Hardkill

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.

I now know why it is usually a suicidal idea for the incumbent party holding the White House to have a divisive primary/contest for its party's presidential nomination. This probably applies to other kinds of races such as gubernatorial elections, congressional or senatorial elections, state legislative elections, and mayoral elections. The reason why the incumbent party gets terribly hurt electorally by having such a bloody, miserable primary is because by allowing that to happen it negatively influences the electorate to question the governance of the party in power to such a severe degree. I would say this would be especially true in this current day and age given how divided our country has gotten these days. Having a highly contested primary for the party out of power, in contrast, doesn't hurt the challenger nominee/challenger party because they haven't even had the chance to govern yet as the president or as a current officeholder of some part of the US government. So, how can a challenging candidate or the party out of power really ever be questioned or judged as much as the incumbent can be about running the country in some way? So, actually for the party out of power or challenger candidate(s) having such a heated contest can provide much media coverage for several candidates in the race, whereby each of them would have an opportunity to persuade the people as to why the current form of governance is maybe not working or why the president has perhaps failed the country or why the current officeholder of say a governorship or US Senate seat has possibly failed its constituents. Go straight to time 52:22, if clicking on the vid doesn't take you right to the question I asked the Professor pertaining to this subject and his answer to it. I brought this up because I know many people in the US have been urging Biden to drop to clear the field for the younger generation of talented Democratic stars such as Newsom, Whitmer, Shapiro, Beshear, Brown, Warnock, and so on and so on to fight for 2024 Democratic Nomination for president. Yet, I now realize for sure what a grave mistake that would've been not just for the entire Democratic party to do that, but also for the whole country. This now really reaffirms my belief that Biden has made the wise decision for both his party and the country to run for president again to stop Trump from ever coming back to the White House. We don't want to have a repeat of what happened in 1968: LBJ decided not to run for president. Consequently, Democrats lost the incumbency advantage. The party in power, which was the Democratic party at the time, had a brutal and chaotic primary for the Dem presidential nomination. Democrats were heavily divided, which caused most Americans to greatly question the Democrats' ability to run the country. The racist segregationist Dixiecrat (Southern Democrat) George Wallace further ran as a major 3rd party presidential candidate. That of course meant that that he became a major spoiler for the Democrats in the general presidential election. The Democrats failed to nominate either a once in generation charismatic presidential candidate or a once or twice in a century inspirational heroic war leader after Johnson declined to run for re-election. Now, just to be clear those weren't the only reasons as to why the Dems lost the 1968 presidential election. The other key factors that caused them to lose were The terrible midterm results that the Dems had in 1966, particularly with the US House seats they lost. The historic widespread social unrest that occurred at the time over the Vietnam war and nationwide racial riots. (Cost the Dems the social unrest key) Johnson's disastrous handling of the Vietnam War. (Cost the Dems both the military/foreign policy failure and the military/foreign policy success key) All together these factors ultimately became the death knell for the Democrats in the 1968 presidential election even though during Johnson's second term the economy was doing great all around and Johnson's policies were as transformational for the country as FDR's New Deal policies were. The Republican presidential nominee ultimately won that election and guess who that GOP nominee was? Nixon! By the way, It's really not clear at all that Newsom or any of these rising young star Democrats out there would be able to win that key for the party today. Bill Clinton himself never won that key for his party during each of his presidential runs because he was only charismatic to the Democratic/liberal base and to barely the majority of Independent/moderate (swing voters). To win that key you would have to be so exceptionally charismatic, that you not only generate such devotion and love from your party base, you also would have to be able to win a solid majority of Independent/moderate voters, and win over an unusually high percentage of those from the party/ideology that's the opposite of what that presidential candidate is for. Since 1860, only seven presidents in US history were truly able to achieve this include: Ulysses S. Grant, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Dwight Eisenhower, JFK, Ronald Reagan, and Barack Obama. Also, given how incredibly polarized our country has gotten it has become that much more difficult for either major party to put up a presidential candidate who would be able to inspire or persuade such a broad political spectrum of voters. Moreover, there isn't anyone out there today who would constitute as an exceptional heroic war leader like Eisenhower or Grant who could run as the Democratic nominee for president. So, I would say that it would be extremely unlikely in this day and age that the Democratic party would be able to find anyone who could the charisma/national hero key for their key. That's another why I say that it's really not worth it for Biden to step aside. It's clear to me at this point that no Democratic star out there like Newsom, Shapiro, Whitmer, Moore, or Beshear is going to save us from Trump and the MAGA Republicans. In fact, all of those big name Dems have made it clear that they too have given their full throated support to Biden and have been working very hard to promote him and his administration as much as possible. Not even the OG legend Obama himself can save our county and he too has made it very clear that he and his entire network of important people he has been well connected with are doing everything they can to help the Biden-Harris ticket win in 2024. Every other Democratic campaign strategist/operative has or will fall in line behind Biden as well for the big election. Therefore, it's actually up to EACH ONE OF US or ALL OF US as the voters of the USA to UNITE TOGETHER as much as possible under Biden and to GET OUT THERE AND VOTE FOR HIM and the Democratic party in historic numbers once again to truly save this country from Trumpism in 2024 just like we did in 2020.