RemyBrown

->Do you disbelieve that global temperatures are rising at all, or do you just think the threat is exaggerated?

One of the 2; I'm not sure.

->Also, the US is not the only country where people believe that climate change is real. Plenty of other countries are taking steps against it. 

How much did China reduce their carbon emissions by to help fight against climate change? None because they don't think it's a big problem.

-> If the Democrats were capable of a conspiracy that big, you'd think they'd win elections more often.

The democrats and republicans co-manage elections; they make sure nobody else is allowed to run. Politics is show business; that's all. If there was only 1 main party, then people would be disillusioned to the oligarchy. Having 2 parties has the illusion of choice. Democrats and republicans win virtually 100% of the elections.

I am a climate change denier, so yeah.

Yeah; I don't want to give Bill Gates free shit. He's loaded enough already.

->The very definition you cite says that a person can be anti vax regardless of their stance on mandates. 

Anyone that is pro vax mandate and anti vax is a hypocrite.

->So while most people are against mandates and would thus be anti vax this whole rabbit hole you r going down misses the obvious point of this thread and u r just playing pointless word games

If someone can be pro vax and anti mandate, then change the definition.

I kindof am a conspiracy theorist. What's wrong with that?

If it's real, then Obama promoted climate change being a big problem a lot (which is fine). But then he didn't match his actions with policy.

The most proximate thing was the Paris Climate Accord; but you read the thing; it's toothless.

Democrats need people to be scared of climate change so it wins them more votes.

So because of that, I think climate change is a hoax invented by the democrats to help them win elections as a left wing party (and democrats aren't center right; they are left wing) in America (right wing country).

Too much work.

I'm arguably an anti vaxxer.

Definition:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer says anyone that is anti COVID vax mandate is an anti vaxxer.

I got 5 shots and am anti mandate. If I'm anti vax for this, then fine. I'm an anti vaxxer (I think over 85% of the US population at this point is against COVID vax mandates).

I'm willing to argue if and only if you are willing to change your mind, because otherwise, there is no point.

I don't believe climate change is real at all, but I am willing to argue with you about this ONLY if you are willing to believe that climate change is a hoax. Otherwise, there is no point in me wasting my energy on people who are unwilling to deny climate change's existence.

->To those who voted for him, how are you not embarrassed? No, seriously, how?

Nobody gets embarrassed when their god does something. He's God to them; they will let him get away with this; they didn't break ranks with him over Haitians eating pets and Epstein's island. When you are a god to someone, you can do no wrong EVER.

That's how MAGA isn't embarrassed; Trump is God to them.

Even me (I'm not MAGA), I don't really care about Rosie O Donnell that much; she's a stranger who I don't even know what she looks like. I don't give a fuck about her.

What does the personality of a gf look like? I've never had a gf before.

I like women with the personalities of Danielle Smith and AOC. They seem smarter and more resilient than Ariana Grandes and Katty Perrys.

Define "incel" without using me as the definition unless you believe I'm the only incel on the planet.

The left's insults don't mean anything anymore, so I just treat them as synonyms for, "annoying non-leftist".

Why would I want to date to begin with? If I break up, then I become someone's ex, and that's baggage.

->You can have AI girlfriend who is a human wolf hybrid and also has college education.

How is this different from Chat GPT?

There is no point in you posting this. You won't change anyone's mind; they stick to their anti Trump party as much as you stick to the Pro Trump party.

Anyone that discriminates based on gender is a sexist. Therefore, hetro and homosexuals (who discriminate based on gender for who they date) are sexist.

Sexism is normal, it's commonplace, it's accepted, and it's not going away. I'm straight.

Women think emotionally and men think logically.

Emotion=Stupid

Logic=Smart

Don't believe me? Ask them what they think of man and bears. They will justify their position with fear (aka emotion/stupidness) and women (with few exceptions, vice versa for men too) identify as emotional (men with few exceptions identify as logical). Emotion=Stupidity.

Take away the right to vote away from women. I don't want people who identify as stupid/emotional voting.

If you believe emotional people (defined as someone who identifies as emotional) should have the right to vote, then you better have a good case for your position, because I see none.

I don't identify as emotional, and if that makes me an incel, then the majority of men are incels.

You can post this, but it's futile; you aren't changing anyone's minds; they have a party to stick to just like you do.

I thought an incel used to be someone who wanted sex, but couldn't get it.

I've told people that I voluntarily don't want sex (so I'm volcel really) and they insist on calling me the same inaccurate name, incel because they are NPCs that can't think, so they will just say some rando insult in the hopes that it will change my mind (when it won't). I won't call this person out because I don't want to generate a call out thread.

There needs to be a new definition of incel so the title is accurate:

Incel:

Any man that is a non-leftist.

Synonyms: Nazi, Fascist, Weirdo, Evil, Creepy, Transphobe, Hitler sympathizer, Klansman.

All non-leftists are incels, so alright; the majority of men are incels. Get used to it.

NYC map 2016, 2020, 2024 POTUS election. North Queens (immigrants) are shifting heavily to the right. They didn't come to America to abolish private property.

How the election currently is going, if Mandami goes head to head against Cuomo, then he's down 52-41.

I hope those immigrants that democrats let in vote the crap out of Manhattan.

Seems legit for those that want to use it.

-> Why should I reply to a post you say is offensive? 

I don't think it's offensive. I'm a brutally honest guy.

My response: Loud enough so I hear, but not loud enough so I end up agreeing with your leftist beliefs.

The suffering other people endure is not something that I really care about wrt legislative policy.

Murder and rape should be outlawed because they are THEFT; murder steals your life and rape steals your bodily autonomy.

But we should keep gun rights even if children die from it. If that upsets you, then reverse the 2nd amendment and ban guns federally while going after the gun dealers with cameras everywhere to make sure no guns get illegally sold; that's the easiest way to save 100% of children from gun deaths.

But as long as we have freedom, children are going to die.

It's a tough pill to swallow; but it needs to be done.

Tolerate inevitable children's deaths or advocate for banning all guns with cameras everywhere to prevent guns from being illegally sold. One of them has to be done. Life is tough; get used to it.

Any gun laws other than a flat out nationwide ban on guns will result in more children dying.

I'm fine with making that sacrifice though; freedom for the masses matters more than saving the lives of a few worthless kids (to me, they are worthless because they are strangers).

If that upsets you, then maybe support banning all guns or something. That's the easiest way to save the most amount of children on the gun issue.

You may think I'm an asshole over it, but every pro gun rights person agrees; I'm just brutally honest because that's who I am. So you can at least respect the honesty even if you hate me for it.

So are you right wing/libertarian on guns despite the mass shootings? I'm not a PC person, so I would say yes.

An Irish, an Italian, a Hispanic, and a Black (all men) look at a 4 year old black orphan on the street.

1. The Irish said, "This is somebody's child."
2. The Italian said, "This is somebody's kid."
3. The Hispanic said, "This is somebody else's kid."
4. The Black said, "This is somebody else's kid. I ain't raising this shit!"

A gay guy shows up. He says, "Oh; you poor little soul. I'm going to love you for the rest of my life and adopt you from this cold, harsh world".

They all then wait 4 days, see a 4 year old white orphan on the street, they react exactly the same way.

The racial women react 1 level whiter than their male counterparts (the black women react like the Hispanic men, the Hispanic women react like the Italian man, etc). Irish women copy the gay guys. Lesbians didn't bother to comment.

None of these people are racist, but the darker you are and the more masculine you are, the tougher your reaction.

Imagine being a black kid; the vast majority of the time, your parents (if you have both of them) are black. The blacks end up going through a tougher childhood, but they are thicker skinned at the end of it. Every non-white woman that chose the bear is an oreo; they are a product of white culture.

Women: We choose the bear and if a man gets angry at us for that, then he's the reason why! The worst a bear can do is murder.

Me: So are you telling me that a man getting angry at you makes you worse off in your opinion than if a bear murders you?

Because if so, then the easiest ways you can prevent men from being angry at you is either:

1. to obey them 100% of the time (except for sexual matters, but if he says be a trad wife at home while earning 50/50, if you don't like that, then you will argue with him and when he responds, you will think he's mad)
2. Become asexual so you don't have to deal with men in your home (who inevitably will get mad at you).

Men aren't bound by this; we believe that arguing is not as bad as murder. Women are bound by this because they believe arguing is worse than murder (which is why they choose the bear and merely contest that a man getting mad at them for making this claim is the reason why).

If they merely cite the few men that rape, then this is akin to Trump citing Osama Bin Laden to say why he'd rather be with a bear than a strange Muslim.

The left has turned Xenophobic; at least the KKK owns their xenophobia (and the KKK says generic blacks have low impulse control; the left says that generic men are rapists).

But to be xenophobic is to be right wing. Left wing ideas can never be xenophobic. Left and right wing are totally arbitrary combinations of ideas.

I guess I'm a little xenophobic then; it's called not being a 100% leftist; but maybe 53% or so.

The left hates Cuomo and Adams, they are right wing:

Cuomo is appealing to republicans when he said he would move to Florida is he loses:

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/americas/artc-former-ny-governor-andrew-cuomo-says-he-will-move-to-florida-if-zohran-mamdani-becomes-mayor#:~:text=Recommended%20%2D,This%20article%20received%205%20comments

Adams is flat out pro trump:

Mandami is the sole left wing candidate in this race.

But if Adams and Sliwa drop out and endorse Cuomo, then the right winger (Cuomo, who "joked" about moving to Florida if he loses) wins NYC (right now, it looks like an 11 pt victory).

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-NnNJGWhpzw

Cuomo's S.A. scandal is irrelevant; S.A. is a misdemeanor. The left was fine with Waltz committing DUI (another misdemeanor). I don't hold misdemeanors against politicians for the rest of their lives. Waltz and Cuomo are to the same standard.

But if the left loses NYC of all places (D+38 in 2024), then what does the left do after that? Do they just give up and start, "identifying as republican" to advance their causes?

If you want to get rid of the 2 party system (which left wingers are more likely to support), then that is the same in effect as having just one party, where the term, "republican" is synonymous with the term, "politician".

If democrats want things like Medicare for all, then they are more likely to get M4A if they identify as "republican" than as, "democrat". It's why TX gets a lot of credit for having no income tax, but WA doesn't. It's why the GOP accuses MA of having high income taxes, but not Idaho or South Carolina.

Democrat vibes feel sus and republican vibes feel badass. But if everyone identifies as republican, then the vibe factor goes away, you get the same effect as eliminating political parties, and any policy you support is more likely to actually get enacted. A political party is just a label.

I'm right wing on gun laws pretty much regardless of how many mass shootings annually there realistically will be (and so is like 50% of the country). 80% of the country is pro 2nd amendment.

Gun rights of the many matter more than the lives of the few! If you disagree, then advocate for repealing the 2nd amendment or something. Watch your party lose relevancy.