- AuthorSearch Results
- 2016-08-16 at 11:27 AM#283650
In reply to: I Hate Hillary, but I hate Trump more.
Given that I’m in Texas, which is going to go Trump, I think my vote will be best used to vote Libertarian or just anything other then the two primary candidates. I most definitely prefer Trump over Clinton.
No matter who we get, I think we’ll get another 4 years of garbage. Neither is going to get anything done through congress as the opposite party is going to trash everything they try and do. Trump will try and do more things that I support, but he won’t even get the full support of his own party, not to mention the democrats and the media.
Ok. Then do it.
2016-08-16 at 11:10 AM#283639In reply to: Hillary Is On Death's Door!
if she wins she’ll die of “natural causes” if Trump wins he will get “assassinated”. If the BLM wins we will have martial law and Obama for a third term.. no matter what us goyims lose.
Yup.
Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?
2016-08-16 at 10:59 AM#283624In reply to: Hillary Is On Death's Door!
if she wins she’ll die of “natural causes” if Trump wins he will get “assassinated”. If the BLM wins we will have martial law and Obama for a third term.. no matter what us goyims lose.
2016-08-16 at 9:58 AM#283587In reply to: Galileo and Independent Thinking
Amen to that Sage! Independent thinking is lost art in today’s society. It’s all fear based herd mentality. It’s in every venue, school, corporate world, politics, you name it. Truth no longer matters, the fear of bieng labeled trumps everything.
"You can either love women or understand them, you can't do both". Truth over everything
2016-08-16 at 7:33 AM#283536In reply to: I Hate Hillary, but I hate Trump more.
The main problem with Trump is his Xenophobia.
As opposed to neocon foreign policy?
See it isn’t phobia, it is recognition of “blowback” for interventionism that keeps biting us in the ass. Hillary essentially supported ISIS as detailed below:
NEW IRAN AND SYRIA 2.DOC
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498
Date: 11/30/2015 RELEASE IN FULLThe best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.
Negotiations to limit Iran’s nuclear program will not solve Israel’s security dilemma. Nor will they stop Iran from improving the crucial part of any nuclear weapons program — the capability to enrich uranium. At best, the talks between the world’s major powers and Iran that began in Istanbul this April and will continue in Baghdad in May will enable Israel to postpone by a few months a decision whether to launch an attack on Iran that could provoke a major Mideast war.
Iran’s nuclear program and Syria’s civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. For Israeli leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not the prospect of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked Iranian nuclear attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of both countries. What Israeli military leaders really worry about — but cannot talk about — is losing their nuclear monopoly. An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today. If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself.
Back to Syria. It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel’s security — not through a direct attack, which in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel has never occurred, but through its proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria. The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel’s leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests. Speaking on CNN’s Amanpour show last week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak argued that “the toppling down of Assad will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran…. It’s the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world…and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza.”
Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted. Right now, it is the combination of Iran’s strategic alliance with Syria and the steady progress in Iran’s nuclear enrichment program that has led Israeli leaders to contemplate a surprise attack — if necessary over the objections of Washington. With Assad gone, and Iran no longer able to threaten Israel through its, proxies, it is possible that the United States and Israel can agree on red lines for when Iran’s program has crossed an unacceptable threshold. In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria.
The rebellion in Syria has now lasted more than a year. The opposition is not going away, nor is the regime going to accept a diplomatic solution from the outside. With his life and his family at risk, only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s mind.
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498
Date: 11/30/2015The Obama administration has been understandably wary of engaging in an air operation in Syria like the one conducted in Libya for three main reasons. Unlike the Libyan opposition forces, the Syrian rebels are not unified and do not hold territory. The Arab League has not called for outside military intervention as it did in Libya. And the Russians are opposed.
Libya was an easier case. But other than the laudable purpose of saving Libyan civilians from likely attacks by Qaddafi’s regime, the Libyan operation had no long-lasting consequences for the region. Syria is harder. But success in Syria would be a transformative event for the Middle East. Not only would another ruthless dictator succumb to mass opposition on the streets, but the region would be changed for the better as Iran would no longer have a foothold in the Middle East from which to threaten Israel and undermine stability in the region. Unlike in Libya, a successful intervention in Syria would require substantial diplomatic and military leadership from the United States. Washington should start by expressing its willingness to work with regional allies like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to organize, train and arm Syrian rebel forces. The announcement of such a decision would, by itself, likely cause substantial defections from the Syrian military. Then, using territory in Turkey and possibly Jordan, U.S. diplomats and Pentagon officials can start strengthening the opposition. It will take time. But the rebellion is going to go on for a long time, with or without U.S. involvement.
The second step is to develop international support for a coalition air operation. Russia will never support such a mission, so there is no point operating through the UN Security Council. Some argue that U.S. involvement risks a wider war with Russia. But the Kosovo example shows otherwise. In that case, Russia had genuine ethnic and political ties to the Serbs, which don’t exist between Russia and Syria, and even then Russia did little more than complain. Russian officials have already acknowledged they won’t stand in the way if intervention comes.
Arming the Syrian rebels and using western air power to ground Syrian helicopters and airplanes is a low-cost high payoff approach. As long as Washington’s political leaders stay firm that no U.S. ground troops will be deployed, as they did in both Kosovo and Libya, the costs to the United States will be limited. Victory may not come quickly or easily, but it will come. And the payoff will be substantial. Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East. The resulting regime in Syria will see the United States as a friend, not an enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab world, not the corrupt regimes. For Israel, the rationale for a bolt from the blue attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be eased. And a new Syrian regime might well be open to early action on the frozen peace talks with Israel. Hezbollah in Lebanon would be cut off from its Iranian sponsor since Syria would no longer be a transit point for Iranian training, assistance and missiles. All these strategic benefits and the prospect of saving thousands of civilians from murder at the hands of the Assad regime (10,000 have already been killed in this first year of civil war).
With the veil of fear lifted from the Syrian people, they seem determine to fight for their freedom. America can and should help them — and by doing so help Israel and help reduce the risk of a wider war.
2016-08-15 at 10:38 PM#283351In reply to: Reaction to wearing Trump shirt and hat
It’s the same for me, I live in cali as well. I sport my Trump hat when I go get gas or go to the store. I get heaps of dirty looks but only had 2 negative comments shouted at me. I get the same feeling of dominance especially when the people are willing to give a look but not a comment it’s Alpha status.
|Right Wing Death Squad| Swallowed both Red Pills /pol/MGTOW
2016-08-15 at 6:37 PM#283246In reply to: I Hate Hillary, but I hate Trump more.
I think that Trump might be slightly better than Hillary but even he has some big problems.
The main problem with Trump is his Xenophobia. He’s many as f~~~ … but he doesn’t seem to realize that there is a ton of manly badassery in Mexico and the Middle East.
I believe that we should be working towards a global MGTOW movement. Ignoring the manly achievements of foreigners is not the best solution.
I’ve noticed that veil hysteria is common among Trump supporters. We won’t get anywhere by claiming that the veil is oppressive to women. It isn’t even slightly oppressive. If we start saying that all Muslims are bad then we will start lashing out at Muslims even when they do something right. This inevitably leads to pseudo-feminist white knighting.
MGTOW: because you can (and should) say anything about a woman as long as she isn't within earshot
2016-08-15 at 6:01 PM#283228In reply to: When do we stand up?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I don’t give a f~~~ about the Islamization of the West.
Most Muslims are not as bad as DAESH or Al Qaeda. The Muslims in places like Bangladesh, Kazakhstan, Albania and Indonesia aren’t as brutal as the Saudis or DAESHbags. Furthermore, DAESH came into existence because the US military destabilized the region.
Perhaps Trump will win. Perhaps the radfems will take over. Perhaps Islam will overtake the West. In any case, MGTOW will continue to exist as the tiny minority it is now. I doubt that Islam will attempt to wipe out the MGTOW.
A couple of years ago, I was talking to a Muslim woman at a university. She told me that she was a Muslism feminist. I told her about how some men are abused by women. She agreed that this is a problem. I told her about the Man’s Rights Movement. She told me “We don’t need a Men’s Rights Movement, we just need people to stop being sexist.” In other words, she took the “nice feminist” route.
Overall, she wasn’t nearly as annoying as most feminists are. She also was flattered when I told her that her hijab was pretty. She didn’t call me a creep or anything. It seems to me that Muslism feminists aren’t as bad as the others.
Muslim immigrants might be potentially useful. For all we know, the next Christina Hoff Sommers could come be an American Muslim.
The Islamization of the West is not a crisis. It is an opportunity. If we talk to them, we can use them.
MGTOW: because you can (and should) say anything about a woman as long as she isn't within earshot
2016-08-15 at 3:25 PM#283104In reply to: INFO request
They would have to pay $$$ for me to pay any attention to them.
They can call me an attention whore if they want.IDGAFD!!
Pay me $$$$$ and mabe i would talk to(pay attention) to them.
Other than that i ignore the dumbass tradcons.
Trump is leading them all into a ditch.
(Him and Hitleary are f~~~ buddies)
And hitleary will lead the libs into a ditch in a decade or so.frankly my dear i don't give a damn
2016-08-15 at 6:30 AM#282842In reply to: The end of civilization
If Trump doesn’t destroy feminism, Muslims will.
Either way, men win in the end.
Let that be a source of comfort in these dark times.That only destroys the church not the religion.
A MGTOW is a man who is not a woman's bitch!
2016-08-15 at 6:09 AM#282833In reply to: SECRET SERVICE LEAKS HILLARY’S HEALTH TO PRESS
Hmm… Well, many have said all along that Trump is in the race to get Hillary elected, and if she is that ill, then what is the ultimate end game here?
But… aside from conspiracy, just reading through the descriptions in that article, doesn’t sound like Parkinson’s, sounds more like Huntington’s, which is very similar. It would be very scary to think that she is being pushed as a candidate just to break the glass ceiling, with no expectation of her finishing even her first term.
I don’t know that it matters though, the president is primarily a figurehead. I don’t care for either candidate and have mostly unplugged from the race for now… let them implode and we’ll see who is still left come late September.
No longer can we walk away, we must run. Remove the motive power.
2016-08-14 at 11:55 PM#282759In reply to: The end of civilization
If Trump doesn’t destroy feminism, Muslims will.
Either way, men win in the end.
Let that be a source of comfort in these dark times.MGTOW: because you can (and should) say anything about a woman as long as she isn't within earshot
2016-08-14 at 6:54 PM#282623In reply to: Have another (privilege) game…
AnonymousAh, the Trump card, if only it were that simple.
I will check out this guys stand up too Ned, thanks.
2016-08-14 at 6:29 PM#282610In reply to: Are These Election Polls Accurate?
No. The polls are rigged. This is proven that Trump is constantly pulling in VERY LARGE crowds at his rallies, between 1000 to 20,000 people. With more people outside.
Meanwhile, Hillary has usually pulled in crowds at her rallies between 100 to 2000 people. With two exceptions being Omaha Nebraska, which was 3,300 people. And a D.C. rally of 4000 people.
The press has been caught multiple times taking pictures of where Trump’s rallies were at, hours before the event, to make it look like Trump had few people.
While the press has also been caught photoshopping Hillary’s rallies so there appeared to be more people.
For example, on Thursday, at the end of Hillary “economic” speech, the youtube camera pulled back for a second to show the crowd was only about 200 people at most there, in a small fenced in area.
And at Trump’s rallies. At Fort Lauderdale Florida, Trump had a crowd of 20,000 people. Jacksonville Florida had a 1000 people inside the auditorium and 15,000 people outside.
I got the crowd figures from this webpage: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/trump-events-more-than-10-times-the-size-of-hillarys-events-the-numbers-prove-it/
I do not know about the rest of you. But, it is clear the press are lying every chance they get about Trump. And I am tired and very annoyed of the press peripherally p~~~ing on my leg, every chance the press gets, and the press calls it rain.
The collusion by those of the press and social media against Trump is likely criminal. And the press may end up destroying themselves in doing this.
According to those statistics, Trump, since August 1st, has had about 100,000 attendees, when Hillary’s grand totals since August 1st is about 12,500 which is less than what Trump got in Jacksonville, FL alone.
All of a sudden I feel better. He’s generating large crowds and they cheer on everything he says. So it’s true that the anti-Trump people whether if it’s the media or political sides are just a bunch of liars.
https://themanszone.webs.com/
2016-08-14 at 6:02 PM#282595In reply to: Are These Election Polls Accurate?
AnonymousThe State of Vermont is dying, Bernie’s home state, if the Vermonsters don’t Vote for Trump and Hellery wins, they’ll have one of the worlds most vindictive c~~~s breathing fire down on them.
The Wobbly Barn at Killington closed, another victim of top down social engineering. The Wobbly was the premier restaurant and landmark on the access road. My folks just came back from there and are shocked at the economic degradation and abandonment of businesses there.
Now they know why we stopped paying taxes.If Hellery gets in, Vermont will know what it’s like to be brutally divorce raped.
They’ll be calling it the State of Vermud…
2016-08-14 at 5:37 PM#282581In reply to: Are These Election Polls Accurate?
AnonymousRigged polls. I read where James Carville, notorious Democrat strategist, stated that they are over sampling democrats in these polls.
The fact the controlled media is going apoplectic means they are doing it for a reason. Trump by a landslide.
My liberal Democrat Aunt is not voting for Hilary due to the shenanigans her campaign pulled in Cali against Sanders. She’s is either not voting or voting for Jill Stein.
F~~~ cankles!
2016-08-14 at 6:56 AM#282325In reply to: Are These Election Polls Accurate?
App maker: Trump will win election
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/08/13/app-maker—trump-win-election/88640044/How to Hack an Election in 7 Minutes
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/2016-elections-russia-hack-how-to-hack-an-election-in-seven-minutes-214144Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?
2016-08-14 at 6:55 AM#282324In reply to: Are These Election Polls Accurate?
No. The polls are rigged. This is proven that Trump is constantly pulling in VERY LARGE crowds at his rallies, between 1000 to 20,000 people. With more people outside.
Meanwhile, Hillary has usually pulled in crowds at her rallies between 100 to 2000 people. With two exceptions being Omaha Nebraska, which was 3,300 people. And a D.C. rally of 4000 people.
The press has been caught multiple times taking pictures of where Trump’s rallies were at, hours before the event, to make it look like Trump had few people.
While the press has also been caught photoshopping Hillary’s rallies so there appeared to be more people.
For example, on Thursday, at the end of Hillary “economic” speech, the youtube camera pulled back for a second to show the crowd was only about 200 people at most there, in a small fenced in area.
And at Trump’s rallies. At Fort Lauderdale Florida, Trump had a crowd of 20,000 people. Jacksonville Florida had a 1000 people inside the auditorium and 15,000 people outside.
I got the crowd figures from this webpage: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/trump-events-more-than-10-times-the-size-of-hillarys-events-the-numbers-prove-it/
I do not know about the rest of you. But, it is clear the press are lying every chance they get about Trump. And I am tired and very annoyed of the press peripherally p~~~ing on my leg, every chance the press gets, and the press calls it rain.
The collusion by those of the press and social media against Trump is likely criminal. And the press may end up destroying themselves in doing this.
2016-08-14 at 5:19 AM#282293In reply to: Are These Election Polls Accurate?
If Trump wins-The world mistrusts the U.S.
If Hillary wins the local militias take up arms and the U.S. has an uprising…or two…2016-08-14 at 2:25 AM#282256In reply to: Are These Election Polls Accurate?
I’m a Trump supporter by highly, and the polls I keep seeing makes me nervous, because I think this election is too important to elect a c~~~ like Hillary or any Dumb-acrat.
I hope you’re not all saying those things to try to make me feel better.
So you guys think Trump is doing better than they are letting us believe? I mean Trump is filling stadiums, while Hillary is only getting a few hundred at her rallies is what I’ve been told.
https://themanszone.webs.com/
- AuthorSearch Results
925069
924988
922113
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
