How do you logically see the future (10+ years) in western society?

[Anonymous 3]

I’m not sure I’ll be alive in 10 years, but I imagine I’ll give even less of a s~~~ than I do now.

This isn’t my problem, I’m on my way out. The Millennials don’t seem to think it’s their problem either, they love their liberalism and left wing. My guess is the next generation after the Millennials will push the Millennials completely aside and actually do something. Millennials are pretty much rock bottom. Nowhere to go but up.

[Anonymous 7]

PistolPete wrote:

Gambit would make a good WH Chief of Staff, or Press Secretary. I can see it now—first press conference he gets dumb question #1 and his response is: shut the f~~~ up and get out of here!

That is f~~~ing brilliant.

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

Grue–interested in running the Defense Dept.? Note not the CIA—If possible I would eliminate the CIA totally. Those c~~~-suckers are the biggest threat to EVERYONE’s peace and security there is.

[CarnageParticipant 22113]

Allha ackbar.
Burka.
Sharia law.

To those following me, be careful, I just farted. Men those beans are killers.

[TaxGuyParticipant]

Anonymous wrote:

The Millennials don’t seem to think it’s their problem either, they love their liberalism and left wing. My guess is the next generation after the Millennials will push the Millennials completely aside and actually do something. Millennials are pretty much rock bottom. Nowhere to go but up.

I hope you’re right. I see some of it with my daughters. The oldest, the soccer player, and her friends don’t have the butthurt, snowflake attitude at all. She plays on a very diverse team and they give each other s~~~ all the time about the race stereotypes. As I like to say, they know the difference between RACIST and RACIAL. So maybe the tide is turning a little.

Also, they are all used to seeing mommy work. They see my ex work, they just don’t know that she gets more money from me every month that what mommy makes. All they see is her working. One good thing that may come from single moms is that both the sons and daughters that she raised saw her work. It’s the expectation. They also saw her go a s~~~ty job of “having it all” and will maybe realize that being a single mom isn’t a good outcome.

The next generation learns from the one’s before them. This generation is seeing daddy get screwed over by the court system and mommy failing as a parent. They see her on prescription drugs drinking her boxed wine every night. I hope they won’t see that as a role model, but more as a cautionary tale.

Order the good wine

[CarnageParticipant 22113]

Can we create a new nuclear weapons director or something like that.

I can do that.

And to be 100% of nuclear capabilities, I will use them ALL.

To those following me, be careful, I just farted. Men those beans are killers.

[RemovedParticipant 4676]

PistolPete wrote:

Uly would make an excellent Supreme Court Judge and I’m sure Monk could handle the Dept. Of Justice. And here is what I want fixed—yesterday Florida executed a guy for double murder and he has been on death roll 30 years AHHHHHH! Gambit would make a good WH Chief of Staff, or Press Secretary. I can see it now—first press conference he gets dumb question #1 and his response is: shut the f~~~ up and get out of here! YEAH MAN!

The constitution will be held to the letter. I don’t think corrupt people would like me. I couldn’t be bought with any amount of money.

[The man in the mountainParticipant 4102]

Women are taking notice, they see that they can’t shackle the top 10-20 percent of guys if you go by the 80-20 rule.

Women are now going to make the most likely choice, go for the political one, voting democrat to increase everyone’s taxes and force everyone with a job or a high paying job to pay more for their entitlements, it’s going to be all over red rover….

I hate to sound negative, but i heard the rumor that they are marching again to Washington like they did when TRUMP got elected, This means that they hope to change the system with sheer numbers (that for now they have and know it) or tilt it more on their favour.

All men have got to vote trump in the next election, i don’t agree with hes policy on Afghanistan but that’s an issue for another day, We cannot let them enslave us through welfare and government slavery.

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

The man in the mountain wrote:

All men have got to vote trump in the next election, i don’t agree with hes policy on Afghanistan but that’s an issue for another day, We cannot let them enslave us through welfare and government slavery.

True there are a number of things I don’t agree with but there are many more that I DO agree with. Trump really is our last hope. If you guys get the chance take a look at Brent Bozell’s latest article on the suicide of the Republican party. HE is right on. I’m not posting it here because I figure Venom will get to it and I don’t want to be duplicative.

[BeerParticipant 11832]

The man in the mountain wrote:

Women are now going to make the most likely choice, go for the political one, voting democrat to increase everyone’s taxes and force everyone with a job or a high paying job to pay more for their entitlements, it’s going to be all over red rover….

Yeah this is what I see happening…just more f~~~ ups and welfare programs. We haven’t even hit a point yet where women have stopped blaming men, let alone women have any interest in making marriage/divorce laws fair towards men. 10 years out…I still see things spiraling down the toilet.

[Secret Agent MGTOWParticipant 22534]

I have thought this too. The problem is you cannot marry in the west if you are a white guy and not get crushed by the gynocentric state and the society-encouraged unrestrained hypergamy of western females.

You’re either controlled or not.

However there is a solution. White males using surrogates and artificial wombs for kids that are solely theirs. They cannot ban it because unmarried women use in vitro and surrogates all the time for kids and they have no spouses.

Women want everything, but want responsibility and accountability for nothing.

[Anonymous 3]

The man in the mountain wrote:

Women are taking notice, they see that they can’t shackle the top 10-20 percent of guys if you go by the 80-20 rule.

Women are now going to make the most likely choice, go for the political one, voting democrat to increase everyone’s taxes and force everyone with a job or a high paying job to pay more for their entitlements, it’s going to be all over red rover….

I hate to sound negative, but i heard the rumor that they are marching again to Washington like they did when TRUMP got elected, This means that they hope to change the system with sheer numbers (that for now they have and know it) or tilt it more on their favour.

All men have got to vote trump in the next election, i don’t agree with hes policy on Afghanistan but that’s an issue for another day, We cannot let them enslave us through welfare and government slavery.

They never had access to the top 10-20% of men. The top 10-20% of men only go to the top 10-20% of women, and a woman can only be in that range when she is young, fit, chaste and from a good family. If she picks wrong on her first partner, she will never recover. At those young ages, the looks are very similar and it’s the attitude and background and life choices that put a woman at the top.

It’s a joke to think some overweight 30 year old slut can just “choose” a top 10% partner.

Tom Brady isn’t out wifing up some middle class hypergamous chick that thinks she’s all that. He’s married to a super model, and they’ve been together for a long time.

You go down the line, look at the top athletes, top businessman, top bankers, top legislators, the cream of the crop, it’s the same story for each of them.

Meanwhile some barely literate nerds on the internet working some s~~~ty average job that look like f~~~~~s are busy screeching “I’m six foot tall alpha yo I lift and got game I’m top 10%”. It’s an absolute joke.

The men on this website tend to be far more likely to be in that top 10-20% range, and we are OFF the market. That’s why women obsess over us. They don’t give a f~~~ about some PUA loser that declares himself top 20%, nobody believes it. That’s just women cutting off their noses to spite themselves, she knows the guy is a loser and she’s trying to get better men jealous by having sex with them, because women think that drives their value up. They think that because if they see a man that other women express interest in, they think that man is high value. But they don’t realize it doesn’t work that way, and those high quality men aren’t actually putting out for the loser women that hit on them. Women have very poor judgment, and in the past fathers would filter out the loser men to protect their daughters from devaluing themselves. That doesn’t happen now because the losers are valued, and the good men are repelled, if the father isn’t just outright removed from that authority role.

[TwistParticipant]

PistolPete wrote:

e) Repeal the direct election of US Senators

Pete – can you expand on this one?

thanks

[Anonymous 7]

PistolPete wrote:

Grue–interested in running the Defense Dept.?

Only if I get a cool nick-name like the current one. 🙂

[Anonymous 7]

Carnage wrote:

Can we create a new nuclear weapons director or something like that.

I can do that.

And to be 100% of nuclear capabilities, I will use them ALL.

Hey man a little warning before you pull the trigger.
My Potassium Iodine pills haven’t shown up.

Or the very least invite me to NORAD for the fireworks and after party.

[PuniShredderParticipant 2268]

Europe in the throws of a bloody civil war. Our country in conflict against leftism.

Be professional be polite but always have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

[Anonymous 7]

Twist wrote:

Pete – can you expand on this one?

thanks

Senators use to be appointed by the State Government.
It was how the founders thunk it up.

Don’t remember when but it was changed to Senatorial elections.

[The man in the mountainParticipant 4102]

Anonymous wrote:

The man in the mountain wrote:

They never had access to the top 10-20% of men. The top 10-20% of men only go to the top 10-20% of women, and a woman can only be in that range when she is young, fit, chaste and from a good family. If she picks wrong on her first partner, she will never recover. At those young ages, the looks are very similar and it’s the attitude and background and life choices that put a woman at the top.

It’s a joke to think some overweight 30 year old slut can just “choose” a top 10% partner.

Tom Brady isn’t out wifing up some middle class hypergamous chick that thinks she’s all that. He’s married to a super model, and they’ve been together for a long time.

You go down the line, look at the top athletes, top businessman, top bankers, top legislators, the cream of the crop, it’s the same story for each of them.

Meanwhile some barely literate nerds on the internet working some s~~~ty average job that look like f~~~~~s are busy screeching “I’m six foot tall alpha yo I lift and got game I’m top 10%”. It’s an absolute joke.

You missed the ball, most middle-class women aspire to be models, become models and then get wife’d up by the rich guys as you mentioned, of course the chances of a normal down the road girl getting one of them is extremely rare, i wouldn’t put it past that as impossible though, here in Miami, L.A. and NY is where you will find the hottest girls in the country, because in these places mentioned where the most wealthy usually hover around.

You have got to understand that most of them know they can’t get to the wealthy individuals, because of many reasons that we could list here, that is why they want to move more towards the socialist engines, make the filthy rich or affluent guys pay the tab for all of them and their nasty kids…We have the worse single mother epidemic this country has ever seen, many chastised dads thrown into the bins and by the side of the road or in jail!.

[trader1913Participant 1577]

Nothing extraordinary will happen in the next 10 years; it takes 1000s of years for a species to adapt its general behaviour significantly. After WW1 they said that theyd never have a war like that again, it took 30 years for another war to come along (which was directly caused by the first war). Humans are not rational, they are controlled by their lizard brain.

It is certain that men and women will be virtually the same 10 years from now. Gender relations are similar to what they were 200 years ago. Men and Women are in a constant tug of war over their own interests; human males and females didnt even originate from the same instance; the earliest human male is probably older than the earliest human female.

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

Twist wrote:

Pete – can you expand on this one?

Sure thing: 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Direct Election of U.S. Senators

Americans did not directly vote for senators for the first 125 years of the Federal Government. The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, stated that senators would be elected by state legislatures. The first proposal to amend the Constitution to elect senators by popular vote was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1826, but the idea did not gain considerable support until the late 19th century when several problems related to Senate elections had become evident. Several state legislatures deadlocked over the election of senators, which led to Senate vacancies lasting months and even years. In other cases, political machines gained control over state legislatures, and the Senators elected with their support were dismissed as puppets. In addition, the Senate was seen as a “millionaire’s club” serving powerful private interests. The rise of the People’s Party, commonly referred to as the Populist Party, added motivation for making the Senate more directly accountable to the people.

During the 1890s, the House of Representatives passed several resolutions proposing a constitutional amendment for the direct election of senators. Each time, however, the Senate refused to even take a vote. When it seemed unlikely that both houses of Congress would pass legislation proposing an amendment for direct election, many states changed strategies. Article V of the Constitution states that Congress must call a constitutional convention for proposing amendments when two-thirds of the state legislatures apply for one. Although the method had never previously been used, many states began sending Congress applications for conventions. As the number of applications neared the two-thirds bar, Congress finally acted.

In 1911, the House of Representatives passed House Joint Resolution 39 proposing a constitutional amendment for direct election of senators. However, it included a “race rider” meant to bar Federal intervention in cases of racial discrimination among voters. A substitute amendment by Senator Joseph L. Bristow (R-KS) removed the “race rider.” The amended Joint Resolution was adopted by the Senate on a close vote in May of 1911. Over a year later, the House accepted the change, and the amendment was sent to the states for ratification. On April 8, 1913, three-quarters of the states had ratified the proposed amendment, and it was officially included as the 17th Amendment.

BUT the problem is with direct election by the public Senator’s no longer represent the entity they were intended to represent—i.e. the states; this is what the principal of federalism is all about—removing this check simply reduced them to a hyer–congressman and opened the door for the federal government to expand without limit. “States” as a check on federal power was lost forever.

Hope that helps.

[Author]

Posts