Hardkill

Any thoughts?

I wasn't trying to shame sex workers for what they do. I don't believe any women should be slut-shamed at all and I personally have no problem dating a woman who had slept with tons of guys as long as she doesn't have any STDs. But given that most people perceived female sex workers to be a sluts I just wonder how does that affect her social life and her ability to get into any relationship with a man?

It looks like Marijuana is on its way to being moved from schedule I to schedule III.

I don't think that's true. Men are naturally hardwired to want a woman to be pure enough in order to make sure that her child is also his own. Also, most men want to eventually be taken seriously as a responsible family man who is married to a woman whose reputation hasn't been tarnished.

So, then why does any woman these days have to worry anymore about being slut shamed?

There are a lot of guys who want to be in a relationship with them, but will a lot more guys reject a sex worker for an LTR than a girl who is not a sex worker?

Over the past year, TYT and Secular Talk have been very critical of the progressives in both the House and the Senate in Congress for not fighting hard enough and having succumbed to the "Washington group-think." They've recently slammed AOC, who is undoubtedly one of the most progressive and one of the most left-wing politicians in all of the country, for endorsing Biden for re-election more than year before the general election. I also saw many people in the comments section below each of these vids expressing their deep disappointment of her. One of them said "AOC is not progressive, she's totally addicted to the smell of committee chairs and that power." Another said "She sold out when she voted YES to avert the rail strike and force a bad contract on railworkers. I lost all respect and support for her. She’s just another democrat." Someone else said "AOC took some notes from the Obama book. She talks a good game, comes off as a fighter for the people, but in the end she’s a neoliberal." They've also been disappointed with Bernie Sander's full support of Biden: One person commented below that vid that "Bernie is a sellout." Cenk has called all of the progressives in Congress "theoretical progressives": Kyle has also called them on his own show "theoretical progressives." There are bunch of other videos of TYT and Secular Talk saying how the progressives in Congress had let them down.

Yeah, that what I think too. How do you know that she isn't spirituality? And what about the right with their extreme religious dogma?

After Biden and the Democrats in Congress passed the IRA last year, Medicare was granted the power to negotiate prescription drug prices for the first time ever in US history. This measure is undoubtedly considered to be a popular policy amongst the American people. However, Big Pharma and the US Chamber of Commerce are doing everything they can to try to convince the courts that allowing Medicare to "control prices" of drugs is unconstitutional. Yet, legal experts say that the arguments the challengers are making are thin. Medicare won't actually just set the prices of drugs unilaterally. It will instead engage in fair negotiation of the prices. Plus, "drugmakers don’t have to participate in the negotiations so the federal government is not forcing them to turn over their patented medications, said S. Sean Tu, a law professor at West Virginia University. Medicare is a market created by the federal government, and it doesn’t have to give drugmakers access, he continued." Moreover, Medicare will only be able to negotiate up to about 100 drugs over a period of several years starting around 2026. https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/15/politics/medicare-drug-price-negotiations-lawsuits/index.html Will the business-friendly federal level courts kill this provision even though it was passed into law by both POTUS and Congress through a totally legitimate legislative process and is definitely constitutional?

A lot of people are moving away from California and New York not primarily because of the crime and homelessness. It's because those states are getting too expensive to live in, especially with regard to renting or owning a home. Also, neither of those articles you mentioned said that the reasons for exodus was because of the "crime problem" in those states. Crime and shootings are definitely worse in most red states including Texas, West Virginia, Alabama, Idaho, and Florida: https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-pundit-lisa-marie-boothe-falsely-claims-miami-is-safer-than-new-york-city https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/opinion/crime-and-political-punishment.html https://www.bestplaces.net/crime/?city1=50667000&city2=54835000 https://wallethub.com/edu/richest-and-poorest-states/7392 So tell me, what "common sense policies" have the officials in charge of the red states been using that have made their states much safer to live in? Furthermore, why is the uninsured and underinsured rates for healthcare generally much lower in red states than blue states? Also, why is the level of infrastructure and social safety nets usually much lower in red states than in blue states? Moreover, why is the level of education per capita much lower in virtually every red state than in almost every blue state?

Which is why I gave you an absurd answer to show you that I understood how out of control it would be if women were treated as second class citizens. Though, I do believe that woman should partake in some traditional feminine roles in any relationship with a man.

Crime and homelessness has been worse under Republicans because the GOP never actually does anything to solve any problems. They just let it all go without much government intervention. They don't even put their money where their mouths are. The only exceptions to this is that Republicans enjoy harming immigrants, causing endless wars, and torturing foreigners abroad like what happened in Guantanamo Bay.

No, I hear what you're saying, but then how do you think women should embrace their femininity when they are with a man?

Well if a woman is not going to commit to giving me her full support for my goals in life then I can't be in a relationship with her.

So, definitely punish her until she becomes submissive and cooperative, right?

A lot of what you say is true, but women are more susceptible to group think than men are because they tend to be more social than men. Therefore, women generally are less inclined than men to come up with bold new visionary ideas or say original controversial opinions or do something truly ballsy.

What if a woman you're with doesn't want to cook for you, clean for you, or do any of the traditional female work for you? What if she doesn't even want to help you with your life purpose?

Yet many women these days want to be "strong and independent women who don't need no man." They like bossing men around, wanting to have successful careers, start/own a business, and rise to leadership positions in all other kinds of fields of work. They certainly don't want men controlling them anymore. How do you deal with those kinds of women?

Vivek Ramaswamy or Mike Pence. lol How about Chris Christie? I actually respect him for totally calling out Trump hard.

You still think he's just moderately conservative?

If Trump gets convicted before the 2024 election then would the RNC or the Republican establishment decide to bar him from being the Republican nominee for president? Or will the majority Republican primary voters finally come to the conclusion that they have to move on from Trump to DeSantis?

But they did do the right thing before by denying to hear Trump's election challenging cases. They also struck down the 3rd and last challenge to Obamacare in 2021 by a 7 to 2 ruling, even when the court had 6 conservatives and 3 liberals on the court. They further struck down 1 or 2 months ago, the frightening Moore vs. Harper case, which argued that state legislatures have unlimited power in determining any kind of elections. Maybe Chief Justice Roberts, who is the most moderate and reasonable of the conservative justices on the court could try to convince 1 or 2 conservatives on the court to rule in favor of disbarring Trump according to the constitution. Perhaps this is still just wishful thinking.

Oh yeah, that is all true. However, I think he's still hurting his state's economy significantly with his far-right immigration policies and conflict with Disney.

and you don't believe that even some of the conservatives on the Supreme Court including Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Gorsuch wouldn't agree with the argument that Trump should be barred from office as he did "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against" the United States, or had "given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof"? If that won't work then why have even two of the legal experts from the far-right Federalist Society been the ones who came up with this idea? Why do they say that even according to a conservative and originalist interpretation of that part of the constitution that Trump has undoubtedly disqualified himself from being able to run again?

Is that because the conservative federal courts, including SCOTUS, will probably not rule in favor of it even if Trump got convicted?