Hardkill

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    3,804

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Hardkill

  1. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    Hot women are looking for value, just like you are. The only reason you are talking about hot women is because you want to grab some value from them.

    Imagine is a woman came here and started a thread: How To Find Men With The Biggest Dicks? This would be equivalent to you trying to pick up "hot women".

     

    5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    Lol.

    There is no such country. You are just blind to all the ugly girls in your country.

    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?

  2. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    16 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

    @HardkillStop watching those redpill stuff. It's obvious you're just talking, not from experience, but from what you've heard from videos and hearsay. Try going out and dealing with real women. You're just arm-chair philosophizing about the dating world and women and your ideas about women.

     

    15 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

    Ok, good luck finding your hot-sex slave.

     

    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.

  3. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    4 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

    Thought so. You cannot answer. I'm still waiting to hear the answer to why should she dedicate 3-5yrs with you first to do all you stated above to prove herself worthy of you. I didn't ask you what made a woman feel feminine, i asked WHY SHOULD SHE DO THOSE THINGS FOR YOU. what is it about you.

    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.

  4. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    14 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

    And why would she want to do that for any man. What would be the reason to dedicate her life for 3-5yrs before she has been declared by you to be worthy of so and so. I would really love to hear this answer. Put yourself in her shoes and tell me why she would do these things in the 1st place.

    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.

  5. Posted

    1 minute ago, Princess Arabia said:

    It's OK for you to be very visual but not for a female to feel taken care of? Like I said, before rushing off calling women hold-diggers check how you're brushing off your craving for hot chicks saying its because you're visual. That's what I mean by biased. You don't even make sense in your reasoning. How? You say you want a woman to like you for your looks, well, are women visual creatures too when it comes to men, or is it just men.

    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.

  6. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    6 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

    And how is she supposed to earn that right may I ask.

    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.

  7. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    7 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

    What's the difference. Get out of your head. You're just being biased and selfish. You're the one putting value on your looks and personality. What's the difference what yours doing and what she's doing. NOTHING. Only because it serves you. Do you think Donald Trump cared if his wives thought he was good looking or had a banging personality or not. No, because all he wanted was a hot chick. 

    Why aren't you saying you don't care what a woman looks like, I just want a nice girl with a good personality. Hypocritical of you to be judging these women and calling them gold diggers while you're looking for a hot chick. 

     

    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.

  8. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    10 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

    And these men are looking to use these women for whatever they use them for. If you were willing to give women your money, vacations and free shit because they were hot, why say the women are using them. You want them to go around getting used by guys that don't give a damn. You're not on here saying how you want to find a hot chick to marry, have kids and treat her like a queen. You're just looking to have sex. You're the user. Hot chicks don't owe you anything. They're not whores nor users, the men are. At least the hot chicks are offering something other than their pussies, can't say the same for guys just looking to get laid.

    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.

  9. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    9 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

    Leo did not call anyone a whore. You guys crack me up sometimes. Out here looking for hot chicks to bang then calling them whores. I wonder who's the whore for a hot chick. At least the hot chicks are looking for things of value, what are you looking to do besides bang.

    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.

  10. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    4 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

    Why did the word whore had to come out of your mouth.  You wouldn't stand a chance just because of how you see them. Girls can smell a mile away guys who use that language and will ignore you just because. 

    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?

  11. Posted

    48 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    You just need more experience talking to girls until you are confident and charismatic and don't give a damn about what hot girls think of you.

    With lots of experience you lose that insecurity around hot girls because you just stop caring and you are in a self-assuming flow state.

    Of course hotter girls have more value and more options, so they will hook up with you less often. This is just how it is. The hotter the rarer. To consistently sleep with hot girls you need to play a serious social and status game. You gotta intice them with more than just a date. You have to build an elite social circle which you can invite them into, which offers them status and other perks. The hottest girls are often chasing high status. So that's the bait you must use to catch them consistently. You do that by building an elite social circle and hosting your own social events like parties, fancy dinners, social outings, etc. And then you invite girls not for dates but to your exclusive social events.

    You have to realize that once a girl is in the 8/9/10 level of hotness she is basically in model territory. That means she can make lots of money just from her looks. And such girls will use that to get free shit. They make a whole lifestyle out of milking their looks. Free parties, free travel, free dinners, free events, etc. So if you cannot offer that then why would they sleep with you? You're just one of 50 dicks who surround her every week.

    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?

  13. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    Biden and Trump officially secured their parties' presidential nominations after winning the majority of the delegates in each of their respective primaries. This of course was expected given the fact that ever since last year, Biden has had overwhelming unified support from the Democratic party and Trump has had way too strong of a hold over the Republican party. So, whether any of us likes it or not, Biden and Trump will have their rematch in the 2024 presidential election.

     

    At least this time around, Biden has the tremendous advantage of being the incumbent president, whereas Trump no longer will be in the 2024 general election.

     I believe that the main factors that will really determine who wins the election will be:

    1. The level of public order and domestic tranquility.

    2. The state of the economy during the election year.

    3. What will happen with the war in Gaza towards the end of 2024.

    4. What will happen with the war in Ukraine towards the end of 2024.

    5. Whether or not there will be a significant third party campaign that would spoil the election.

    6. The Trump trial(s). 

    7. The liberal backlash against the growing authoritarian regime of Trumpism/right-wing extremism in America.

  14. Posted

    On 3/8/2024 at 5:45 AM, BlueOak said:

    They care about their wallets and what makes them feel good/bad to hear or their values and belief systems and thus their identity.

    Generally, they like short-term answers, which makes long-term complex problems generally unsolvable or only addressed by chance. 

    It is a failing of education that people teach subjects not systems.

    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?

  19. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    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:

    On 3/14/2023 at 11:33 AM, Leo Gura said:

    Most people are extremely politically ignorant and fundamentally uninterested in policy and governance. Most people treat politics as a tribal sport. Serious policy is hard to pass that way.

    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:

    On 11/15/2022 at 9:27 PM, Leo Gura said:

    Dems just need to focus on doing a good just governing. Good governance speaks for itself. Moderates will be convinced by good governance and serious candidates who are not strong ideologues.

    The strategy is basically: be a decent human being, have some positive vision, and govern effectively.

    On 9/10/2023 at 11:42 PM, Leo Gura said:

    They like it when a politician takes bold action towards a larger vision which he sold them.

    A politician doesn't sell policy, he sells a general vision or ethos, such as: "Stop the woke crap" or "Down with corporate power".

     

    Does this mean that most voters do actually care about governance, but only from a broad or general point of view?

     

     

  20. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    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: 

    On 12/11/2022 at 4:11 PM, Hardkill said:

    ....Sinema switched parties to try to improve her electability.....

    Your response to that was: 

    On 12/11/2022 at 4:22 PM, Leo Gura said:

    I doubt she is doing this for reelection. She's not likely to get reelected as an Indie.

    I then said: 

    On 12/11/2022 at 4:46 PM, Hardkill said:

    Then, it sounds like she’s really planning on not being a senator after 2024, and probably wants to be some kind of lobbyist.

    Your reply to that was:

    On 12/11/2022 at 10:13 PM, Leo Gura said:

    Very likely. That's what many centrists do.

     

    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.

  21. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    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.