What do the Dems Honestly Think About Men, Women, the Type of Women Who Vote for Them, and Marriage?

[Nationalist]

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I think a lot of things escape you.

But you do appear to have a real habit of twisting people's statements out of their intended context. Negatively for republicans and positively for democrats who you support.

America just sent a loud and clear message as to how they feel about people who do that. I doubt it'll be better received here. You might want to start thinking about that.

He doesn't think. He can only respond with programmed txt.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

He doesn't think. He can only respond with programmed txt.

there does seem to be an element of simply regurgitating talking points without a lot of additional thought.

[WestCanMan]

19 hours ago, Radiorum said:

Lol, because we know that right-wing men really value and respect opposing opinions. /s

Conservatives reading: evaluate, research when necessary, search for information from both sides, opine with facts and stats

Cultists reading: Absorb, regurgitate, shout down or cancel non-conformists.

If conservative men are so bad, why do we have all the women?

The married men and women are majority conservatives. 

The men and women who never married are leftists by a wide margin.

 

Do you know what it takes to be married to someone Radiorum?

You have to be able to listen, share, sacrifice, support, empathize, communicate, work together, play together, etc, etc, etc. 

My wife and I have worked together and lived together for almost 20 years, R. We've basically been married 40 years when you take into account how many hrs a day we spend together. 

You couldn't even find it in your heart to spare young adults and children from having Kool-aid injected into their arms, there's no way that you could ever be in a healthy relationship, Radiorum. Until you do some serious soul-searching, you're toxic.  

 

Step 1 of your detox involves ditching fake news.

TNI, the "Trusted News Initiative" LOL, was an international media conglomerate whose sole purpose was to be a acceptance filter for known-to-be-false narratives and shout down all opposition. FYI it was TNI members who banned talk of the BSL4 lab and the Hunter laptop, and the social media giants that actively banned people for spreading the truth were also TNI members. That was no accident. It's impossible for that many people to all be that wrong and then never do any soul-searching afterwards. None of them did. Not even one. 

Globalist media liars banded together, put you in the crosshairs, and you types defend them relentlessly. You have Stockholm Syndrome ffs, and you don't even know it. 

• Comcast's corporate reorganization will move cable news channels CNBC and MSNBC, along with other TV brands, into a new company tentatively named SpinCo, sparking speculation about their future.

I honestly thought that was a joke. "SpinCo". As in "spin doctors". Liars. Charlatans. Hucksters. Grifters. Right from CNN themselves: https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/20/business/comcast-cable-spinoff-tv-business/index.html

You should be ashamed when you think about all the time that you wasted staring into the giant butthole of fake news.

Edited November 24, 2024 by WestCanMan

[CouchPotato]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

there does seem to be an element of simply regurgitating talking points without a lot of additional thought.

To be fair though, unless you watch The Five and you just read about something Jesse Watters says you might not really get it. Or even if you just aren't used to people who talk and joke around like that. I don't know if it's necessarily a conservative thing. I wouldn't even say it's a guy thing because I know girls who joke the same way. But it's definitely some kind of cultural thing, and some people just don't know how to read it.

Before the election, Jesse Watters said on The Five something like "scientists have proven that men who vote for women begin to transition into women themselves". That's a loose quote. A day or so later I saw an article on line about it. The author was basically saying that Jesse made startling claims about men who vote for women. The author then very seriously went on to say that Watters failed to cite these scientists.

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Do you know what it takes to be married to someone Radiorum?

I'm sure he does.  Well....  sort of.  Are you familiar with the term 'waifu'?

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, CouchPotato said:

A day or so later I saw an article on line about it. The author was basically saying that Jesse made startling claims about men who vote for women. The author then very seriously went on to say that Watters failed to cite these scientists.

LOLOL  

The real question the reporter should have asked of course is Does voting for a woman turn the frogs gay?

Part of the problem is that democrats in the left in general have absolutely no sense of humor.

[WestCanMan]

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I have never in my life heard of any conservative (or any man for that matter) demand their wife vote a certain way and in fact  i have never even asked a girlfriend never mind my wife who they voted for, and one serious relationship i was in i knew the other party had different views and just never brought it up. 

My wife and I talk about who we're going to vote for. 

This is gonna sound really bad, because it is, but we have a friend who ran for election provincially in the last BC election. Normally I could have voted for them, no questions asked, because I never gave a sh1t about provincial politics here before: I could never hold my nose long enough to vote Socred, NDP, or any of the other BS parties that get elected out here. 

This isn't what you'd call a close, personal friend that we have over for dinner and go on vacations with, more of a business events/charity events/parties/local events friend that we gravitate towards at those functions. 

So a couple years ago, my wife's friend starts telling us that they're running. Sure, we'll definitely support them in whatever way we can. Whatever. Then about 6 months ago we start hearing noise that the conservatives could actually win here. WTF? The one year the conservatives have an actual chance, and we were going to vote for someone else?????????????

We went so far as to donate money to the campaign, put the sign on our lawn, went to events... We did all the things that you could possibly do to support a friend, but when it came time to actually vote, I did what was best for my province, and I voted conservative. My wife did not - she voted for our friend.

I completely understand and respect her choice. She knows I'm unwavering and I could never do otherwise. And it was a really difficult choice for both of us, and in the end we both "won". A conservative won here - an Indo-Canadian whose name I can't even recall - and my wife got to see her vote in the totals for our friend, which was important to her. 

I can't even say that, "knowing that the conservatives won here anyways, I could have voted for our friend and it wouldn't have made a difference", because the popular vote matters to me a lot. I couldn't waste my vote. Elections affect the whole province, and I couldn't live with myself if this was one of those close ridings and I helped cost the election.

Still, it was difficult. It really bugs me.  Ramble ramble ramble... 

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

No. That's a very thin and dumb argument. I am all for progress that provides benefits. Not this destructive crap you want, that does nothing but cost us in so many way and produces nothing but suffering.

You are opposed to any progress that you imagine does not benefit you. IOW biased by your own failure to understand.

[CouchPotato]

13 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

This is gonna sound really bad, because it is, but we have a friend who ran for election provincially in the last BC election.

That doesn't sound bad at all. I mean in spite of being conservative you were willing to give him money and put a sign up.

[WestCanMan]

41 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I'm sure he does.  Well....  sort of.  Are you familiar with the term 'waifu'?

I'm actually going to google that right now...

42 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I'm sure he does.  Well....  sort of.  Are you familiar with the term 'waifu'?

OMG. That's hilarious.

I don't even understand how cartoon porn works for people. It seems kind of on the pedo side imo.  

[Radiorum]

5 hours ago, CouchPotato said:

joke like friends at a bar while doing so

But they are not friends at a bar, and their reach is huge. Is there no line between private and public talk?

Excuses, excuses. Whenever an offensive or inflammatory remark is called out, the supporters excuse it.

Was Watters making a joke when, in a sexist rant, he said:

Quote

“To be a man and then vote for a woman just because she’s a woman is either childish, that person has mommy issues or they’re just trying to be accepted by other women,” Watters said.

 

Those are his words. Who do you think he was talking to? Why do you think young men with insecure masculinity are moving toward the right? Oh, yeah, they like Trump because he is a “fighter.”

But, yeah, that’s what Republicans, especially Trump, does. Say something outrageous, and when called on it, say, “It was only a joke.”

That’s what Trump called it (“in jest and sarcastically”) when he invited, “Russia, are you listening?”

Thing is, the Kremlin was not in on the joke. Mueller noted:

Quote

“… within five hours of Trump's remark, a Russian intelligence service began targeting email accounts associated with Hillary Clinton for possible hacks.”

 

 

[WestCanMan]

4 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

That doesn't sound bad at all. I mean in spite of being conservative you were willing to give him money and put a sign up.

True, but if you look up the definition of two-faced in the dictionary, sonofab1tch... I'll always see my face there now. 

I pretended as hard as I could to be a supporter after I found out that the conservatives had a chance, but I instantly knew who I was actually voting for. AWWKwaaaard.

[Radiorum]

11 hours ago, robosmith said:

It is OBVIOUS that conservative men have a need to control their wives' behavior in most aspects. 

The manosphere is a real thing, and it’s a gateway to the Alt-Right. I’m sure Watters is a friend to them.

Rife on websites, podcasts and other online forums – they share a common ideology: Women are either too self-centered or too dumb to make important decisions on their own.

Susceptible young men adopt the views that women shouldn’t work because they can’t emotionally handle it and that women should allow men to choose who they vote for. Many in the manosphere feel their “job as a man is to keep a woman in line.”

They are fighting against what the Claremont Institute (which has been referred to as “The Nerve Centre of the American Right”) calls the “gynocracy” (government by women) where “feminists peddle their revolutionary goals” to obtain not equality, but domination.

The movement is real, and growing.

Some men, when faced with a woman's needs, take it an indictment on them, and resent the "shame" that they are "made" to feel, and react with hostility. It's really a rather narcissistic reaction.

 

[WestCanMan]

1 minute ago, Radiorum said:

“To be a man and then vote for a woman just because she’s a woman is either childish, that person has mommy issues or they’re just trying to be accepted by other women,” Watters said.

Do you understand what a qualifier is? 

He's saying that casting a vote in this manner - for this one specific and nonsensical reason - is either childish.....

Get it? 

If someone wants to vote for someone because they believe that person's better in some way, YAY for democracy. But just based on gender alone?

I'm sure that you're sitting there, stewing in your own bile, because Trump was elected, and if someone told you that they voted for Trump "just because he's a man", you'd instantly recognize the problem with making such a serious decision based on such shallow reasoning. 

If we could make Margaret Thatcher young again, and I ran against her in an election after she had already been PM, and my slogan was "I have a penis and she doesn't", you have to admit that it would be really bizarre for someone to weigh my ability to stand up and pee with world-class accuracy, favourably, against her proven track record as PM, right? 

 

FFS man, Jesse made the exact same argument about vaginas. That was pretty easy to spot, R. WTF. 

[CouchPotato]

50 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

But they are not friends at a bar, and their reach is huge. Is there no line between private and public talk?

That is the format of the show. That is what people tune in for. That is their reach. Their market. They are aware of what it is. People who don't like it don't watch. It's not Jordan Peterson.

[CouchPotato]

55 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

True, but if you look up the definition of two-faced in the dictionary, sonofab1tch... I'll always see my face there now.

Nah, I mean are parents two-faced towards their kids. Because I sure disagreed with my parents on a lot of things when I was younger, but they still supported me. Plus your other half was supporting him.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

My wife and I talk about who we're going to vote for. 

This is gonna sound really bad, because it is, but we have a friend who ran for election provincially in the last BC election. Normally I could have voted for them, no questions asked, because I never gave a sh1t about provincial politics here before: I could never hold my nose long enough to vote Socred, NDP, or any of the other BS parties that get elected out here. 

This isn't what you'd call a close, personal friend that we have over for dinner and go on vacations with, more of a business events/charity events/parties/local events friend that we gravitate towards at those functions. 

So a couple years ago, my wife's friend starts telling us that they're running. Sure, we'll definitely support them in whatever way we can. Whatever. Then about 6 months ago we start hearing noise that the conservatives could actually win here. WTF? The one year the conservatives have an actual chance, and we were going to vote for someone else?????????????

We went so far as to donate money to the campaign, put the sign on our lawn, went to events... We did all the things that you could possibly do to support a friend, but when it came time to actually vote, I did what was best for my province, and I voted conservative. My wife did not - she voted for our friend.

I completely understand and respect her choice. She knows I'm unwavering and I could never do otherwise. And it was a really difficult choice for both of us, and in the end we both "won". A conservative won here - an Indo-Canadian whose name I can't even recall - and my wife got to see her vote in the totals for our friend, which was important to her. 

I can't even say that, "knowing that the conservatives won here anyways, I could have voted for our friend and it wouldn't have made a difference", because the popular vote matters to me a lot. I couldn't waste my vote. Elections affect the whole province, and I couldn't live with myself if this was one of those close ridings and I helped cost the election.

Still, it was difficult. It really bugs me.  Ramble ramble ramble... 

That's actually a lot more common story than you might think right now. That whole situation was just unexpected and tough for everyone

[Radiorum]

No rebuttal to the manosphere? Lol.

It’s out of the past. JD “childless-cat-ladies” Vance is totally out of the past. Listen to him in the video below attack women who have “passed the biological period when it was possible to have kids” as “miserable” because they “have no real value system.”

 JD Vance video

He’s echoing a perspective of over 100 years ago! British immunologist Almroth Wright, in 1912, said menopause made women ineligible to participate in elections, because it gave rise to “serious and long-continued mental disorders developing in connexion with the approaching extinction of a woman’s reproductive faculty.” 

What is it with some men and their obsession with the female reproductive system?

Vance could have created the anti-suffrage poster (from the early 1900s) above.

https://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/news-photo/anti-suffrage-color-postcard-titled-the-origin-and-news-photo/1051266392 

[Nationalist]

6 hours ago, robosmith said:

You are opposed to any progress that you imagine does not benefit you. IOW biased by your own failure to understand.

Lol...robo you really are a plank. I feel sorry for you. Your whole belief system and media support system are falling apart. It must suck to finally have had all the Libbie crap exposed. Laid bare for the world to see.

[User]

What do Democrats think of women?

Well, at present, they can't even define the word meaningfully. 

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Radiorum said:

No rebuttal to the manosphere? Lol.

It’s out of the past. JD “childless-cat-ladies” Vance is totally out of the past. Listen to him in the video below attack women who have “passed the biological period when it was possible to have kids” as “miserable” because they “have no real value system.”

 JD Vance video

He’s echoing a perspective of over 100 years ago! British immunologist Almroth Wright, in 1912, said menopause made women ineligible to participate in elections, because it gave rise to “serious and long-continued mental disorders developing in connexion with the approaching extinction of a woman’s reproductive faculty.” 

What is it with some men and their obsession with the female reproductive system?

Vance could have created the anti-suffrage poster (from the early 1900s) above.

https://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/news-photo/anti-suffrage-color-postcard-titled-the-origin-and-news-photo/1051266392 

No that's not what he's saying at all.

Once again your argument is to take something and try and twist it entirely out of shape to make an argument that doesn't exist.

What he's saying is a very common observation that many women do not find their lives have turned out to be fulfilling. They have  pursued career success Instead of other opportunities and they get to a point where they realize it's not giving their life meaning so they look around to find other things that will give their life meaning and they latch on to the idea that if they force other people to think the way they do with regards to certain issues it will make them feel better.

One of the primary distinguishing points between this and things like the suffragette movement is that they were specifically fighting for their rights, where is the people he's talking about are attempting to fight for the rights of other people often without those other people even asking them to and in fact often wishing they wouldn't.

So you're logic is faulty due to what is known as the false equivalency fallacy. You are attempting to draw a comparison between two things which are sort of similar at first glance but are radically different on evaluation.

He's not saying that they're unhappy because of menopause, he's saying they're unhappy because they've chosen unfulfilling past in life and now having arrived at a certain point their options are limited. So one of the only options available to them to give their life meaning is to pretend that they are riding to the rescue of someone else and they are a culture warrior hero. This is very different than your explanation of the reproductive cycle.

By the way speaking of fixations, you're the only one that brought it up. Bringing something up out of the blue and then demanding to know why everybody's fixated on it is kind of weird

 

[Radiorum]

11 hours ago, User said:

Well, at present, they can't even define the word meaningfully. 

That's because there is not a simple definition. It's not simple a matter of - well, if you have breasts, ovaries and a vagina, you are a woman. Because "who you are" is determined by your brain/mind - and transgender women are women in their organ of thought. (Brains are dimorphic, too.) I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept for some people to understand. Also, I'm not sure why some people are so fixated on a rigid definition and feel threatened if others don't fit into their narrow understanding of the human condition.

[Legato]

5 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

That's because there is not a simple definition. It's not simple a matter of - well, if you have breasts, ovaries and a vagina, you are a woman. Because "who you are" is determined by your brain/mind - and transgender women are women in their organ of thought. (Brains are dimorphic, too.) I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept for some people to understand. Also, I'm not sure why some people are so fixated on a rigid definition and feel threatened if others don't fit into their narrow understanding of the human condition.

Binary has zero decimal places. You don't believe me? Then go ask a computer, nicely mind you.

[Black Dog]

On 11/23/2024 at 9:17 PM, Nationalist said:

Love is the most powerful emotion. It bonds people. It conquers hatred. It is expressed in many ways. Sometimes it's expressed in uncomfortable ways. The scolding and spanking of a child for instance. Libbies tend to misunderstand that. They see punishment as a violent and unacceptable. Thus all too often, they produce spoiled brats.

Tolerance is a biproduct of love. Libbies like to toss about the word and claim they practice tolerance. But how many families have been torn apart by tolerant Libbies? How many Libbie women are advocating for divorce because men voted for Trump. Advocating for abstaining from sexual relations with men. Screaming at their cameras for TicToc. Is that tolerance? No. 

Libbies are given to hatred and intolerance. Yet Conservatives will generally defend their right to express their intolerance. Would the typical Libbie do the same?

Doubtful.

Somebody needs to read  Karl Popper.

[User]

17 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

That's because there is not a simple definition.

LOL, thanks for proving my point. 

There is in fact, a very simple definition. It is only because the political left has decided in the last 5 seconds of human history to try to change it to placate their absurd notion that men can be women just because they think they are. 

18 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

Because "who you are" is determined by your brain/mind - and transgender women are women in their organ of thought.

We are not talking about who someone identifies as when you guys insist that yes, in fact, a dude is a woman because he thinks he is, so those girls he is beating up in sports and showing his dong to in the locker room just have to shut up and deal with it. 

19 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept for some people to understand.

I understand the concept and 100% reject it. 

I don't understand why that is such a difficult concept for some people to understand. 

20 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

Also, I'm not sure why some people are so fixated on a rigid definition and feel threatened if others don't fit into their narrow understanding of the human condition.

Yeah, I don't understand why words have meaning, why there is truth, facts, logic or reason... and why so many people want to adhere to those things either... *eye roll*