Women >>>> Men at This:

[Legato]

50 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

You don't see a problem with a candidate who exploits people's biases in order to win elections and having these people vote against their own interests? Things like tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation, no minimum wage, and opposing the social safety net, health insurance and other policies that would benefit them

We don't suppress basest instincts, we rise above them. it's called thinking.

You'll have to explain how being enlightened can be equated with a miserable, empty life

Enlightened? You mean woke and miserable. Even Dobby can see it. Thinking? You never had an original thought in your head. All you do is regurgitate MSM talking points.

No one voted against their own interests, they did vote for the the interests that are beyond your myopic ability to see.

[WestCanMan]

4 hours ago, Radiorum said:

You don't see a problem with a candidate who exploits people's biases in order to win elections and having these people vote against their own interests?

Kamala is a candidate who got her first two political appointments by giving blow-jobs to a 60-yr-old man when she was 29, and she got chosen as VP solely because she was black and female. 

Biases and prostitution got her to where she was earlier this year. 

In what way would voting for Kamala serve anyone's best interests? She was truly worthless as a leader and thinker. 

Quote

Things like tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation, no minimum wage, and opposing the social safety net, health insurance and other policies that would benefit them

🤣 Your criticisms are so childish and naive lol.

FYI most people don't want to rely on handouts. They'd rather have jobs, and they'd rather not have to compete with people who are willing to work for peanuts when they go looking for work.

The Dems imported ten million plus cheap, cheap workers. Those people compete for low-income housing as well. 

How did "bringing in 10M illegal immigrants" help low-income Americans? 

Quote

 

We don't suppress basest instincts, we rise above them. it's called thinking.

 

Buddy, you scream them out loud. "Empty vessels make the most noise", remember? 

Quote

You'll have to explain how being enlightened can be equated with a miserable, empty life

Why bother explaining that to you? You're as enlightened as a mushroom. 

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, Radiorum said:

or anyone who has bothered to read the evidence in Jack Smith's immunity filing (I have)

 

 

You mean those with strong talents for self-delusion. Well fair enough, I suppose the easily befuddled might very well

Quote

He's back in office because he appealed to the basest human instincts

Keep believing that. 12 more years of republican government sounds great.

"We lost but it can't be us, it must be that  all those americans are terrible people and we should call them names till the next election instead of looking at what we did wrong, that'll fix things! "

[WestCanMan]

On 11/29/2024 at 8:08 AM, Radiorum said:

He's back in office because he appealed to the basest human instincts

So, here's a thing:

1. The US had routinely started new wars under each president. It's predictable. Give a guy a big stick and he'll hit something with it. Jimmy Carter, 1977-1981, was the last US president to not start a war before Trump. 
2. Under Obama, war broke out in Ukraine, with Russia. America's involvement in the inner workings of the Ukrainian gov't is undeniable, and that, along with pushing the idea of NATO in Ukraine, played a big role in starting the Ukraine war. It was at that time, 2014, that Crimea was annexed, and the war in Donbas broke out that year as well.
3. Obama's rapid troop pullout is also widely recognized as the reason for the sudden rise of islamic state, which he called a 'jr varsity terrorist squad', and then allowed it to grow unchecked to the point where it was powerful enough to fight against several countries.

With all the above as a backdrop, Trump went into the WH with war going on in Afghanistan, war in Ukraine, a large war against islamic state in the ME, and terrorist attacks against the US were quite frequent as well. 

By the end of the Trump administration:

• Trump never started a single war, and he's the first US president in 40 years - basically 2 generations - to be able to say that. 
• The Ukraine war went down to a very low simmer. It didn't completely end, but the actual "war" was small enough that whatever fighting was happening went mostly unnoticed from our side of the pond. The biggest development was probably Trump arming Ukraine with Javelin anti-tank missiles, but that wasn't a major incident.
• islamic state was crushed quickly and thoroughly under Trump - they ceased to be landholders
• a new era of antiterrorism was established, where the leaders of all the biggest terrorist factions were killed, and Iran's two top terrorist leaders were killed by a US airstrike. No one was bragging about taking the leadership of terrorist orgs anymore, and it was at the point where Al Qaeda seemed to have disappeared entirely. Terrorism in the US has been negligible to this day, and that's mainly because of Trump
• against all odds, after 75 years with no major advances to speak of, Israel was suddenly beginning to establish foreign relations with Arab states. That level of progress was completely unheard of in the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, 2000's, and 2010's. 8 decades of nothing, then suddenly normalized relations between Israel and Arab nations. No one even had that on their radar at the time, it was like a bolt of lightning from the blue.

So Biden inherited peace on a level that was completely foreign to the world when Trump took office. Then:

• Biden opened the floodgates of money to Iran, and suddenly terrorists in Gaza were rolling in money and weapons
• He re-established getting Ukraine into NATO as a priority, putting pressure on Russia to either back down or put a stop to it
• predictably, war broke out in the middle east and Ukraine, and both wars were escalating right up until the 2024 election. At the beginning of this Nov the North Koreans had just entered the Ukraine war, the US gave Ukraine permission to use US missiles to strike targets deep within Russia itself, the Ukrainians did so, and then Russia started using their own hypersonic (Mach 11) medium range ballistic missiles to hit targets right in Kyiv. In the ME, Iran had just started firing ballistic missiles right into Israel itself. Israel responded by elimination all of Iran's radar installations and anti-aircraft protection along its borders, completely opening Iran up to be attacked from the air with impunity. 
• American bases in the ME were attacked HUNDREDS OF TIMES while Biden was president., and US troops were killed
• By every account, even on the pro-Biden MSM channels in the US, it was obvious that we were inching closer and closer to WWIII than ever before. Contrast that to the level of peace that Biden inherited and it's quite scary how quickly things blew up. 

If you made a graph of what global peace looked like under Obama, Trump and Biden, it would look like the topographical map around Kilimanjaro, with the peak occurring right at the end of Trump's presidency. 

Every word of what I said is 100% true, down to the punctuation marks, with no omissions or exaggerations that bear mentioning. 

Now, looking at all of that, just remember that Kamala herself said that there were no major steps that Biden took which she would have done differently. Then she doubled-down on that statement. She was adamant that Biden had done all the right things.

 

 

If you found some big-boy pants to wear, and you wanted to pretend they were yours and that you belonged in them, would you say that Trump should be the one to try to pull the world back from the brink of WWIII, or Kamala? What on earth do Trump and Kamala have in their history that would lead you to believe that Kamala was a wiser choice? 

And that's just on the issue of global peace. If you compare how American take-home pay soared under Trump to how it plummeted under Biden, you have another solid reason why Trump was the only reasonable choice. 

I think I made a pretty slam-dunk case, and that you have no actual comebacks, so you'll either run or make a phoney blanket statement like: "Yew jist tolled a buncha lize and I won't reed it oll. Kamala is way mor gooder an yore a rasist if yoo dont admit it 😭"

 

So what do those things have to do with "basest human instincts"? Were you trying to say that wanting peace and economic success constitutes "the basest human instincts"? I mean, it's not unusual for leftists to use big terms completely wrong. Just watch robo try to use "cognitive dissonance" and "confirmation bias" in a sentence lol. It's like watching a chihuahua try to hump a basketball on the side of a hill. 

Edited November 30, 2024 by WestCanMan

[Radiorum]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Trump never started a single war

Well, for that matter, neither did Biden. Quit blaming the US for other countries doing shitty things to one another.

But, you seem to be alluding to the hypothesis that somehow Trump had an affect on curtailing Putin's aggression.

It’s true, Russian hardliners spent years criticizing Putin for not invading sooner. But the reasons for Putin’s restraint, i.e. not invading until 2022, have absolutely nothing to do with anything Trump did (or that Putin “liked him,” lol). Putin’s strategy was instead to put his efforts into splitting the West (I can tell you about the massive internet campaigns in another post), and have Russia forge closer ties with Europe. In 2014, it was Merkel’s warnings of massive damage to German-Russian relations that made Putin back off.   

But we were talking about the election, and why Trump voters voted for him. The Ukraine war was actually a low priority for them. Whatever was going on with Russia and Ukraine did not much influence their vote. In fact, immigration at the southern border, climate change and the Israel-Hamas conflict were larger issues of foreign policy.

Yes, Trump appealed to the basest instincts in those people who were looking for a strongman to protect them from the “other” – whether it was immigrants or the “radical left lunatics.”

A superman who promises, “I alone can fix it.”

I suggest you read Henry Murray’s The Personality and Career of Satan to be astonished how closely Trump fits the personality.

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

would you say that Trump should be the one to try to pull the world back from the brink of WWIII, or Kamala? What on earth do Trump and Kamala have in their history that would lead you to believe that Kamala was a wiser choice? 

Aw man, Trump is a joke, completely lacking in diplomatic skills and intelligence. He knows how to stir up a cult following, but that's about it. I will let you read Harris's resume for yourself:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Kamala-Harris

But honestly, more than the good that Harris could do, I am concerned about the devastation Trump might bring to the US and the institutions that define it. 

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I think I made a pretty slam-dunk case

Good boy! Gold star for you. 

 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Radiorum said:

Well, for that matter, neither did Biden. Quit blaming the US for other countries doing shitty things to one another.

 

Are you suggesting that America (the largest military and geopolitical force currently on the planet) and American foreign policy don't play a role in the conflicts we see around the globe?

I think you'll have a tough time with that. 

[Radiorum]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Are you suggesting that America (the largest military and geopolitical force currently on the planet) and American foreign policy don't play a role in the conflicts we see around the globe?

No. But the responsibility for the Russia-Ukraine war lies squarely on Putin's shoulders.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Radiorum said:

No. But the responsibility for the Russia-Ukraine war lies squarely on Putin's shoulders.

While I agree with that for the most part, his actions do not occur in a vacuum.

I'm a firm subscriber to the theory that if a man is about to fall off a cliff and you can save him but choose not to then it's no different than if you pushed him.

The united states was well aware that Russia Was preparing to go to war against the Ukraine for a very long time before it happened. Certainly there were strong indications that they knew were preparation for war and they even raised those concerns.

Strong leadership at that point could very well have prevented that war. Imagine if biden had gone to putin 6 months before that conflict actually started and said stand down or I will flood that country with weapons and troops. Come to the negotiating table instead and let's talk about your concerns.

Or just announced a training exercise with say 10,000 American troops etc etc to take place in the Ukraine for say 6 months just before the invasion was supposed to happen.

It's not like the invasion was a big surprise. Even Canada advised all of its people to get the hell out of the embassies and such weeks before it happened.

So yes, Putin is responsible for the fact that his force is cross the border and initiated a war. But Biden had the ability to stop that war had he provided good leadership and he chose not to. So he absolutely does have to bear responsibility for what happened as a result of his inaction.

[WestCanMan]

16 hours ago, Radiorum said:

Well, for that matter, neither did Biden. Quit blaming the US for other countries doing shitty things to one another.

But, you seem to be alluding to the hypothesis that somehow Trump had an affect on curtailing Putin's aggression.

It’s true, Russian hardliners spent years criticizing Putin for not invading sooner. But the reasons for Putin’s restraint, i.e. not invading until 2022, have absolutely nothing to do with anything Trump did (or that Putin “liked him,” lol). Putin’s strategy was instead to put his efforts into splitting the West (I can tell you about the massive internet campaigns in another post), and have Russia forge closer ties with Europe. In 2014, it was Merkel’s warnings of massive damage to German-Russian relations that made Putin back off.   

Listen to the CNN parrot trying to sound intelligent ffs.

What you're reading is a revisionist history BS that was made up to appease Dem apologists. "The wars had nothing to do with us!"

You're just too stupid and too fond of lying to ever take accountability for anything.

Quote

But we were talking about the election, and why Trump voters voted for him. The Ukraine war was actually a low priority for them. Whatever was going on with Russia and Ukraine did not much influence their vote. In fact, immigration at the southern border, climate change and the Israel-Hamas conflict were larger issues of foreign policy.

Ironically what you're doing there is admitting that the Dems didn't just fail in one area, they failed on every foreign policy issue. 

Climate change was not a big issue though, dummy, and according to your own article, the majority of undecideds favoured cackledummy on climate change. 

Sure, it's a joke, but not a lot of non-conservatives are aware of that. And it takes a seat way at the back of the bus to the wars. 

I get that you put a lot of faith in polls, but that's because you don't understand what they really are and what they're used for. It's no coincidence that the polls are always wrong, and always overestimate the same party as the MSM. 

The fact that you didn't think the Russian war was a big deal is just a measure of your own stupidity. Everyone with half  a brain or more understands how important that war was, and how big of a deal it is that foreign involvement was increasing constantly.  Every escalation of that war was a huge threat to global peace and stability. 

Quote

Yes, Trump appealed to the basest instincts in those people who were looking for a strongman to protect them from the “other” – whether it was immigrants or the “radical left lunatics.”

When you say "strongman", you're just parroting a laftard buzzword for "someone with common sense."

It was incredibly stupid for convicted killers to be released into the United States on their own recognizance to wait for their asylum hearings. 

It doesn't take a strong man to see through that, it just takes a brain that isn't completely addled.

Quote

A superman who promises, “I alone can fix it.”

Every election candidate promises to fix everything you id10t.

In fact, the Dems candidates constantly say that only they can save democracy. Talk about tilting at windmills, dummy.

They act like Trump is the one who's using the FBI and judiciary to target his political opponents. They act like he's the one who has the MSM lying for him 24/7, like he's the one who wanted info about the Hunter laptop blocked from the public. 

You're sitting there acting like there's something wrong with Trump and his messaging, and the Dems were the party of fascism and division. 

Quote

I suggest you read Henry Murray’s The Personality and Career of Satan to be astonished how closely Trump fits the personality.

Stop pretending that you read books you illiterate twat.

If you actually read that, then read it again and think about how much more closely it describes Kamala:

• The distinctive underlying characteristics of the Satanic personality, then, are a) a secret feeling in the subject of having been harshly, treacherously, unjustly, or ignominiously deprived of his deservedly large share of benefits, rewards, and glory;
• [the "woe is me" mantra belongs to Kamala: she's the self-appointed champion of the invisibly oppressed]
• b) a basic state of alienation, resentment, and distrust;
• [Remember, the author isn't talking about someone who was actually targeted unfairly by the powers-that-be, he's talking about someone who is delusional. Someone who says things like: "I'm a woman, and I'm black, and it's only racism and misogyny that have prevented me from becoming the leader of the free world by now. Hell, I was saying 'FWEEDOM!' when I was 3. I should have been president before I graduated HS."] 
• c) a hidden envy coupled with expressed contempt of the notable achievements of others;
• [Who says things like: "We need to make large corporations and billionaires pay their fair share!"?]
• d) repression of guilt feelings; and
• [Only 1 candidate blew her way into politics, and then became VP as a DEI hire.]
• e) the adoption of one or another strategy—sly, slippery, and subversive or openly destructive—of giving vent to his self-consuming hatred. His negative characteristic, by which he is most easily identified, is the absence of any capacity to experience or express authentic selfless love, gratitude, admiration, or compassion.
• [One of the main characteristics of a narcissist is their inability to be empathetic towards others. That's exemplified by people like Kamala who think that they're helping low-income Americans out by bringing in illegal immigrants to steal their jobs and compete with them for low-income housing.]

Quote

Aw man, Trump is a joke, completely lacking in diplomatic skills and intelligence. 

That's the opinion of a cultist fop with a low IQ and a penchant for lying. 

FYI the entire world saw war and chaos recede continuously, at a sharp pace, from 2017-2021, and then suddenly break wide-open again within months of Biden's inauguration.  

• One of your main character flaws is that you feel like it's important not to acknowledge the successes of your political opponents, so it's like a mission from God for you to fail to appreciate the fact that Trump was able to negotiate a peaceful withdrawal from Afghanistan, and that it went along without a hitch for the last 18 months of his presidency.
• As a dedicated liar and a snake, you have to pretend that the final leg of the withdrawal, under Biden, was somehow graceful and perfect. You didn't see the people desperately clinging to the outside of an airplane as it took off, and/or you refuse to think about what that meant. You have to write off the drone-striking of a Kabul family as unlucky and trivial. And try as you might, you can't think of anything even remotely similar to that level of failure that happened when Trump was president.
• Remember that Trump didn't inherit a peaceful, easy planet from Obama. It was a huge mess, all around, and he tamed that mess. What went so wrong under Trump that he had to blame Obama for a drone strike against children, or people falling off of airplanes? Do you honesty think that things went smoothly for 4 years and then suddenly the wheels were going to fall off in 2021? I know what your answer will be, but we also know what the truth is: it is not reasonable to predict such abject failure instantly coming on the heels of 4 years of success. 

Quote

I will let you read Harris's resume for yourself:

Here's her resume, dummy:

1. Gave up her **** to a man over twice here age - Willie Brown - and was give two lucrative political appointments which she was mainly unqualified for, as they were completely foreign to her career path and education.  
2. Got destroyed in the DNC primaries in 2020... Tulsi Gabbard hit her with a broadside and she went down like the Hood
3. Was a DEI-hire as VP by Joe Biden, who had previously told a national TV audience that he was limiting his options for a VP pick to "black females".
4. Was chosen to manage the southern border for the Biden administration, and was such a catastrophic failure there that her only defence was "I didn't really do that job", but we all know that she did. Even the MSM, which lies most of the time, admitted to it. 
5. Was gifted the DNC presidential nomination when Joe Biden was exposed as mentally unfit during his debate against Trump. Kamala knew about Biden's diminished mental state as well as any, because she was around him far more than anyone else, but she lied about it to America. 
6. Refused to do interviews or answer questions for the first 75 days as the presidential candidate. She only read from a teleprompter to Americans that whole time, she answered a total of about 5 quetions - that works out to one every 25 days. That was the actual sum of her human exposure to merica, aside from that she just read from the teeprompter
7. Kamala lied several times during her debate against Trump, was fact-checked zero times, while Trump was fact-checked several times while what he was saying was known to be true. Kamala never addressed the unfairness of that debate
8. When Kamala finally started doing interviews she was a dismal failure. She was combative and rude to interviewers who were doing their best to make her look good (most notably A Cooper and B Whittaker), and her answers were a mixture of lies, off-topic rants and filibustering. 

Quote

But honestly, more than the good that Harris could do,

We literally have no reason to suspect that Kamala Harris would have done well in any aspect of her duties in the WH, because she was such a dismal failure as VP. 

She is just a lying, slandering, combative, rude, stupid person with nothing but failure on her resume from her entire term as VP. I challenge you right now to cite a single success of hers as VP: ________________...

Quote

I am concerned about the devastation Trump might bring to the US and the institutions that define it. 

Based on what, stupid?

Trump just ran the most successful presidency since Reagan.

How do you look at a track record of nearly unparalleled success and then project abject failure from it? That completely defies logic, dummy. And don't cite CNN propaganda as your reason either, Radiorum, it's only fit for laftard echo chambers. "We feew wike Twumpie sed heez gunna do this: "Mwah mwah mwah mwah mwah!!!"

 

Feel free to cherry-pick a few innocuous sentences from my post and reply them with more off-topic rants, radiodumb. It's your style. Adios. 

[CdnFox]

14 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Feel free to cherry-pick a few innocuous sentences from my post and reply them with more off-topic rants

LOL!

[NAME REMOVED]

53 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

 

Trump just ran the most successful presidency since Reagan.

LOL.

Thanks for the laugh...

[Radiorum]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I'm a firm subscriber to the theory that if a man is about to fall off a cliff and you can save him but choose not to then it's no different than if you pushed him.

The imagery of Putin as a man that is about to fall off a cliff does not resonate with me. Putin is not passive, he is active. 

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The united states was well aware that Russia Was preparing to go to war against the Ukraine for a very long time before it happened. Certainly there were strong indications that they knew were preparation for war and they even raised those concerns.

Strong leadership at that point could very well have prevented that war. Imagine if biden had gone to putin 6 months before that conflict actually started and said stand down or I will flood that country with weapons and troops. Come to the negotiating table instead and let's talk about your concerns.

Then why didn't Trump go during his presidency?

Anyway, how do you think that would have gone over with the American people if Biden had "flooded the country with weapons and troops?" Honestly. Your line of reasoning is spurious. 

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Or just announced a training exercise with say 10,000 American troops etc etc to take place in the Ukraine for say 6 months just before the invasion was supposed to happen.

Well, the first thing I think is - how would they know the invasion was supposed to happen? And to imagine that 10,000 American troops landing in Ukraine would not up the conflict is naive indeed.

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So yes, Putin is responsible for the fact that his force is cross the border and initiated a war. But Biden had the ability to stop that war had he provided good leadership and he chose not to. So he absolutely does have to bear responsibility for what happened as a result of his inaction.

No, the US did not figure into the decision of Putin to invade the Ukraine.

[Radiorum]

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Feel free to cherry-pick a few innocuous sentences from my post and reply them with more off-topic rants, radiodumb. It's your style. Adios. 

My style is to try to separate the wheat from the chaff. And I'm sorry, I could not find any wheat in your post.

[User]

4 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

My style is to try to separate the wheat from the chaff. And I'm sorry, I could not find any wheat in your post.

You should just sit out any thread that has "female" or "woman" in the title... 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Radiorum said:

My style is to try to separate the wheat from the chaff. And I'm sorry, I could not find any wheat in your post.

No, you look at 30 salient points that you can't address, so you skip them, and then just quote mo on something minor, just so that you can keep babbling. 

I know it's not easy being a leftard these days. Kamala got dunked on, Biden can't speak English, Trudeau and Singh are as popular as open blisters at a nudist colony, leftist media outlets are being exposed as the garbage that they are, and your last win was getting some dudes the chance to compete against women in sports. Woohoo!

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Radiorum said:

The imagery of Putin as a man that is about to fall off a cliff does not resonate with me. Putin is not passive, he is active. 

Irrelevant. It's a simple Example which shows that a person who could prevent an event and doesn't is no better than a person who causes an event.

Nice dodge though  

4 hours ago, Radiorum said:

Then why didn't Trump go during his presidency?

 

Why would he? Putin wasn't threatening to invade during trump's time. That didn't happen until later after Biden came into power. If your question is why didn't trump go when there wasn't any problem to deal with, the answer would be there wasn't any problem to deal with.

Quote

Anyway, how do you think that would have gone over with the American people if Biden had "flooded the country with weapons and troops?" Honestly. Your line of reasoning is spurious. 

Biden is currently flooding the country with weapons and training their troops.

You've been doing halfway decent, don't sink back into childishness. It's quite obvious he had a number of tools it is disposal that would have been socially acceptable and effective. He didn't even try. So let's stop pretending shall we?

4 hours ago, Radiorum said:

Well, the first thing I think is - how would they know the invasion was supposed to happen?

I believe that the hundreds of thousands of troops tanks guns planes and other ordinance being moved to the border was a bit of a giveaway  

Seriously, you cannot even begin to plan an invasion that large without tipping your hand. And the united states definitely was well aware of it well in advance. So were plenty of other people. The newspapers had stories that it was impending for a couple of weeks before it happened.

Quote

And to imagine that 10,000 American troops landing in Ukraine would not up the conflict is naive indeed.

Up what conflict? They hadn't invaded yet. But yes it might very well have forced Putin to think that if he invaded then with he would come into conflict with the Americans the war may not go the way he wanted it to. He started this believing as most did that he would have the country under his control within a week. If he'd know what was going to happen or if he thought it would escalate to this level I doubt he would have started it.

That's kind of the point.

4 hours ago, Radiorum said:

No, the US did not figure into the decision of Putin to invade the Ukraine.

But it should have. The fact that it didn't is a complete failure on by this part. You literally just admitted that my point was accurate.

I know you don't like it, and that you throw logic and reason out the window in order to serve your echo chamber. But while putin is 100% responsible for the fact that Russia made the decision to invade the Ukraine, it is also 100% true and accurate that Biden could have intervened and made the decision not to which made it easy for Putin to proceed

Simple fact. A man who could have saved someone from falling off a cliff but didn't is no better than a man who pushed them off a cliff

[Radiorum]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

it is also 100% true and accurate that Biden could have intervened and made the decision not to which made it easy for Putin to proceed

 

But what about Putin's threats of nuclear war?

And - it sounds like you think Ukraine should have been allowed to join NATO.

[Five of swords]

On 11/28/2024 at 1:00 PM, WestCanMan said:

Why does it always seem to be that it's women who have the character to do what's right when their side is doing the wrong thing?

In Canada it was only women that stood up to Justin's turpitude: they told the truth about him, and left the LPOC because their own decency and morality couldn't take a back seat to power and money.

There were a couple men who meekly "said a bit of stuff", but never to the extent where they forced Trudeau's hand, and they didn't have the spine to leave the party either. They were the jellyfish that roared, so to speak. There were at least 4 women who quit the LPOC, or were forced out due to their inability to "keep their mouths shut like good little libbie womanfolk". 

(There's a liberal MP named John Aldag who quietly left his liberal MP seat to run as an NDP MLA here in my riding, but I don't know why he did that. No reason has yet been given aside from "resigned to run as a BC NDPer". For all I know, maybe he wanted a second pension income.)

In the states they had Tulsi Gabbard leave behind a cushy life near the top of the DNC, where her DEI status surely gave her a rock star pedigree. Tulsi was an outspoken critic of the shambles that the DNC had become while everyone around her was still pretending that Biden was still tha man, and the DNC was still a bastion of democratic integrity. She just had too much spine to keep her mouth shut, and it was inevitable that she'd have to leave or be forced out. Now she has been warmly welcomed to the GOP, where she is a big up-and-comer.

In fairness, RFK Jr did the same thing, but he's got Kennedy money and connections, Kennedys are a bit bolder than other men, and protecting the Kennedy family legacy clearly meant getting the f outta Dodge.

So after all of these female politicians led the charge here, now Catherine Herridge is leading the charge in breaking ranks from the MSM clown car down south. Out of all the quisling MSM scum in the US and Canada, Herridge, of CBS, is the first one to come out and openly admit that "We are fake news". 

I make no bones about the fact that men are better at a lot of things than women, but when it comes to admitting that their side has gone rogue, women are KICKING OUR ASSES to the extent that it's really humiliating. These women are going momma bear while the "men" are turtling. 

Where have all the good men gone? Men sprang from the trenches to go up against machine gun fire in WWI. Men swam through the sea with heavy kit and rifles, then ran across the slippery shale at Normandy to storm the daunting defences of the Nazis. Now what? They can't throw down their man-panties and walk across the floor in the HOC...? F me. We've become a mamby-pamby bunch of b1tches and we actually need women to drag us by the ear to do the right thing. God save us. 

Your anecdotes don't even support your assertion. Indeed men charged machine guns instead of questioning if their side was the correct one...so that isn't your example of 'good men'.. also, women face less backlash for betrayal because it is considered less threatening (since of course they won't be expected to charge machine guns).

 

But also, this is anecdotal which is just bad science. Why are you eager to suggest women are better than men?

[WestCanMan]

12 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

Your anecdotes don't even support your assertion. Indeed men charged machine guns instead of questioning if their side was the correct one...so that isn't your example of 'good men'..

Regardless of how much you hate the fact that Canadians fought against Nazis, you can't deny that those men had the courage to do something far scarier than just "say some f'ing words that are true". Our male MPs can't do that. Only the female MPs have the intestinal fortitude to do that. It's pathetic. 

Quote

But also, this is anecdotal which is just bad science. Why are you eager to suggest women are better than men?

I'm not "suggesting it", I'm observing it, and sharing that observation here. 

There are far more male MPs in the LPOC gov't: 96 men and 57 women by my own quick count. 

All things being equal, there was only a 42% chance that the first MP to stand up would be a woman. Multiply that by another 42% for the 2nd person, then the 3rd, and again for the 4th. 

If this was completely random, there's only a 3% chance that all the MPs who did the right thing would be women. 

So why are the "men" unable to "man up"? It's worth discussing.

And FYI discussing it doesn't necessarily mean that women are proven better at this one thing.

• Maybe Trudeau is more of a dick to women than men.
• Maybe there's someone high up in the party that mistreats them.
• Maybe there's systemic gender discrimination at play.
• Maybe the majority of women who get into this line of work are independently wealthier on avg, and don' rely 100% on their MP incomes. 

Maybe it's a combination of the above, or something entirely different. It doesn't have to be genetic. But it appears as though there's something. 

[Deluge]

On 11/28/2024 at 11:36 AM, Radiorum said:

How can you say this in the same universe in which Donald Trump exists?

How can you say this in the same universe in which today's democrat party exists? 

Edited December 2, 2024 by Deluge

[Five of swords]

13 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Regardless of how much you hate the fact that Canadians fought against Nazis, you can't deny that those men had the courage to do something far scarier than just "say some f'ing words that are true". Our male MPs can't do that. Only the female MPs have the intestinal fortitude to do that. It's pathetic. 

I'm not "suggesting it", I'm observing it, and sharing that observation here. 

There are far more male MPs in the LPOC gov't: 96 men and 57 women by my own quick count. 

All things being equal, there was only a 42% chance that the first MP to stand up would be a woman. Multiply that by another 42% for the 2nd person, then the 3rd, and again for the 4th. 

If this was completely random, there's only a 3% chance that all the MPs who did the right thing would be women. 

So why are the "men" unable to "man up"? It's worth discussing.

And FYI discussing it doesn't necessarily mean that women are proven better at this one thing.

• Maybe Trudeau is more of a dick to women than men.
• Maybe there's someone high up in the party that mistreats them.
• Maybe there's systemic gender discrimination at play.
• Maybe the majority of women who get into this line of work are independently wealthier on avg, and don' rely 100% on their MP incomes. 

Maybe it's a combination of the above, or something entirely different. It doesn't have to be genetic. But it appears as though there's something. 

So you missed my point about why your observation suggests the opposite. Is it because you lack the intelligence to understand the point? Or is it just more convenient to ignore it?

[WestCanMan]

25 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

So you missed my point about why your observation suggests the opposite. Is it because you lack the intelligence to understand the point? Or is it just more convenient to ignore it?

You didn't really have a point, FOS.

You want to suggest that fighting against Naziism may not have been the right thing to do and no one's there but you. 

Regardless of whether fighting nazis was good or bad, the fact remains that "men believed they were on the right side, 100%" - as evidenced by the fact that they were a volunteer army, so they charged. Period. They showed ridiculous courage when they knew they were right, in that type of scenario.

Of course they know that Trudeau is 100% wrong now, but our male MPs are 100% unable to do the right thing. Literally every single one of them is being a total coward.

FYI our soldiers weren't serving in a jihadi army, so they weren't legally allowed to bring home women and children as slaves, concubines and 2nd, 3rd, and 4th wives. They didn't join the fight to personally gain land, money, or human chattels. Still, they risked their lives. 

Edited December 2, 2024 by WestCanMan

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Radiorum said:

 

But what about Putin's threats of nuclear war?

 

What about them?

Quote

And - it sounds like you think Ukraine should have been allowed to join NATO.

I don't actually think that Ukraine should be allowed to join NATO. I think until very recently the corruption was so bad there that they should never be considered for NATO until they've cleaned up their act and can participate as a meaningful ally.

But it is ridiculous to think that the only two possible relationships countries can have is either "nothing to do with them"   or NATO. The US has traditionally been heavily involved with Israel for example and they are not part of NATO. Or Saudi Arabia for that matter.

The US and the European nations had an existing interest in the Ukraine. There would have been nothing weird about going to Russia when you saw that they were beginning preparations for an invasion and saying "An invasion of Ukraine would be very much against the interests of America and its European allies. We will oppose it with force one way or another if you proceed. Instead, come to the table if you have concerns and let's talk about negotiating to resolve that. If you're only interested in conquest prepare to get kicked in the nuts because we ain't putting up with that shit".

And that's how you get that crap done. Obviously I'm paraphrasing a little but that's the general concept, you go to them you say we know what you're up to and if you do it there will be severe consequences but if you have concerns we're open to talking.

Biden kept his mouth shut for a long time I mentioned Kamala Harris to go speak to the parties and see if there was any way to avoid a conflict something like two days before war broke out. That is watching someone fall off the cliff and doing nothing to save them.

[Five of swords]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

You didn't really have a point, FOS.

You want to suggest that fighting against Naziism may not have been the right thing to do and no one's there but you. 

Regardless of whether fighting nazis was good or bad, the fact remains that "men believed they were on the right side, 100%" - as evidenced by the fact that they were a volunteer army, so they charged. Period. They showed ridiculous courage when they knew they were right, in that type of scenario.

Of course they know that Trudeau is 100% wrong now, but our male MPs are 100% unable to do the right thing. Literally every single one of them is being a total coward.

FYI our soldiers weren't serving in a jihadi army, so they weren't legally allowed to bring home women and children as slaves, concubines and 2nd, 3rd, and 4th wives. They didn't join the fight to personally gain land, money, or human chattels. Still, they risked their lives. 

I had a point. Try again. 

[WestCanMan]

5 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

I had a point. Try again. 

You're a dumb Nazi-lover. GFYS.