A video on how existential the political crisis in our country is

[Hardkill]

 

[Raze]

Great video. I warned about a lot of this years ago and the attitude was completely dismissive. If Newsom is the nominee democrats are screwed. They need a radical transformation.

[Hardkill]

1 hour ago, Raze said:

Great video. I warned about a lot of this years ago and the attitude was completely dismissive. If Newsom is the nominee democrats are screwed. They need a radical transformation.

I thought you were feeling hopeful before about Republicans losing badly and were starting to like Newsom:

On 1/15/2026 at 7:32 PM, Raze said:

That’s because the plan is to just let republicans screw up enough so that people feel forced to vote for them and they don’t have to change at all.

And to be honest it’s working, they’re actually doing slightly better in polls and everyone’s lining up behind Newsom. 

Edited Tuesday at 04:42 AM by Hardkill

[Raze]

25 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

I thought you were feeling hopeful before about Republicans losing badly and were starting to like Newsom:

That’s not me being hopeful. I’m saying Newsom will be a repeat of Biden. Just kicks the can down the road 4 years without fundamentally shifting the trajectory probably making the eventual situation worse.

Only advantage is that younger voters lean left so time is on dems side in that regard. 

Edited Tuesday at 05:07 AM by Raze

[Hardkill]

14 hours ago, Raze said:

That’s not me being hopeful. I’m saying Newsom will be a repeat of Biden. Just kicks the can down the road 4 years without fundamentally shifting the trajectory probably making the eventual situation worse.

Only advantage is that younger voters lean left so time is on dems side in that regard. 

Yeah.....that's honestly one of my main worries.

However, if say Newsom were to become president in 2028, he undoubtedly would be a much stronger communicator for the country than Biden was during his presidency. So, if he governs successfully like Biden did, but is also able to win the messaging war unlike Biden and Harris who failed at that, then he would have a much better shot than either Biden or Harris did in winning the presidency again in 2032. It would be like how Obama won re-election in 2012.

Nevertheless, the fact that the Democratic party are still struggling to win the messaging war because of the dominance of the right-wing propaganda and how behind the development of the liberal/progressive media ecosystem, deeply worries me about the future of elections.

Edited Tuesday at 07:44 PM by Hardkill

[Elliott]

The only reason people vote for republicans, is that they hate socialism. That's it, you two are the problem.

[Raze]

1 hour ago, Elliott said:

The only reason people vote for republicans, is that they hate socialism. That's it, you two are the problem.

The democrats have never put forward a socialist candidate.

The programs you call “socialism” are some of the most popular in the country.

[Elliott]

28 minutes ago, Raze said:

The democrats have never put forward a socialist candidate.

The programs you call “socialism” are some of the most popular in the country.

There's no such thing as a "socialist program", Raze.

Try, for once, actually sticking your head out of your bubble and listening to what republican voters actually say.

[Raze]

3 hours ago, Elliott said:

There's no such thing as a "socialist program", Raze.

Try, for once, actually sticking your head out of your bubble and listening to what republican voters actually say.

Then there are no “socialists” in the democrat party, the most left wing members just call for expanding or increasing federal programs, which we already have.

[Elliott]

Just now, Raze said:

Then there are no “socialists” in the democrat party, the most left wing members just call for expanding or increasing federal programs, which we already have.

The idiotic reckless language used by people like AOC is more harmful than any programs people support. You actually may be right though, AOC is so stupid she probably doesn't even know what socialism actually is, her and bumbling Bernie think social security is socialism.

[Elliott]

 

Was it Jeffries or Schumer that went Socialist when I wasn't looking? What "radical policy" did this, all-knowing Socialists?

It was the republicans radical policy. Now we're winning, because Americans want sanity, and you want us to copy the republicans losing strategy!

Heil Marx! ✋️

 

You're in a cult

Edited Wednesday at 06:11 PM by Elliott

[Raze]

12 hours ago, Elliott said:

Was it Jeffries or Schumer that went Socialist when I wasn't looking? What "radical policy" did this, all-knowing Socialists?

It was the republicans radical policy. Now we're winning, because Americans want sanity, and you want us to copy the republicans losing strategy!

Heil Marx! ✋️

 

You're in a cult

Your reasoning is so idiotic and bad faith it’s unbelievable

Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris were not socialist, Schumer and Pelosi were not socialist, Democrats lost both elections with them while Schumer and Pelosi were representing congress.

Your conclusion? This is socialisms fault.

Now democrats are still not socialists, but actually have more open talk of socialism and even socialist candidates like Mamdani representing them at least in the media.

Democrats start winning, your conclusion? It’s because they’re not socialist.

Its a idiotic unfalsifiable opinion. If democrats lose it’s because socialism, if they win it’s because they aren’t socialist, meanwhile they never were socialist in either case.

[Elliott]

6 hours ago, Raze said:

Your reasoning is so idiotic and bad faith it’s unbelievable

Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris were not socialist, Schumer and Pelosi were not socialist, Democrats lost both elections with them while Schumer and Pelosi were representing congress.

Your conclusion? This is socialisms fault.

Now democrats are still not socialists, but actually have more open talk of socialism and even socialist candidates like Mamdani representing them at least in the media.

Democrats start winning, your conclusion? It’s because they’re not socialist.

Its a idiotic unfalsifiable opinion. If democrats lose it’s because socialism, if they win it’s because they aren’t socialist, meanwhile they never were socialist in either case.

Just going to completely ignore what the thread is about?

Socialist amnesia?

 

On 2/2/2026 at 10:26 PM, Raze said:

Great video. I warned about a lot of this years ago and the attitude was completely dismissive. If Newsom is the nominee democrats are screwed. They need a radical transformation.

 

 

Edited Thursday at 01:31 PM by Elliott

[Raze]

11 hours ago, Elliott said:

Just going to completely ignore what the thread is about?

Socialist amnesia?

 

 

 

That’s because unlike you I’m capable of thinking beyond what is happening at this very moment.

You would have been here cheering on Biden’s 2020 victory and insisting it proved you right and democrats are doing everything right. In reality it was leading to disaster.

Short term success is not the same as long term success.

Also you brought up the socialism nonsense which the thread wasn’t about.

[Elliott]

42 minutes ago, Raze said:

That’s because unlike you I’m capable of thinking beyond what is happening at this very moment.

You would have been here cheering on Biden’s 2020 victory and insisting it proved you right and democrats are doing everything right. In reality it was leading to disaster.

Short term success is not the same as long term success.

Also you brought up the socialism nonsense which the thread wasn’t about.

 

Enlighten me, share your thoughts. Sincerely.

I never liked Biden out of the Democrat field, I did like Harris though. Don't like Newsom, but any of these will destroy republicans long-term. You just don't want someone corrupt or dumb, like AOC or Bernie, out-dumbing republicans. Nothing Biden did aside from running in 24' "led to disaster", nothing policy wise, you're just butt-hurt.

We screwed up in 2016(I opposed Hilary in the primary too, don't like hilary), Hilary was shoed in like Biden 2024. We need more participation in the primaries. Still, the structural problem is the socialist rhetoric, those were all acute problems.

Edited Friday at 01:54 AM by Elliott

[Breathe]

@Elliott How do you define socialism? What do you consider socialist rhetoric?

[Elliott]

11 hours ago, Breathe said:

@Elliott How do you define socialism? What do you consider socialist rhetoric?

Socialism is having no private ownership of the means of production, no private farm, no private construction company.

What I was referring to earlier as socialist rhetoric, is the stuff you read on this forum, "we need more socialism.". It's calling government programs socialist, like single payer healthcare or social security,.... they're not.

 

socialism-websters

" collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"

 

cap·i·tal·ism, Oxford dictionary

"an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit."

 

 

History of modern socialism- wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism

1800

"While Fourier and Owen sought to build socialism on the foundations of small, planned, utopian communities, Saint-Simon desired to enact change through a large scale initiative that put industrialists and experts in charge of society.[53][54] "

Saint-Simon 1800

"Abandoning economic liberalism, he instead propounded a system which would replace the traditional state with a brotherhood of man that incorporated industry and society into a single centralized organization. "

 

 

Socialism can be done at the local community level, or at the global/federal level. The federal level is what politicians talk about. They tend to conflate Socialism and Egalitarianism, Conservatives understand the difference and rightly oppose socialism. "Progressives" continue their pseudo-intellectual crusade redefining terms based only on their feelings. Social Security, welfare, single payer healthcare; are egalitarian, 'progressive', but not socialist, related terms but not the same. Socialism is egalitarian, that does not mean everything egalitarian/progressive is socialist. These programs are no different than taxes paying for roads, welfare nor roads are socialist, every system has roads and welfare, they have welfare in Iran, in Saudi Arabia, in Argentina, they did in the Roman empire and Egyptian, Persian and British.

 

Actual socialists know this too, they are not about welfare, they consider that to be part of liberalism. When they say revolution, they mean an actual total revolution, they don't believe in these politics, they mean no more private business. They're not Bernie or Mamdahni supporters, they see them being the same as Democrats. Meanwhile, conservatives see the "Yay Socialism!" from Bernie and Mamdahni and see Stahlin. NOT ONE of these programs we have in the u.s. was voted for in congress by a socialist.

 

"Egalitarianism (from French égal 'equal'; also equalitarianism) is a school of thought within political philosophy that builds on the concept of social equality, prioritizing it for all people.[1]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism

 

 

"Ancient Rome: The Cura Annonae provided free or subsidized grain to over 200,000 male citizens, ensuring a basic diet for the poor. The Alimenta, initiated under Emperor Nerva and expanded by Trajan, offered funding for orphaned children in Italy."

 

 

People like to point at how dumb conservatives are, but the onus is on us the 'reformers' to be the more intelligent, and intelligent in our communication, let alone being total imbeciles. People want to totally change an operating system, yet they cannot even grasp basic terms in the political discourse about the change. Why would conservatives listen to, let alone trust, obvious idiots. It's like morons think that since they can identify a problem, that they then should be acknowledged by everyone with magically intrinsically obviously knowing the solution, even though they wouldn't be able to pass a 4th grade social studies quiz (knowing the definition of socialism).

Edited 12 hours ago by Elliott

[Breathe]

3 hours ago, Elliott said:

Conservatives understand the difference and rightly oppose socialism

Yeah, these guys definitely get it

 

[Elliott]

21 minutes ago, Breathe said:

Yeah, these guys definitely get it

 

Ask a MAGAT if they oppose social security, then ask if they oppose socialism.

 

Federation of American Hospitals

https://fah.org

Poll After Poll Shows Overwhelming Voter Opposition to Medicaid Cuts | FAH

May 9, 2025 — 77% of voters view Medicaid favorably, including 70% of Republicans and 66% of Independents. 75% of voters oppose Medicaid cuts, including 53%

 

 

American Federation of School Administrators

https://www.theschoolleader.org

Public Wants More Education Funding

Apr 1, 2023 — Some 65% of Americans think the federal government spends too little on education programs, according to a new poll by AP-NORC conducted at .

 

 

 

Food Business News

https://www.foodbusinessnews.net

FMI poll shows Americans strongly support SNAP

May 13, 2025 — Of 1,000 registered voters surveyed in late April on behalf of FMI, 64% said they hold a favorable opinion of SNAP. 

Edited 10 hours ago by Elliott

[Breathe]

There are too many generalizations in your post and you exaggerate too much so I'm not sure how to engage in a serious way. You talk about liberals and conservatives as if both groups all think the same. Some might say that there are different types of socialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Varieties