Hardkill

Jack Smith MUST find some way to switch judges or courts. The courts in our country have become much more corrupt than I thought. The federal judges in our country don't seem to care that they have been contributing to letting our democracy and rule of law be at the brink!

David Pakman makes a very sensible point here as to why voting for Biden is a MUST: He also has mentioned in other videos before how incredibly successful Biden has been as president:

Well yeah of course she a guy with both if one is available, but it seems like hot girls most of the time either hook up or get into a serious relationship with guys who either have sex appeal, game, and strong character or have just social status and money with no backbone. Besides if I don't have a lot of money or an elite level social circle, then am I supposed to expect to just settle for average looking women as being the best that I can possibly get? Or just wish upon a star that maybe one day I might be lucky enough to find a beautiful attractive woman who will be attracted to me if I play the numbers game long enough until I am an old man?

Most men look unattractive or average and have don't have good game, especially given the continuing decline in masculine men in the west. Besides, why would any hot girl be sexually turned on more so by a guy or have more respect for a guy with money and status, but has poor game, looks unattractive or homely, and is a wimp, easily fooled than a guy with looks, game, strength, and shrewdness?

That wasn't 50 cent. Those video were from dating coaches Miles Cunningham and Mr. Locario.

Why isn't being an alpha male who oozes sex appeal and charisma enough to stand out as a top 1-3% man with very high value that all women are appealed to?

This is beyond red pill. Why would I want to be with a woman who isn't compliant or cooperative for the long haul? Why I would want to be with a woman who is disrespectful, embarrasses me in front of others, or doesn't want to support my goals and purpose? Why would I even want to be with a women who doesn't show herself as someone who is happily willing to truly invest her time, energy, and resources to me? A woman being submissive in a healthy manner does not mean that a man has any right to force a woman to do something against her will or forcing her to be in any kind of situation she doesn't want to be in. It also doesn't mean that a guy should manipulate a woman in any devious manner to trick her into something that she doesn't want to do. It's about her freely making the choice to invest in a guy and follow him as a leader she would be happy to be compliant with. That's one major reason why a man's gotta play the numbers game to find the right woman or women for him who is or are wanting to submit to him. He of course should try to seduce her with charisma and sex appeal to tilts the odds in his favor with the women he's interested in.

a woman will enjoy doing this for a man she has extremely sexually attracted to, especially if she ends up falling in love with him because that is the nature of being feminine. Otherwise, a woman will just end up losing respect for the guy in the long-run. It's just the way it works. Now if she's not interested in me, then she doesn't have to do anything for me. I'll just have to move on to another woman or women who will hopefully be sexually attracted to me enough so to be willing to be submissive and cooperative with me.

That's what makes most women feel feminine. Also, she will enjoy doing this for a man she has extremely sexually attracted to, especially if she ends up falling in love with him. Most women in 1st world countries have lost their ability to get in touch with their femininity as they keep trying to do what men and keep trying to talk more like what men say in the working world. There's nothing necessarily wrong with women wanting to be as successful as men financially and professionally. However, I think that most women in advanced societies have been so focused on trying to be on equal footing with men and have equal opportunities that they often forget about embracing the positive qualities of being a woman including doing some traditional feminine activities and treating/looking up to their men as their leaders. Most men in 1st world countries are arguably more at fault for not taking on the responsibility of being true men who are strong, wise, capable of leading, able to stand up for themselves, can be a rock or mountain for women, make a woman feel feminine and attractive, able to protect their families and their communities, work hard for themselves and others, and so on.

Well, gradually I would help her out more and more but there has to be that masculine and feminine dynamic between a man and a woman. Women are attracted to a guy's looks to some extent, but they usually aren't as visual as men are from what I've learned. They instead are more turned on by a man who can inspire a woman's emotions in a very compelling manner, persuade her to perceive you as a cool guy to date and sleep with, and knows how to sexually escalate the vibe with her well. That's what seduction is supposed to be about.

By demonstrating for about 3-5 years that she doesn't cheat, doesn't disrespect me or embarrass me in front others, is compliant, willing to work hard at supporting my goals and purpose, likes to do some traditional feminine activities like cooking and cleaning, shows herself to be ready to be good mother, etc.

Of course I want a hot girl. I am very visual. She also has to have a great feminine personality. I also thought that women are sexually stimulated primarily by a man's looks and charisma. The money, status, and resources would only be necessary for maintaining a solid happy relationship. Donald Trump may be able to get with a lot of different hot women, but I am very sure that all of his LTRs and marriages with women have been absolutely hollow and miserable. Btw, where has his wife Melania been? We haven't really heard much about her and her relationship with Trump. I wouldn't be surprised if they have been estranged or separated from each other ever since he left office.

I didn't say that women owe me anything (unless any of them are in an LTR with me), but I want a woman or women to be attracted to me by both my looks and personality. Even if I was rich and famous I still wouldn't want any woman, no matter how hot she looks, to just get with me mostly for my money and status. Women who do that are gold diggers. In fact, I want a woman to earn the right to use my finances, status, and other resources by having her prove to me over the course of a few years that she is a worthy enough to be a loyal and devoted partner to me and is willing to treat me like a king. That's actually how it's supposed to work in order for a man and a woman to establish a successful happy relationship with each other in the long-run.

He's basically saying that hot women are primarily looking to use men who are rich, have high status, and have great resources because they know they can just by using their physical beauty.

I am not really saying that, but that's what Leo seems to be implying. I mean if Leo says that if I can't get a lot of money or status, then does that mean that I should only expect to get average girls at best, even if I had really good game, charisma, or sex appeal?

So, hot women are just whores for looks, money, and status? What if you don't have looks, money, and status but are still very charismatic and have great sex appeal? Wouldn't you still stand from most men who don't have charisma or sex appeal?

What about major policy changes, public order or tranquility, moral rectitude of their leaders, and military/foreign affairs under the watch of the incumbent officeholder/party?

We've talked a lot before about how most people in the US who are not very bright and are low information, lowly education voters don't really care about a political leader's policies or about how governance actually works in the system, especially in this day and age. They are more interested in how appealing and how aligned a certain's candidates cultural values are to most of his/her constituents: However, people do give credit or blame a politician and/or the party in power for how well the country is doing including the economy, foreign/military affairs outside of the country, what changes have been made in policy, whether or not an officeholder was involved in some kind of scandal, and the public order or tranquility in the country. The voters also vote based on how successful and cohesive the politician and/or the party in power has been politically: Does this mean that most voters do actually care about governance, but only from a broad or general point of view?

That is unfortunately not a realistic option at this point. How would you be able convince the Israeli government to agree to that?

There needs to be an immediate ceasefire deal that lasts at least 6 weeks ASAP.

In many respects, every religion seems to have failed in teaching people that.

If there have been fears of widening conflict in the Middle East over this war, then why hasn't that happened yet? I mean if Hezbollah and other countries like them have threatened to fight against Israel then wouldn't they have done it already?

I gotta hand it to you again, Leo. You called it right about her future as a politician or more so as a lobbyist. On the thread I made a while back on here, "Senator Sinema is no longer a Democrat" I said: Your response to that was: I then said: Your reply to that was: Just today she announced that won't run for re-election because of how toxic Congress and has stated that she knows that she has no clear path to winning her seat again: We're also pretty sure that she's going to be a lobbyist for some disgusting corporate elites who have been eating away more and more of our democracy. I mean to be fair, she did do a lot of good things during Biden's first two years as president. However, she turned out to be one of the least trustworthy Democrats in Congress. I actually would say that in a lot of ways she was less trustworthy than Manchin. At least Manchin was much more communicative and upfront about who he was and he also belonged to a very deep red state. Sinema was mostly incommunicado with the people and news reporters and belonged to an increasingly blue state. Why couldn't she have been more like her jr. Arizona Senator counterpart Mark Kelly? I know why. It's because unlike Mark Kelly she ultimately sold her voters out by deciding to constantly suck off her rich elite donor pigs. Now, even though this will leave her US Senate seat open, this is actually very good news for the progressive Democratic candidate Gallego, because Sinema will no longer become a spoiler for him. Also, Gallego will be going up against the psycho MAGA queen Kari Lake who already loss against AZ Gov. Hobbs in the 2022 AZ Gubernatorial election. So, this is actually looking really good for the Democrats in 2024 who need to both keep that Senate seat and replace Sinema with a more no-nonsense progressive such as Gallego. Don't get wrong, I am not expecting Gallego to keep his promises, but he certainly seems much more of a down-to-earth true left-winger who really wants to fight hard for his people, but in a pragmatic, reasonable manner like John Fetterman in PA.