democrats need to stop talking about race/ethnicity, gender, LGBTQ+, and any other social justice issues besides abortion and climate change. Abortion is the only social issue that Democrats are clearly winning and climate change is one of the most vital issues for everyone in the long-run.

    The Democrats have kept moving too far to the left on social issues since the 1970s and need to move more to the left on economic issues.

  18. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    There is no room for empathy when you run a country like Russia!

    These are matters of life and death. Not some hippie worldview. 

    20 million Russian died in WW2! And you whine about empathy.

    I get it. I know that Russia still requires a ruthless dictator to run the country.

    However, that doesn't excuse how egotistical Stalin was or how self-serving Putin is.

    Like you said before, the less developed a society is the more selfish the people are and the more they need to be governed by fear, whereas the more developed a society is the less selfish the people in the country are and the more they can be governed with love.

  19. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    That has nothing to do with narcissism.

    That you cannot see that is disturbing.

    How does it not have to do with narcissism?

    Lack of empathy is one of the key traits of narcissism.

    psychologists, psychiatrists, and other legitimate mental health experts have stated that the nine big traits of narcissism are:

    1. Lack of empathy

    2. Excessive need for admiration

    3. Envious of others

    4. Sense of entitlement

    5. Grandiose sense of self

    6. Arrogant and haughty behavior

    7. Exploitation of others

    8. Interpersonally exploitive behavior

    9. Arrogance

    You have to have an insane lack of empathy to do everything that Putin has done. Putin has also undoubtedly exhibited all of the 8 other traits of narcissism.

  20. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    Or is that your projection?

    Everyone has at least some degree of ego or narcissism in order to survive. 

    However, when it gets to clinical levels of narcissism if not extreme levels of narcissism that's when you really begin to truly ruin the lives of people you're involved with.

    Yes, authoritarianism is suited for a country like Russia and Putin comes off as a smart, hard-working, and serious leader; however, you cannot deny how incredibly selfish he is for murdering a lot of innocent and good people in Russia and Ukraine.

    I don't think he really cares about the well-being of the people of his country. He just cares about amassing as much power and wealth as possible and having a great legacy.

  21. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    That can't be correct.

    Not all authoritarians are narcissists.

    Putin does not act like a narcissist.

    Authortirainism is a response to extremely challenging survival conditions. It's much more profound than just someone with a big ego. Authoritarianism is functional. It serves survival. Which is why it is appealing to millions of people. It's not about ego, it's about how best to organize society so that it functions effectively.

    Putin is very narcissistic. You can't become a power-hungry ruthless monster like him without unusually high levels of narcissism. Not to mention the incredible lack of empathy he has for all of the lives he has taken in both Russia and Ukraine.

  22. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    On 4/16/2025 at 6:17 PM, Leo Gura said:

    I will post a steelman of China on my blog soon.

    China is doing some very impressive things that we should be openminded to. Especially given how badly America has been mismanaging itself over the last 25 years. It is no longer tenable that the American system is the best way of doing things.

     

    On 4/16/2025 at 7:05 PM, Leo Gura said:

    Yes, that's a major factor.

    But also, China is more collectivist, which means they actually believe government is good and they are willing to self-sacrifice for the betterment of society. This is a deeply correct principle, unlike America's absurdly self-defeating libertarianism.

    Libertarianism and fundamentalism has ruined America.

    You cannot have a great society where everyone only acts out of private selfishness.

    That Americans do not understand this in principle is shameful and stupid. And it's why China will overtake America as the world's superpower.

    I genuinely wish that the United States would adopt many of the collectivist principles found in China. I also wish more Americans believed that government, in general, is good.

    However, as you know, China is still nowhere near as developed, wealthy, or powerful as the United States. Not to mention, of course, the significantly reduced freedoms and voting rights for Chinese citizens compared to Americans.

    Additionally, China's economy is currently in far worse shape than America's due to factors such as weak private consumption, comparatively limited social safety nets, and an intense cultural fear of personal debt, despite being burdened by considerably higher levels of corporate and governmental debt than the U.S. Furthermore, China's financial system heavily favors producers and local governments rather than consumers, while the U.S. financial system provides substantially greater support for consumers—quite ironic given China's collectivist orientation.

    Nevertheless, I think it's possible that China and US could become equal superpower nations one day, whereby the USA would be the greatest Western superpower in the world while China would become the greatest Eastern superpower in the world. 

  25. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    After reading Leo's blog post on "How Right-Wing Dominates Social Media" I was contemplating again on what seriously needs to be done to combat the dominance of the right-wing media. Here are more ideas I have for that:

    The majority of people are still Stage Blue (order, tradition) or Stage Orange (success, logic).

    If you speak only in Stage Green language, you’ll sound confusing, weak, elitist, or alien.

    But if you code-switch — using language and stories that resonate with Blue/Orange values — you can open doors for them to evolve upward.

    💬 Example:
    Don’t say “late-stage capitalism is causing ecosystem collapse.”
    Say: “Big corporations are screwing your kids’ future just to pad their profits.”

    Same truth. Different language.

    2. 🏗️ Stage Orange Is Necessary for Building Infrastructure

    Orange energy is strategic, productive, money-savvy, ambitious.

    You need Orange for:

    Running organizations

    Monetizing without selling out

    Scaling operations

    Playing algorithm chess

    Hiring creatives and coders who can compete with Silicon Valley

    🔧 Green alone can't build the machine — Orange knows how to build systems that work.

    3. 🔵 Stage Blue is How You Reach the Masses Emotionally

    Blue understands loyalty, family, patriotism, morality.

    You can reach people who seem MAGA by speaking to their values — but reframed.

    💬 For example:

    “You love your country? Then make sure every American has clean water and a decent job. That’s real patriotism.”

    This is framing justice as moral duty, not just policy preference.

    4. 🟢 Stage Green Sets the Compass

    Green brings the vision.

    It holds the ethical standard, the humane perspective, the inclusive worldview.

    Without Green, you risk becoming another hollow corporate media company.

    But Green needs Orange and Blue to carry the vision to the masses.

    🧭 Green = compass
    🔨 Orange = builder
    🔊 Blue = amplifier

    🔄 It’s a Spiral, Not a Hierarchy

    Each stage plays a role:

    You don’t mock Blue — you uplift its healthy expressions (loyalty, sacrifice, faith).

    You don’t shame Orange — you steer it toward long-term impact over ego.

    You don’t isolate Green — you embed it within the language of the people.

    And eventually… you graduate to Stage Yellow — which integrates all previous stages and thinks systemically.

    TL;DR

    ✅ Stage Green brings the values
    ✅ Stage Orange builds the strategy
    ✅ Stage Blue delivers the story