You are not a leader of men, and no one will follow you or be persuaded by you. You need to see reality.
2024 Election Lounge
- Thread starter Thomas More
- Start date
I literally state it, but of course you don't see it. You might still think there is a chance that if we get enough "based" people into congress we can fix this mess. That we can teach the invaders to love us, our country, our history, if only we could remove the "Marxists" on campus. I don't blame you for wanting to think this way, I thought the same way for a long time.
I just came to terms with reality. So, when I see Trump "might pick Nikki Haley" and people stress out about it, I think "heh, it doesn't matter, okay what is there that is important to me, ah a video on some training method on youtube". It is an awesome feeling, but more men will have to get here to have a fighting chance down the road, which is why I talk about it. I want other men to have the opportunity to think this way.
I don't blame you for thinking this way at all. I just want to show you another path, one that is far better.
I don't have to be a leader to share the truths. Are you living in the USA?
What is the optimum number of times to repeat yourself in showing people another path, after they have clearly said they disagree with your view? The next question is how many times a day should you repeat yourself?
Surely if you accept that it is possible to reach a point where you should give it a rest, and accept that other people disagree, you must be getting close to it?
Or do you think it is best to just keep repeating yourself, as many times a day as possible, every day, for years? Is this an effective and persuasive approach when you see other people try it? Is there reason it will work any better for you?
The number of times they reply to me and tell me either that I am "black pilled" which is simply not true, or tell me I am "wrong", which is also not true.
Should I just ignore people? What is your solution to when people ask me questions or direct comments to me?
My solution is to address any given topic a maximum of two times, although sometimes I fail and go for 3 or 4.
I am not the reality police, and if other people see things differently than me, I will state my view and be done. For example, I won't try to convince you on this topic any more, since this is already my second post on the matter. After all, it's not like they will change their minds if my first two attempts failed. Why would I waste my time? Also, I would be obnoxious if I just kept on repeating myself, and I think that is poor manners.
I personally think if someone responds to you or asks a question, it is polite to answer it. Yea, I am getting the same question/comment over and over, from different members, but I also don't want to be rude and say "I already answered that, read more".
Another great example of what I was talking about about the standard structure of It_Will_Never_Be_Time post earlier. 95% of it is negativity and blackpills about how there's no way to save anything that currently exists and details about why this is so and then 5% positivity at the end where he'll write something like "Trust God", "There's another way", "Get ready" without anything about how to develop further spiritually (as far as I know the only thing he's written about this is to not go to church since true Christianity can't be found in any church) or any suggestions on how to "get ready" or what the other way is. Some people on another thread managed to squeeze an answer out of him about what he suggests needs to be done: we all need to build a parallel system to get out of the current Satanic one but of course there's not much detail about how exactly how to do so and the details appear especially sparse when compared to the posts on why everything is doomed. In those posts he'll happily go into details and deep dives.
What do you think has a greater probability - that the multiple people who have criticized your posts are "blue pilled" even though these people are closer to you culturally and politically than likely anyone you know in real life (and don't try to say otherwise cause I know you constantly complain about the boomer cons you know irl) and that have been hanging around the same online spaces you do and are also absorbing the same information, or that there might be something to the criticism especially when all these people are mostly in agreement on the main points of why your posts are unedifying?
Last edited:
@Thomas More how do you suggest I respond to someone, who is repeating the same talking points as before? Should I just ignore the post? Just curious and pointing out this is why I talk about it in so many posts, I get accused/questioned the same thing over and over.
You just let it go.
I find it to be rude, and also not fair to the person who is confused and making false assumptions. So that is why I ask.
Full text
Edit.
Oh, well! I guess we can't deport the invaders. ¡Adiós, América!
I have a much better idea than deportation. A nationwide campaign to ostracize illegal immigrants from all aspects of American society. And I mean ALL aspects of society. They won't be able to gain employment, they won't be welcome at hospitals, no matter what, no ability to drive a vehicle, they won't even be able to purchase food or clothing at a store without showing documentation. It's got to be grass roots driven of course, and it also needs to enjoy widespread support by police and private security forces as they will be the ones on the frontlines when conflict will surely arise.
If you are an illegal and commit any crime, the penalties or prison terms should at least be double that of a regular citizen. Trump should put judges in place who are on board with that as it will be a major deterrent to rampant crime, looting, and especially organized chaos.
Naturally not everyone is going to follow suit but I would not underestimate how peer pressure and a heavily promoted social stigma can compel people to return to their own homelands. The sticky point will be Africans and Chinese - for different reasons. But if you're in the United States illegally no quarter should be given to you. Some will manage to survive, many will resort to crime. But you simply pick them up one by one over the course of years.
The worst thing that Trump could do is to implement a nationwide deportation policy as the globalists and their media cronies will attempt to exploit that to its full extent.
If you are an illegal and commit any crime, the penalties or prison terms should at least be double that of a regular citizen. Trump should put judges in place who are on board with that as it will be a major deterrent to rampant crime, looting, and especially organized chaos.
Naturally not everyone is going to follow suit but I would not underestimate how peer pressure and a heavily promoted social stigma can compel people to return to their own homelands. The sticky point will be Africans and Chinese - for different reasons. But if you're in the United States illegally no quarter should be given to you. Some will manage to survive, many will resort to crime. But you simply pick them up one by one over the course of years.
The worst thing that Trump could do is to implement a nationwide deportation policy as the globalists and their media cronies will attempt to exploit that to its full extent.
Yes, good ideas to think about. I don't know exactly what or how it should be done, but something desperately needs to be done.
Did Trump really say he was going to deport ALL illegals? If so, is it just a con to get elected or does he plan to do it? If not, @holgerdanske has good suggestions to build on.
I just got back from food shopping so it's always fresher in my mind after that. Who the hell are all these people? Good grief!
Except this has an even smaller chance of happening than mass deportation (which to be fair, is already almost definitely not going to happen). Do you think deportation will cause bad optics but turning some abuela with chest pain away from the hospital so she can die in the street will not? And how are we going to enforce that no illegals can drive? Pull over everyone who looks foreign and ask to check their papers? Most of the illegals here are driving without licenses anyway. A good 30% of this country (whatever the exact number is isn't important, but it's a significant minority) thinks our open border is wonderful, so good luck finding the social cohesion to carry out an ostracization campaign. I think we ought to do something like give the illegals a year to self-deport and pay for their tickets back home. This isn't exactly fair for the American taxpayer, but the reality is that it is cheaper than the alternative, which is that they will just stay and continue to be a drain on resources. After the year grace period, we need to forcefully deport the rest. Again, I will be shocked if there is any level of significant deportations regardless of who is in office. The realistic best case is probably that they actually build the wall and close off the current border crossings, but that will obviously not undo the damage which has been done the past few years.
Agreed.
The chances that we go full anti wetback is zero.
Poster is clearly not from a border state. There's more sympathy for illegals than there is for homeless vets.
TruthTeller
Other Christian
No you can. This is where the Trump admin made a huge mistake because they played right into enemy hands. Trump being a media personality said dumb things and gave them enough sound bites to rile up the masses and cause riots. It also didn’t help that his White House had more leaks than Nick Canon’s err protective gear. They need to be more stealth and crafty.
Make better hires and flush out the leakers. Don’t deport the illegals with any violence or camera crews, treat them like gentleman, unless they are hardcore cartel criminals. Make it impossible for them to work, and give incentives to businesses to hire Americans instead. It can all be done. They just have act and follow procedures in a non public way.
TruthTeller
Other Christian
Zero chance of happening dude and terrible strategy no offense.