2575
Amy Barett was the biggest disappointment. (media.patriots.win)             MAGA            
posted ago by NerBolanski ago by NerBolanski +2583 / -8
Comments (414)
sorted by:
183
vote_for_MAGA_2020 183 points ago +188 / -5

I was against her appointment. I was raked over the coals here at TDW for it.

“What, you don’t trust Trump?? You shill! You cuck! She sure is hot! She’s gonna overturn Roe v Wade single handedly! What a nice rack she’s got! Are you gay or something?”

48
Donald_Gear_Solid 48 points ago +60 / -12

It's a badge of honor, there are lots of normie types on here, saw a link on facebook and clicked it and made an account. _____ is our greatest ally, look at this strong woman leader, I know a ____ guy who has not raped or stabbed anyone types... I am not saying you have to be as right leaning as I am, but they still watch cucker and fox news every night and think Bush and Regan were great presidents.

16
orangemangood2 16 points ago +29 / -13

Get this absolute cuckery out of here. Obviously no one here likes Bush. But to put him in the same category as Reagan is outrageous. He's the second best president in modern history, after Trump of course.

21
Yemeth24 21 points ago +31 / -10

Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants and turned California blue.

16
orangemangood2 16 points ago +21 / -5

I dIdn't say he was perfect. You can find critiques for every president. But he's still the second best president in modern history imho.

12
Guruchild 12 points ago +15 / -3

George Washington has entered the chat.

11
orangemangood2 11 points ago +13 / -2

I said modern history though.

4
Capitalism_Fuck_Yeah 4 points ago +4 / -0

Teddy Roosevelt enters the room

3
Guruchild 3 points ago +3 / -0

Good call.I didn’t catch that.

7
Yemeth24 7 points ago +10 / -3

He hurt us more than helped I could care less about epicc lib owning qoutes or shiny +3 GDP numbers when he hastened the moral and racial decline of our country

7
deleted 7 points ago +8 / -1
7
Prudentwait 7 points ago +7 / -0

Nixon visited China in 1972 to geopolitically alienate the Soviet Union.

Reagan and his predecessors actively supported red China because they thought that after China becomes rich and powerful, their citizens would demand democracy.

6
Prudentwait 6 points ago +8 / -2

Reagan is more directly responsible for destroying the country than Obama. Hell, Obama wouldn't even be president if it wasn't for Reagan's mass amnesty.

2
BlackPillBot 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yup!!! Two of the presidents who have been, and are still celebrated the most on this very site, are two of the worst IMHO. I’m talking of course, about Reagan, and Lincoln, with Lincoln being by far the worst president in the history of this country.

It’s funny, because the chances are if it wasn’t for Lincoln, and Reagan fucking the country over, like you said, there would likely have never been an Obama presidency among other things.

4
BlackPillBot 4 points ago +4 / -0

If you are able to simp, and cope for Reagan by considering amnesty of 3 million illegal aliens just as “not being perfect”, I don’t even know what to say. Do you know what those 3 million aliens have multiplied too, and done to this country over the last few decades with their voting habits, among other things? Come on man, WAKE THE FUCK UP!!! You need to to take your rose colored glasses off, and join the rest of us in reality fren.

9
NerBolanski [S] 9 points ago +16 / -7

Reaganites get angry when you tell them about Reagan's Libtard nature. Reagan was a good actor.

3
BlackPillBot 3 points ago +3 / -0

Lots of people on here get made when you destroy their rose colored world views with the harsh ✊🏿💊 reality. The amount of coping, and simping I see going on here on a daily basis is downright disturbing, especially knowing that they, like us, have lived through, and experienced the blatant evil, and degeneracy of both the Bolshevik government, and their media lapdogs. I honestly don’t know what else they have to see, or have happen to them for them to start realizing that we have all been played, and it’s been going on for decades, and possibly/probably longer.

2
Brickwell 2 points ago +2 / -0

Well, that and election fraud.....and weak republicans.

1
Liberty_Prime 1 point ago +5 / -4

Another handshake trying to sow division in the ranks.

2
BlackPillBot 2 points ago +2 / -0

Then, that’s a hand id like to shake. Anyone preaching the the harsh unapologetic truth is a fren.

1
Liberty_Prime 1 point ago +1 / -0

50% of handshakes were banned for being douchenozzles.

You have odd "friends."

1
TheKeknadian 1 point ago +1 / -0

superspreader \o/

1
fucklarps45 1 point ago +3 / -2

Another Qtard that still thinks every thing is a big conspiracy and nothing is real

1
Liberty_Prime 1 point ago +2 / -1

Yuh huh.

There's plenty real.

So much so that people are trying REALLY HARD to distract the room from the potatoes failures and the audit.

2
fucklarps45 2 points ago +2 / -0

If other topics distract you from the audit then you’re a retard that needs help.

1
becky21k1 1 point ago +1 / -0

.. He negotiated with Democrats who immediately broke their promises.

7
MyDadLikedBiden 7 points ago +7 / -0

I’m really suspicious of the President — no, the former president — who interrupted a battle to return a pet dog to our national enemy! Not saying “cuck,” but… really, dude?

Also, he chopped down a cherry tree!

2
UrbanCommando 2 points ago +2 / -0

Great story! I love Washington and the Revolution, but I'd never heard that incident about the dog before. Thanks!

3
Brendancs0 3 points ago +13 / -10

reagan ? lol you mean the guy that got shot at then played ball for the deep state? yeah him and his satanist wife can fuck off. he made the government into the monster it is today.

9
orangemangood2 9 points ago +13 / -4

No, I mean Reagan, the guy who helped shift the country to the right.

3
BlackPillBot 3 points ago +3 / -0

What a out the Reagan who gave amnesty to millions of illegals who have multiplied exponentially over the last few decades, while voting overwhelmingly for communist, and communists policies that have helped to destroy our country?

0
Brendancs0 0 points ago +10 / -10

i bet you think george h w was a good conservative too. maybe reagan had an ounce of authenticity at the beginning but that went through the window when they tried to kill him. wake up or fall for another fake conservative

9
orangemangood2 9 points ago +11 / -2

You would incorrect with that notion. You're making horrible comparisons.

2
BlackPillBot 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yeah, just like Lincoln was a great president too. 🤣 This place is full of so many fucking simps, it’s scary.

1
HistoryInvestigator 1 point ago +3 / -2

Reagan sucked. Last good Republican president before Trump was Eisenhower.

4
orangemangood2 4 points ago +4 / -0

Reagan was the man. I’m sure GEOUTUS likes him too.

7
Brendancs0 7 points ago +11 / -4

bush and reagan big government neo cons 100%

1
BlackPillBot 1 point ago +1 / -0

🌎👨🏻‍🚀👈🏻👨🏻‍🚀

37
JohnCocktoastin 37 points ago +38 / -1

Her decision denying an injunction against the state of illinois for barring the republican party of illinois from organizing due to "covid" because they "failed to demonstrate they were likely to succeed on the merits" was on the record several weeks before Ginsburg's death was even announced. This should have been an immediate disqualification. How much more likely to succeed on the merits can you be when your first amendment rights are being flagrantly violated?

6
p8riot 6 points ago +6 / -0

She also couldn't name all 5 rights guaranteed in the 1st amendment.

I knew that shit in like 2nd grade.

But no, everyone here was fapping because she had no notes.

3
VirtueVeritas 3 points ago +3 / -0

There are a lot of idiot conservative influencers and too many people give them too much credit. All of them were slobbering over that 'no notes' moment

26
Bloodylouver 26 points ago +38 / -12

I used to be pro life but my views changed once I realized the left is replacing white peoples with minorities and abortion is used mainly by minorities. So of black folks and Hispanics are using abortion I say let’s build abortion clinics in their neighborhoods. I’m sure we would be saving someone from crime somewhere down the line.

35
vote_for_MAGA_2020 35 points ago +37 / -2

That’s the darkest of black pills fren. And I’m not gonna lie, I thought about that too...

11
FreddyThePatriot 11 points ago +15 / -4

We're at war and sometimes babies die in war.

3
afro54 3 points ago +13 / -10

I like how quickly you turned the convo away from ACB, and straight into murdering babies, where they are found to be black.

Fren.

5
labajada 5 points ago +5 / -0

They're not black, brown, red, yellow, or white at that age. They're all purple.

1
BlackPillBot 1 point ago +1 / -0

GAT EEEEEEEEEEEEM!!!

🤣

1
BlackPillBot 1 point ago +1 / -0

I noticed you fixated on the black part, but not the Hispanics. Interesting. 🤔

8
I_trigger_faggots 8 points ago +8 / -0

Don't forget the coal burners. I bet 99% of their degeneracy induced spawn never see the light of day thanks to PP.

1
BlackPillBot 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hopefully, because those are usually the ones the most easily manipulated, and “raised” to be the most extreme communists in my experience. There are plenty of examples out there. Nothing worse than a halfbreed kid, who never feels like he fits in anywhere because there’s no father in the picture, and the “mother”(usually an accomplice) is a garbage human being who raises them as a “black” FIRST, AND ONLY “victim” for power. It always makes me laugh when I see the “black” kid/adult who is overly/ultra ✊🏿DWTC✊🏿 who has skin as light, if not lighter than mine. Meanwhile, the darker blacks often laugh at them, and see them as soft, and not “true” black pee poe. ✊🏿🤡🌎

6
Dictator_Bob 6 points ago +7 / -1

Hey you fit right in with Sanger and the "progressive" eugenicists. They are not inherently against culling the herd in minority communities. If you can get past the white part you'll fit right fucking in with their "types" and way of thinking. Consider progressivism.

1
BlackPillBot 1 point ago +1 / -0

I’m for culling commies of all races/ethnicities in general, but the statistics don’t lie fren. POCs in general, especially blacks, vote for communists, and communists policies overwhelmingly each, and every election for the last few decades. This isn’t even touching the abhorrent, and disproportionate statistics on crime, violence, and general degeneracy overall in certain demographics.

Bottom line, we’re at war, and never interrupt your enemy when they’re making a mistake, and for damn sure don’t make it harder for them to continue making those very same mistakes. I say let their creator sort them out, and deal with them.

1
Dictator_Bob 1 point ago +1 / -0

I do agree in eugenics, just for eugenecists. Also just for using a leftist acronym I can tell you're a faggot. I hate leftists, I hate their labels, and I think black Americans are an integral part of the American experiment. I know Trump feels the same way and would agree with me wholeheartedly. I watched his policies start to work bringing jobs to men who needed money to pay for their fledgling families.

4
afro54 4 points ago +4 / -0

But, you already did that!

2
Virtigo31 2 points ago +9 / -7

Which is cute and all but we are not in a race for. We are fighting a cancerous ideology that is metastasizing. And it will have spread to you already if you start talking about categorizing and making teams by immutable attributes like colors. Just because they play cancer doesn't mean you have to play it too.

18
Bloodylouver 18 points ago +19 / -1

i disagree, we are in a race war we are at war with self hating white people who want to replace me and every other white person on the planet with a black or brown person. I don't think all black folks want to kill whitey but i'd say close to about 80% would take everything you've worked for just to get even for things NO one alive as any responsibility for. Hating white are people is being taught to our children its main stream now. when whites are a minority they'll start killing us out right. these are facts my friend.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
9
AceOfTrumps 9 points ago +9 / -0

> race is only about skin color

That's a serious blue pill. There's a reason race-oriented groups spring up demanding positions of authority > they prefer different type of governing. That's not to say it's better or worse, just that it's different.

15
Truthdose 15 points ago +15 / -0

I lIkE bEEr

MUH ABORTION

MUH CHRISTAN VALUES

5
dontdrinksoy 5 points ago +7 / -2

I lIkE bEEr

MUH ABORTION

MUH CHRISTAN VALUES

Yeah, WTF is this? Christian but totally ok with killing (unborn) babies? Lord Almighty. They are completely innocent.

3
Truthdose 3 points ago +3 / -0

I was around at the time she was consider and one of the main things people wanted her was her (implied) abortion stance

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
BlackPillBot 1 point ago +1 / -0

YUP YUP YUP, while at the same time being totally oblivious, ruminating, and bitching while pulling one of these 👇🏻

https://youtu.be/s0DF9HsmgFY

🤣😡😞

4
resoluteAction 4 points ago +4 / -0

The verdict is still out on roe v wade. The prelude isn't promising.

75
FreeSpeechMaster 75 points ago +93 / -18

That's why no women should ever be judges or hold positions of power.

55
ObviatingTyranny 55 points ago +63 / -8

You aren't wrong. Women are horrible decision makers. I did over 20 years in the military in 2 branches, served lots of joint assignments. In all 4 branches I've met 2 female NCOs worth a shit and 2 officers. 2.

Met several good technicians, even several good pilots, and quite a few administrators and such who were shit hot.

4 leaders. In 20 years, with thousands of interactions with females in the military, from all backgrounds, all over the nation. Educated, driven, competent women who couldn't lead their way down a grassy hill on a sunny day.

Most men suck at it too, but they can fake a level of leadership competence that eclipses the vast majority of women.

Women have killer instincts for things like when someone is lying, when someone is distracted, and when something is broken. Women, overall, do some jobs better than men can do, overall. They can be great managers if the management role is one that dictates a maternal hand.

They just make horrible leaders and decision makers.

DGAF if you're reading this and you don't like it. I lived it, I know it. The longer the world lives in denial about the differences between men and women and how we think and what we are good at, the longer the world suffers the consequences of the denial.

27
FreeSpeechMaster 27 points ago +32 / -5

There you go. Just another testimony as to why even the best of our women should NOT be in charge of men.....EVER, or in charge of extremely important decisions.

2
RegularAmerican 2 points ago +13 / -11

I don't even let my wife drive. She hasn't had to get behind the wheel of a car in years

20
FreeSpeechMaster 20 points ago +21 / -1

I always to the driving, but my wife is an excellent driver. She's also an excellent cook (and I mean excellent...like Wolfgang Puck excellent), she's hot as shit and fucks like a dirty whore in bed.

I love my conservative women.

10
RegularAmerican 10 points ago +11 / -1

I wish my wife was an excellent cook haha. She wasn't fortunate enough to have a stay at home mom like me. Btw I even cook better than my mom. but I have always liked making food. Took classes in high school and loved it since. I've mostly learned my skills from YouTube and stuff.

A funny story about how we met. I made a tinder account like 6 years back when it was all the rage. Before the culture war. I talked to some awful women who were attractive. Also some really nice ones that didn't hit it off with me and didn't happen. It was like I did a year of speed dating but virtual. I'm not trying to be a bragger but I was in my late 20s and I'm not unattractive. I got a lot of matches. But there was one girl who stood out from the rest. I still remember her picture. There was no red flags at all like I saw with many others. I began to talk with her and what was so strange is for some reason she was the only one I would get nervous about actually meeting because I knew deep down she was the real deal. I didn't treat it like the rest and we actually spent time talking and became close before we ever met. She was like you've been texting and calling me for a couple weeks now, why don't you take me out on a date? I was so nervous. I drove to her apartment and I can remember being so nervous in the car i have never been that anxious before.

One thing after another somehow I made it back into that apartment and we had our clothes off in no time. It wasn't like one of those I'm gonna fuck you tonight because I'm out to fuck and you're it. No, I was kind of in a bad spot emotionally when it came to long terms because I just lost a 5 year relationship and was hurt. She said she sensed it too but made her more attracted to me which is weird because alot of girls don't like that stink of death. Then afterwards we talked about being exclusive and I was like yes please. I've had enough of this crazy thing called Tinder. And I knew it wasn't going to get any better so I agreed happily. And it's been just us since. Except now there is a new man in her life she loves more than me. But the good part is he has the same name as me with a Jr. at the end. Now when people ask how we met, we say "we met in a fire" and laugh.

10
AceOfTrumps 10 points ago +10 / -0

> cooking classes in high school

I wish that was more wide spread. In my highschool they had us take a semester of home ec... We learned how to make grilled cheese and sew a pillow. Pretty worthless

7
RegularAmerican 7 points ago +7 / -0

I remember in middle school we had a home Ec. It was taught by this really grouchy old teacher no one liked. It was also kind of "for girls". But in high school senior year I needed an elective and ROP Foods was open. I loved the ROP elective classes at my high school they had like a dozen. All of them taught some sort of popular trade skills. (Regional Occupational Program). That class was the best we had the nicest teacher. One of those female teachers who is really nice to you if you just treat her Respectful youre getting an A. I had it first period which was great because I'd frequently miss breakfast and by 8:30 am I'd be getting hungry. You could be like Ms. Teacher, I am really hungry can I scramble an omelette? "Sure just make sure you have time to clean up and I'll give you a credit for it". She was also cool about weed and didn't let us smoke or anything but she knew if we came in stoned and sometimes would make us rice crispy treats or something.

2
Capitalism_Fuck_Yeah 2 points ago +2 / -0

Home Econ was just baking cookies and shit. My speech class had me make more proper food than it.

5
FreeSpeechMaster 5 points ago +5 / -0

My man!!! Makin' Pedes with his lady Pede!

1
BlackPillBot 1 point ago +1 / -0

You sir found the unicorn. Hold tight, pray for the rest of us. I just hope she doesn’t change into a completely different person after having children, and/or menopause like I’ve seen happen to so many other decent women. Hormones are a motherfucker.

1
FreeSpeechMaster 1 point ago +1 / -0

We've actually been together 27 years and have 5 children together.

1
BlackPillBot 1 point ago +1 / -0

That’s awesome fren.

11
Southboundanddown 11 points ago +13 / -2

My observations of women in a technical field is they can't problem solve their way out of a room with an open door and generally lack any troubleshooting abilities. No idea which ones have a killer instinct when something is broken, 99% don't even know there's a sound coming from their car much less what the sound is.

10
they-see-me-trollin 10 points ago +10 / -0

roughly 80% of men are incapable when it comes to leadership and executive decision making.

over 99.99% of women are incapable when it comes to leadership and executive decision making.

this is because society mostly holds men accountable for our failures. society NEVER holds women accountable for theirs.

7
ObviatingTyranny 7 points ago +7 / -0

I think that may be part of it. Most of it is just in our inherent natures though, I think.

1
they-see-me-trollin 1 point ago +1 / -0

right... for 200,000 years, homosapien tribes that held women responsible for literally anything went extinct. but women didn't have rights, because they weren't responsible for anything. if a woman fucked up, a man in her life, or the tribe as a whole, absorbed the fault and carried the liability for her mistake.

today, women now have rights, but still we have that biological imperative to still make them not responsible for anything. that's what causes all this toxic behavior from women today, and why they suck at being leaders. the guys who sucked at being leaders got weeded out from leadership roles much earlier in life. but no one holds women responsible for shitty leadership. no one punts out the loser women. so they keep going and keep going, and by the time they're in business, they're either that fraction of a percentage of literal sociopaths who can still keep up, or they're fucking losers.

6
Capitalism_Fuck_Yeah 6 points ago +6 / -0

So true. Man fails and they get yelled at. Woman fails and they laugh it off and joke while everyone says it's ok.

2
BlackPillBot 2 points ago +2 / -0

MY MAN!!!

7
HuggableBear 7 points ago +7 / -0

Women, overall, do some jobs better than men can do, overall. They can be great managers if the management role is one that dictates a maternal hand.

This is the most important part.

Women can be fantastic leaders, just as good as men...when the necessary leadership style is nurturing and compassionate. Women can magically herd a group of 30 five year olds into sitting quietly together on the floor. Women can organize an already cohesive group into a very efficient team through support and praise.

Unfortunately, there are exactly zero truly important positions that require that sort of leadership. For everything of importance, you need someone who is willing to be dominant, assertive, and unflinching. You don't want a dictator, but you do want someone who will make the decision after hearing the data and then stand by it strongly once the decision is made, but also not be sociopathic power hungry assholes. Women simply don't do that. The number of women on the planet who are capable of that could probably be counted without taking off your shoes.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
2
HuggableBear 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes and no.

The problem is people always look at things and want equity. They think "Hey, why are there so many men doing this? Women should be doing it too! It's not faaaaaaaair!"

The reality is that life isn't fair and men are better at making big decisions with both compassion and dispassion at the same time. Men are more objective than women.

So trying to make things "fair" is shooting yourself in the foot, but it never changes because women always want to think they're equal to men (they are) in everything (they're not) and no one ever has the balls to slap them down and tell them to shut up because this shit is important and fairness isn't what we're concerned about.

Instead we should be preferentially placing women into jobs where women perform better and men into jobs where men perform better. The ones women are better at generally aren't at the very top of the food chain because those huge, literally world-changing decisions are better made by men and that angers women and men enjoy having sex with women so we give them what they want in our modern world.

So it won't change, but you're right, it should be the best of both worlds, just not as a "This position requires both a man and a woman to agree before we do anything" kind of way, we just need to put people where they can perform the best and not be scared of that looking sexist.

2
DaraLara 2 points ago +2 / -0

Men tend to see the big picture. Women see the finer points and sometimes focus on them to the exclusion of the more salient issues. However, men can sometimes miss a vital point, so we are complementary. And men are more inclined to whinge and whine when a woman's decision does not turn out well - through no fault of her own...

1
BlackPillBot 1 point ago +1 / -0

Gives no meaning to the devil is in the details. 😁

26
27Sandino 26 points ago +28 / -2

unpopular view, but women have evolved to follow the herd

some tribe comes in and kills all the men and steals the women, and women would soon adapt to the new leaders, and biologically speaking they were right to since the stronger men won (sexy sons theory/hypergamy/survival)

they're quick to act on emotion and to follow the lead which makes them especially susceptible to propaganda, and if you notice, women overwhelmingly side with the establishment

if you remove women, leftists and their nonsensical demagoguery never win another election

edit: if only women voted: https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/skelley-HOUSE-MAPS-4.png?w=575

19
FreeSpeechMaster 19 points ago +21 / -2

When I was younger, I used to do it all the time. "Hey, who is so-and-so, she's hot"....."Oh, forget about her. She and her boyfriend are getting married"!

Two weeks later: "I can't believe you stole so-and-so from her boyfriend. They were going to get married".

Never met a woman that wouldn't go for the upgrade, if given a chance. Never.

12
27Sandino 12 points ago +12 / -0

hypergamy is real

4
FreeSpeechMaster 4 points ago +5 / -1

Don't make me look that word up.

13
27Sandino 13 points ago +13 / -0

lol

women date up, and will look to trade up

it's in their nature to guarantee the best possible offspring since they can only have so many children and have to invest lots of time in producing offspring

whereas men can succeed by spreading a lot of seed, i.e quantity vs quality

4
FreeSpeechMaster 4 points ago +5 / -1

I have six children.

1
BlackPillBot 1 point ago +1 / -0

****Biden has entered the chat.****😎

2
BlackPillBot 2 points ago +2 / -0

They’ve evolved, especially current year, to seek short term safety, and security first, and foremost over all, and at any cost no matter the long term consequences in my experience, and observations.

4
Djt2029 4 points ago +5 / -1

And then all the cucked males will follow their lead to try and get laid for once in their sad existence

2
BlackPillBot 2 points ago +2 / -0

Simps gonna simp.

-1
dontdrinksoy -1 points ago +6 / -7

I disagree wholeheartedly about women being bad leaders because, um, Hitler. That's not a joke. Let's go back in history, and take a look at male leadership. Holy shit, there's a fuckton of morons.

But you know why people think women suck at leading? It's because they do suck at leading, but why is that? We haven't asked. The answer is the people that are pushing women into leadership positions (for diversity points) are poor judges of character. So, they choose women that are dumb as fuck.

But if the voters are smart, and they have to choose a female leader, they're gonna find someone smart, and they'll do a good job. What I'm saying is the selection process is what gives us bad leadership.

0
Shadilayerdip 0 points ago +4 / -4

Never mind the vast majority of traitors on the SC and in congress are men, but those handful of traitor women “prove that women should never be in power.” I’m mad about ACBarrett too, but I’m also mad at Roberts and Cavanaugh, etc. It doesn’t seem like genitalia have anything to do with being traitorous scum. But I guess my inferior woman brain just doesn’t understand.

2
BlackPillBot 2 points ago +3 / -1

Sigh, you still don’t get it. 😞

-2
VirtueVeritas -2 points ago +3 / -5

Don't bother - this site has a ton of neanderthals who think women are inferior. I could throw a rock and hit a male politician who's compromised because they were horny and stupid and slept with a honeypot.

6
Vox_Dobad 6 points ago +6 / -0

Nobody said women are inferior. They said men and women have different, complementary traits. Leadership is not one of those for women.

3
BlackPillBot 3 points ago +4 / -1

Don't bother - this site has a ton of neanderthals who think women are inferior. I could throw a rock and hit a male politician who's compromised because they were horny and stupid and slept with a honeypot.

👆🏻You see that right there folks, that’s called projection, and not understanding the conversation that is actually taking place because you’ve become overly emotional on the subject.

Edit: By the way, women are inferior to men in many different things. I CAN URINATE ACROSS A ROOM WHILE STANDING UP, AND WALKING AT THE SAME TIME. 😁

Now go cry MOAR in the corner, and call me a sexist. 😎🤣

0
VirtueVeritas 0 points ago +1 / -1

Half of this website is men crying about women. God forbid you hear it back. Must have struck a nerve.

16
thelastlast 16 points ago +19 / -3

well that escalated quickly

26
FreeSpeechMaster 26 points ago +28 / -2

Not really. I've always held those views.

27
vote_for_MAGA_2020 27 points ago +30 / -3

I haven’t always had that view, but I’m starting to have it now. Blame liberals.

1
BlackPillBot 1 point ago +2 / -1

Nah, it’s just reality, but don’t blame it. It just is.

2
BlackPillBot 2 points ago +2 / -0

I use to have those views. I mean, I still do, but I use to too. 😁

11
Cmchn 11 points ago +13 / -2

Since late 2013, I've watched almost every woman I knew or met in about a 16-year age range turn into the 7th-grade mean girl crossed with an NPD princess the sexists said they were. But far worse.

I've never been more disillusioned by anything.

13
TrumpTrain_MAGA2020 13 points ago +15 / -2

Your first mistake was thinking the people who were telling you the truth were "sexists."

Truth hurts sometimes, but women are not programmed/created to be leaders or hold positions of power. That's not "sexist" - that's biology.

4
Cmchn 4 points ago +5 / -1

I knew they had those shortcomings, but it's the place they took it to. It's like realizing a close relative wasn't just a bit selfish, but that they literally don't care if you live or die.

2
BlackPillBot 2 points ago +2 / -0

BOOM!!!

3
thelastlast 3 points ago +3 / -0

you're...not wrong

1
dontdrinksoy 1 point ago +1 / -0

well that escalated quickly

Oh, God. The liberals were right about us! WTF, fellas?!

1
BlackPillBot 1 point ago +1 / -0

The funny part is that lots of “liberals” are often accidentally based. I see it, and catch it all the time. Often times, they’re just too stupid to connect the dots.

1
WilliamHRacy 1 point ago +1 / -0

Deborah enters the chat

Judges Chapter 5, guys...

-1
40-More-Years -1 points ago +17 / -18

Yeah, not like all his other Supreme Court picks are just as bad and have been just as reliably shitty.

But sure, let’s make it a sexist thing. Makes total sense mate.

36
DrCowboyPresident 36 points ago +42 / -6

'Sexist' is another leftist made up word, that merely means 'acknowledging reality'.

Women are not men with vaginas. The sexes are DIFFERENT. Their minds are generally different.

Are there exceptions? Sure. But reality is what it is.

-5
Barbs -5 points ago +8 / -13

Sexist is believing women are inferior, not different.

30
Donttreadonme16 30 points ago +30 / -0

Inferior at some things, and superior at others. That's inarguable.

9
TrumpTrain_MAGA2020 9 points ago +11 / -2

They are inferior. Men and women are not equal, and because of that - one of them has to be superior.

You can read into that anything you want, but it doesn't change the facts.

2
BlackPillBot 2 points ago +2 / -0

Your short circuiting his Bolshevik programming. HOW DARE YOU?!?!

1
BlackPillBot 1 point ago +1 / -0

They are very much inherently inferior to men in lots of things fool.

23
FreeSpeechMaster 23 points ago +26 / -3

This isn't a site for people who don't like hearing the truth, mate.

1
NerBolanski [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

That is why I see a list of stupid posts or comments like « Trump won all the states » or « Blacks will vote majority Republican » or « There is nothing like race or tribe,bigotry.We all bleed red » or « All the problem of minorities come from Dems ».

I like people on this site but most don’t know that they have been indoctrinated into globalism or being grifters by eight-wing con artists.If ypu tell them that they are being deceived,they would be mad with you over the people who are deceiving them.

16
deleted 16 points ago +16 / -0
16
DestroyerofCobwebs 16 points ago +16 / -0

Not a single one from west of the Mississippi, either. All Ivy League educated. Such diversity of thought, how can they abide it?

6
-jjjjjjjjjj- 6 points ago +7 / -1

You can draw a direct line between the % of out senior government officials identifying as Protestant and the prosperity of our country. Starting from JFK as the first Catholic President, things have gone way downhill.

9
prayinpede 9 points ago +9 / -0

Yeah because Woodrow Wilson was so great

7
FreddyThePatriot 7 points ago +11 / -4

It's all about probabilities.

It's near 100% that a woman will shove some leftist shit on you like this.

Men have a lower chance.

1
BlackPillBot 1 point ago +1 / -0

It’s really that simple, but now you’re a “racist”, and a “sexist” who must be deported fren. 😁

4
Bloodylouver 4 points ago +4 / -0

Well, he’s not wrong..

1
BlackPillBot 1 point ago +1 / -0

You are correct, but the writing was on the wall for all to openly see with ACB. From her goofy virtue signaling trophy family, to her speeches where she proved she wasn’t qualified and would rule by emotion first, and foremost. We all tried to warn the simps here, but we were shouted down and called all kinds of meaningless Marxist/Bolshevik terms.

53
thelastlast 53 points ago +55 / -2

2 kids from Haiti. cmon. how could you not know. adopted children is how they get everyone.

20
deleted 20 points ago +20 / -0
13
thelastlast 13 points ago +13 / -0

all just theatre.

see if you can find the "have you no decency sir" speech from the McCarthy trials. it will look like sheer Hollywood to you.

(dont get me started on the moon landing)

47
impera 47 points ago +47 / -0

Disqualified herself as any judge, let alone a SCOTUS judge with this one.

I dont want justices who feel kinship and common ground with violent criminals and drug dealers who threaten pregnant women with guns.

43
HangFauci 43 points ago +44 / -1

We told you. I got hundreds of downvotes on a previous account for saying so.

15
deleted 15 points ago +17 / -2
10
HangFauci 10 points ago +10 / -0

Is what it is. I've been very wrong about a number of things too.

1
BlackPillBot 1 point ago +1 / -0

We all have, but it’s a matter of being able to admit when you’re wrong, and learn from it that matters. Strong people can do this. Unfortunately there aren’t many strong people left in this world IMHO.

9
QLARP 9 points ago +9 / -0

Wait till you hear about Trump and vaccines

6
Barbs 6 points ago +7 / -1

Yep, lots of us are hanging our heads in shame for having supported her. I’ll admit I didn’t know much about her, but her pedigree used to mean something way different than what we ended up with.

It’s too bad, because she’s whip-smart and could have been one of the great ones. Instead she hopped on the identity politics train.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
2
BlackPillBot 2 points ago +2 / -0

You have my respect sir.

12
FreddyThePatriot 12 points ago +16 / -4

Why anyone would think a woman who adopts black children isn't harboring some leftist bullshit like being weak on immigration and other shit is beyond me

1
BlackPillBot 1 point ago +1 / -0

I remember typing almost this exact same thing when she was being touted on here

1
NerBolanski [S] 1 point ago +2 / -1

I got the same reaction.

40
NerBolanski [S] 40 points ago +48 / -8

Repeal the 19th.

19
ThisTrainHasNoBrakes 19 points ago +26 / -7

End women’s suffrage!

9
sixfingerdildo 9 points ago +11 / -2

Patriarchy causes woman's suffrage every day!

7
ObviatingTyranny 7 points ago +7 / -0

ROFL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af_qzKfWHAU

The cunt that butted in is a symptom of our broken culture.

5
Dallasguy 5 points ago +8 / -3

Single women who owned property could vote prior to the 19th. Nobody who doesn't own property should be able to vote. Divorced women who get the house shouldn't count either.

1
BlackPillBot 1 point ago +1 / -0

No voters today then. Stop paying your property tax and see if you own your property.

1
Dallasguy 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah. That occurred to me as well.

1
BlackPillBot 1 point ago +1 / -0

Isn’t it sad?

2
Dallasguy 2 points ago +2 / -0

They played us pretty good. We need to go back to the days when government employees refused to go to certain areas.

0
ThisTrainHasNoBrakes 0 points ago +2 / -2

I agree 100% on property ownership.

3
Aquamine-Amarine 3 points ago +3 / -0

Not everyone can afford property. It's just too expensive.

Only taxpayers and legal citizens should be allowed to vote.

4
ThisTrainHasNoBrakes 4 points ago +4 / -0

Ya know I feel that is fair - those paying a positive effective tax rate.

2
Vox_Dobad 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is where I'm at as well. You have skin in the game, you get a voice

1
BlackPillBot 1 point ago +1 / -0

On top of that I believe you should have to have at least 5 years of full time employment under your belt before you obtain the right to vote.

29
40-More-Years 29 points ago +30 / -1

Let’s be real, ALL of his SC picks are trash.

The only good judge is Thomas, you’re a commie if you try to change my mind.

14
-jjjjjjjjjj- 14 points ago +14 / -0

Alito is fine as a moderate. Anyone left of Alito (i.e. the other 7) are partisan hacks.

9
QLARP 9 points ago +9 / -0

Lol Trump didn't read their past decisions and carefully thought if their judicial world views matched his. He literally just rubber stamped mitch McConnells heritage foundation zombie judges.

9
p8riot 9 points ago +9 / -0

"It has to be a woman" --- in regards to Ginsburg's replacement. Some sexist, pandering bullshit there.

Some of the things Trump says / does, I think we all completely disagree with, to the point where if it was anyone other than Trump this forum would tear them to shreds.

1
BlackPillBot 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yup. The amount of pandering he did towards blacks alone was downright embarrassing, and what did he gain? Yeah, that’s right a measly 2-4% depending on what exit polling you believe. Let’s not ever forget anout the platinum plan bullshit either. 🤣

3
BlackPillBot 3 points ago +3 / -0

Harsh blackpill that would have gotten you deported here 6 months ago.

7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
2
BlackPillBot 2 points ago +2 / -0

You are correct, but the writing was on the wall for all to openly see with ACB. From her goofy virtue signaling trophy family, to her speeches where she proved she wasn’t qualified and would rule by emotion first, and foremost. We all tried to warn the simps here, but we were shouted down and called all kinds of meaningless Marxist/Bolshevik terms.

26
minotaurbeach 26 points ago +26 / -0

This is why you don't virtue signal, Trump was told, 'It had to be a woman', Why? That in it's self should not decide an appointment. If she was Sydney Powel, - yes, but the fact she had Haiti kids, almost certainly meant she had to go through the Clinton connections to adopt.

I still think Ted Cruz would have done more.

17
NeverBeFat 17 points ago +18 / -1

Any white male justice can be replaced with a non white or non male justice.

But, any non-white male justice can never, ever be replaced with a white male.

Because racism.

2
p8riot 2 points ago +3 / -1

Because election year and he needed the female voters. That was the reasoning (cognitive dissonance) on this forum.

17
ramennov 17 points ago +17 / -0

I was never onboard with Barrett. I wish Trump had at least met with Lagoa.

20
NerBolanski [S] 20 points ago +21 / -1

Lagoa was also a judge who ruled in favor of big business. Alison Rushing was the best choice but America seems to have problems with appointing Protestants in the Supreme Court

20
LonelyLadypedeSF_CA 20 points ago +20 / -0

Protestants are the free-thinking good moral hardworking people who formed the basis for this country. The marxists have to eliminate that base to succeed.

8
thelastlast 8 points ago +8 / -0

Also it's the perfect name for an American religion

1
fakthemods 1 point ago +1 / -0

Mormons?

3
HuggableBear 3 points ago +3 / -0

PROTESTant

4
Projectedsoulimage 4 points ago +8 / -4

Deists are the ones you call Founding Fathers. They are the ones who came up with the constitution. Paine, Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, etc. "Christians" as in the corrupted cults you call Protestants and Catholics brought the world the despotic governments that America was created for to free people from.

America wasn't founded as a Christian as in Protestant or Catholic Christian nation. It was a true Christian nation, and truth is the Deists back then were the real Christians. The Deists today suck balls.

Bruno and Paine spoke of following the "inner light" as the Quakers taught. This is the same "gnosis" stuff that Jesus spoke about in the phrase key of knowledge. The Greek is gnosis, which in English is knowledge, but this knowledge is divine revelation bestowed from the Spirit of truth living inside of you

Paul spoke extensively of divinely revealed gnosis, but people don't grasp that concept.

We all have the ability to learn the truth from the heavenly spark dwelling within us as the Bible says, but blind guides say we have to listen to them or to words on paper.

Sadly, Christians today think the Founding Fathers were all their brand of Christians and that it was their version of Christian ideals that formed the basis of government just cuz "God" is mentioned.

11
LonelyLadypedeSF_CA 11 points ago +11 / -0

Protestant nobles fled Europe, giving up everything they had to be free and worship as they pleased. Up until the early 20th century, most Americans were descended from these people and carried on their values. Organized religion has lost its way due to infiltration by corrupt evil forces, but there are still many who hold on to the values taught them by their forefathers.

3
AceOfTrumps 3 points ago +3 / -0

You make some decent points, but call protestantism a cult is retarded. It's basically just a descriptor.

Do you recognize papal authority? No? Do you follow the teachings of Jesus Christ? Yes? You're pretty much a protestant at that point.

> gnosis

Gnostic is similar to protestant in the nature of the word. Really bothers me that when someone says gnostic everyone thinks of sophists. If it weren't for St. Augustine, I think a lot more Christians would be gnostics

2
FormerGraveheart 2 points ago +2 / -0

Where does Eastern Orthodox fit in, out of curiosity?

2
AceOfTrumps 2 points ago +2 / -0

Not familiar enough to make a de-facto statement, but it seems to want to be it's own version of Catholic

1
Projectedsoulimage 1 point ago +2 / -1

Gnostics learn from the inner Teacher within them as Jesus taught. It's totally foreign from traditional Protestantism.

The OT and NT are allegorical portrayals of the mind written in quasi-historical form. It's no coincidence some 16 religions of the world use crucifixion. It's all language of the soul. They all say the same thing at their core.

The word cult is very subjective. To me, they are one. To you, they aren't.

It's no coincidence the ancient Gnostics claimed Paul was their founder. In 2 Timothy 1:4 and Titus 1:14 the Jewish myths are the Old Testament and in 2 Corinthians 3:6 the letter that killeth is 1121 Strong's Greek - Gramma, which is writing, epistle, or as we would commonly say, literal scripture. The Gnostics were simply spiritual Christians who listened to Paul and rejected the Old Testament, but even they lost touch with the inner core of disciples known as the Ebionites who were rejected from both Judaism and Christianity as apostates.

Check out the RSV in Luke 3:22. You'll see a footnote admitting many ancient witnesses saying that Jesus became the son of God at his baptism. It occured to me during a church service one Sunday that in Hebrews 1, the Psalm verse today I have begotten thee was said at Jesus baptism. Then, I found out about Luke 3:22 and how the first Bibles read differently. At the time I was also studying Daniel and Revelation and I came across Allan Cronshaws websites. His sites have reflected what I have found through searching out for the truth.

If it wasn't for Martin Luther, Protestants wouldn't be so bull headed (in my view). The idea of taking "Scripture" in it's simplest form is completely at odds with how Jesus purposefully taught in riddles called parables and people think Scriptures are written in easy and plain language lol. And how they claim Scripture only as in a corrupt group of men decided on Scriptures that reflected their beliefs.

I've told my Sunday school teachers that just cuz Paul says "Scripture" is God breathed and useful for teaching doesn't mean that he's automatically referencing what we call the Bible because it's man's opinion on what Scripture is. That caused havoc.

Also caused havoc when the Sunday school leader did the whole propaganda thing and said who all here believes everything in the Bible is true, and I didn't raise my hand because it's obvious that people have tampered with it. Like with Peter promoting being a total pussy and submitting to the king and earthly authorities in 1 Peter 2:13-18. Nobody can say America was founded on Christian principles without violating that chunk of stuff, but it's obviously an insertion to control the masses and the Founding Fathers sure didn't believe it.

1
AceOfTrumps 1 point ago +1 / -0

Gnosis can be described as either inner or outer, higher levels view it as identical... A superfluous distinction.

> allegorical portrayals

I could potentially get behind that.

> crucifixion

Seems to be a non sequitur

> they all say the same things

To some degree. Moreso they all point at the same thing. Different paths up the mountain and what not.


> protestants a cult... Gnostics

Gnostics have always existed. It isn't a group just as protestants aren't a group (collection of groups perhaps)

The Paul verse is weak, Titus is based

Gnostics listening to Paul sounds like bullshit, but idk... Typically you can only be a gnostic from a personal experience, not dissimilar from pentecost

> becoming the Son at baptism

I've contemplated that myself. Other scripture also says that some lives have destiny.

Guess I never noticed it saying the Spirit came in bodily form... That's very antithetical to what the Spirit is

> scripture written simply

Well, for those that have eyes that can see and ears that can hear, it is pretty simple. But from a normie perspective, no, it's prohibitively complex

> scripture is 100% true

I don't understand how people can view it as anything other than divinely inspired. I take issue with a few (very few) lines, simply because they create contradictions I've never been able to surmount. E.g. God doesn't tempt & Abram's sacrifice.


The vast majority of the population that created America were protestants. That's just a historical fact.

3
swift_water 3 points ago +3 / -0

If they can't block out the light in you or make you turn away from it, they'll build a chapel to keep it one step away from you.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
FreddyThePatriot 1 point ago +2 / -1

He was too busy being a sexist by saying it had to be a woman.

17
MagaMagaChooChoo 17 points ago +18 / -1

I was vehemently against her. She collects black kids like Pokémon and is an “institutionalist”, not an originalist. Of course she’s going to be a virtue signaling Democrat shrew. How could it be more obvious?! And I was absolutely crushed with downvotes for pointing this out when she was nominated.

3
JoseyMontana 3 points ago +3 / -0

#meToo

12
2fat2queerious 12 points ago +12 / -0

Mods were doing their best to keep us from warning you. No marxists, no exceptions.

6
NerBolanski [S] 6 points ago +7 / -1

That is why a lot of the rules need to be reviewed. Mods can ban you for low energy if you are critical of one of Trump's bad policies or Pandering without warning; I would prefer Mods give out warnings before they ban.

11
drakts 11 points ago +17 / -6

Women leaders are a disaster. Too much heart, not enough brain.

11
maleitch 11 points ago +12 / -1

All of you screeching about how fantastic this woman was should own up and never give advice again on here.

9
LonelyLadypedeSF_CA 9 points ago +9 / -0

She was being pushed by the same forces that push all controlled opposition on the right. A lot of people here saw the crazy eyes and didn't like her, but we always get forced into those least of the evil choices - which aren't really the least evil, as they are all on the same uniparty side (mcstain, romney, etc).

8
Bloodylouver 8 points ago +8 / -0

Trump picked retards for scotus

6
Barbs 6 points ago +7 / -1

Retards that had to be approved by the Senate. People conveniently forget that part whenever they complain about his picks, that they all had to be approved by the swamp.

7
FreddyThePatriot 7 points ago +8 / -1

He could have told them he wouldn't appoint anyone until after the election and used the possibility of him losing as leverage.

1
BlackPillBot 1 point ago +1 / -0

You sound just like my close friend. That’s not a bad thing.

7
triforce28 7 points ago +8 / -1

Don't trust anyone with 2 last names

7
Monsterfan 7 points ago +7 / -0

She is a nasty third world loving piece of shit. Another of President Trump's many mistakes.

7
deleted 7 points ago +11 / -4
2
Bigdickboi 2 points ago +4 / -2

The Roman emperors didn't start the Catholic church, they persecuted Christians to the brink of extension. The Catholic church persistent and started a long march through the Roman institutions. The pope eventually became in a power struggle with the Roman emperors. This has a long history through constantine, the holy Roman empire, and Charlemagne the Great. Protestant didn't become a thing until Martin Luther decided to break from the church and go Sola scripta, and then decided to try to change the scripture dramatically. If you're going to criticize Catholicism there are valid arguments against it but you have to at least know your history and make those arguments

7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
1
Prudentwait 1 point ago +1 / -0

If everyone is free to interpret the Bible however they feel like, the Bible can mean whatever you want it to. It then becomes meaningless. Jesus was the founder of the Catholic Church and the Bible is a Catholic book.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
1
Prudentwait 1 point ago +1 / -0

Protestants don't follow Jesus, they project their own opinions onto Jesus to justify them. I've heard protestants argue that Jesus told them to get an abortion or cheat on their wife. It's like theological liberalism.

6
wwwchae 6 points ago +7 / -1

Idiots and compromised individuals shouldn't be in power, otherwise if we went by rule of "no women" we wouldn't have people like Boebert, McEnany, MTG, etc... and as for idiots and compromised individuals that are men just look at Pence, Romney, Ryan and McConnell.

Being idiotic and compromised is not exclusive to gender.

5
JackLemon 5 points ago +6 / -1

@Shalmaneser posted, "Remember when conservatives thought ACB was a win"

Not all of us thought that. I was always against Amy Commie Barrett's nomination the proof is in the postings. The times called for a man and the fact she was an academic from a Marxist indoctrination center, had adopted Central American kids from yet another Latin American shithole country and was a follower of the filthy commie in the Vatican were gigantic red flags. She was guaranteed to be a turncoat.

5
MythArcana 5 points ago +5 / -0

She didn't disappoint me one bit, I knew she was a libtard from day one.

5
officer_slater 5 points ago +7 / -2

Should have known better appointing someone who adopts from the shithole countries

5
cyberwar 5 points ago +6 / -1

Barnes warned as a lonely voice that she is an elitist rich bitch.

4
TheWhitestOfFangs 4 points ago +4 / -0

Barnes doesn't seem to make mistakes on these issues. He actually knows the "players" in the "game".

5
NeverBeFat 5 points ago +5 / -0

I think the ACB nomination was a total rush job, to get someone - anyone - in office during the short period between Ginsburg's death and the election.

Was she vetted enough before nomination, to see if she would uphold American values? I do not have an answer.

1
AceOfTrumps 1 point ago +1 / -0

Heritage Foundation nominees

Just saved you a lot of leg work

4
BurtMcGirt 4 points ago +4 / -0

Shitload of us on this site warned about her.

4
waxmyballs 4 points ago +5 / -1

she was NOT my choice, too many women there already. but was hoping that if he was gonna choose a woman anyway that it was lagoa (of those in the running). barrett had already talked abut recusing for certain cases so she was already on my shitlist.

i don't care who gets offended, most women are not suitable for that job, tho we have had some awesome women stepping up lately that i could support, barrett is not like them-not even close.

3
apathy_meh 3 points ago +3 / -0

Federalist Society, just another club the plebs aren't apart of.

3
n4freedom 3 points ago +3 / -0

David Knight harped on this non stop that she was a loser.

3
I_trigger_faggots 3 points ago +3 / -0

Truth be told I wasn't expecting much from the quota babe. Kavenaugh is the bigger disappointment IMHO.

3
ChuckedBeef 3 points ago +3 / -0

Trump should have listened to Jorge Masvidal and appointed the based Cuban judge who has seen the dangers of Communism first hand. Amy Barret is a spoiled brat who has to create drama in her own life to make her feel meaningful.

"Oh my real kids and my unnecessarily adopted virtue trophies.. Fentanyl Floyd killing himself really affects us"

5
CJBarnacle 5 points ago +6 / -1

Better yet, Trump should have appointed Jorge Masvidal.

1
BlackPillBot 1 point ago +1 / -0

👆🏻 👏🏻 👏🏻 👏🏻

3
KeepingAmericaGreat 3 points ago +3 / -0

After the previous appointee was sprayed with accusations of serial rape and alcoholism, why wasn't she smeared with anything besides being Catholic?

3
Southboundanddown 3 points ago +3 / -0

ACB was Lil Benjie's favorite, admittedly I didn't see that huge warning sign either.

3
PeteBurns 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yes she was and so was old drunk ass Kavanaugh. Both are as bad as old Ruth. I wasn’t impressed with her but was lead to believe she was a real conservative etc. she’s as useless as tits in a boar.

3
StarGirl 3 points ago +3 / -0

Oh, personal for your family cause you adopted a few tokens.

2
SuperFreedomMan 2 points ago +2 / -0

Free Chauvin!

2
Muttsbitetoo 2 points ago +2 / -0

Fuck this cunt

2
MadRussian 2 points ago +2 / -0

But at least liberals won't think we are sexists, amirite? It matters what they think, and of we put even more women in positions of power in the Conservative movement, they will surely change their opinions of us!

2
FromSethWithLove 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'd like to see her say that as she tears up the constitution

2
Gold-Eyed-Cat 2 points ago +2 / -0

Pence

2
Afripede 2 points ago +2 / -0

I’m still waiting to see her decisions. Other than screwing Trump along with Gursuch and Kavanagh, how’s her record? Is she worse than them?

2
KingShatPoster 2 points ago +3 / -1

hello 4chan its fun to see you

2
ArendCooper 2 points ago +2 / -0

SCOTUS is literally not supposed to be political. Lol. But I get the point.

2
traveler776 2 points ago +2 / -0

I always knew this bitch was scum

2
Formerlurker92 2 points ago +3 / -1

I wish the doubters had been wrong about her

2
Azkyler 2 points ago +2 / -0

Evil twat

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
Mkay 2 points ago +9 / -7

"Women are too emotional for politics!" He said angrily as he dumped his tendies on the floor. LOL 😆

There are plenty of fair reasons for not being on board with her appointment. Her sex is not one of them.

12
NerBolanski [S] 12 points ago +13 / -1

can you tell me a great female Judge?

8
drsowells1fan 8 points ago +10 / -2

Try and name a great female U.S. senator...

-1
Barbs -1 points ago +6 / -7

Show me a Congressman with bigger balls than MTG.

12
1
QLARP 1 point ago +2 / -1

She didn't apologize for past q support she gave a non apology of, " I was allowed to believe things that weren't true"

1
BlackPillBot 1 point ago +1 / -0

Never apologize to Bolsheviks for anything.

4
FreddyThePatriot 4 points ago +6 / -2

Oh yes, the one who got down on her knees to apologize for nothing

2
drsowells1fan 2 points ago +2 / -0

She has HUGE balls. Now about that female senator....

0
Mkay 0 points ago +1 / -1

Ginsburg. Scalia seemed to think so, at least.

8
swift_water 8 points ago +9 / -1

Even the bible is very clear about why women shouldn't even be allowed to be pastors - which is almost as easy as reading allowed in front of people for 30 minutes once a week.

And no it wasn't because of illiteracy.

1
Mkay 1 point ago +1 / -0

Could it have been that perhaps women had less physical strength than men in a time where physical strength determined social power much more than it does now, and the perception of women as comprehensively weaker than men permeated due to the physical dominance of the male sex?

I would love for you to lay out the specific reasons that the Bible says.

3
swift_water 3 points ago +4 / -1

Women are more easily deceived and the gifts God gave them aren't suited to being in a position of authority over men.

It's also a chain of command thing. Jesus is head of the Church, man submits to Jesus, woman submits to man.

That's what's written.

Paul even included a line at the end of him explaining this where he called out women for all time- basically, "Oh, did you write the word of God? Tell me about it."

God said so is also a perfectly acceptable reason.

0
Mkay 0 points ago +2 / -2

Good said so is a self referential reason. But what you actually have is weaker than that: "Paul said God said so."

Since Jesus spoke to quite a few women directly, I disagree with a chain of command reasoning. You can look at a handful of bible verses to support the submissive woman rule, but men wrote the Bible so it's easy to see that it was written in their perspective. Your rule against women in politics or leadership limits Gods ability to use his people, and arbitrarily at that.

3
swift_water 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yeah we also "submit" paperwork so don't get too caught up by the word. My wife "submits" to me and it's not like she's a push over. It's a lot of responsibility to earn a woman's submission. You have to literally conquer a fucking dragon of the void, within and without haha

Also, this is specifically referring to the church. Women shouldn't be in politics for the same reasons and a dozen more, but that's not universally true nor was it a contention of scripture.

God saying so is a perfectly reasonable reason to obey, God's wisdom > your panties being in a bunch.

If you want a pragmatic reason, you could just spend time with literally any woman and just observe how little accountability they have and how unnatural reason is to them.

Care to explain why women are overwhelmingly communist nightmares?

I wish I could post that video of the feminist protest where the woman is literally just on stage screaming. Just a sustained scream.

Nuff said.

-1
Mkay -1 points ago +1 / -2

You are so cute, assuming I'm not a woman. 😊

You didn't answer my question, just used a bunch of words and referred to God. The Christian apologists of old did much more with way less.

0
swift_water 0 points ago +2 / -2

Haha I definitely did assume you were a woman.. men spend time with you enough to know what I'm talking about.

The fact you have no idea how to reflect on your OWN nature is precisely the point.

The fact you need that explained to you a second time, even citing the fact you don't understand the words given to you is the second point.

Humble yourself ^.^v

3
swift_water 3 points ago +3 / -0

Also the idea that cucks and simps didn't exist back then, nor harpie women is cute but inaccurate.

Men have always given the vast majority of what they earn to women.

3
AceOfTrumps 3 points ago +3 / -0

Women are a vector for change. Transformative. The church isn't meant to change. Very clear with knowledge of the Trinity, which is only spoken of in riddles in the bible as far as I can remember

2
swift_water 2 points ago +2 / -0

Trinity has a lot of deep implications, particularly as it relates to the experience of reality itself. It's the modality of experience- where subject meets object. Father (Thought/Creation) - Mother/Holy Spirit (Emotion, Feeling) - Son (Action, Substance).

There's a lot of poetry in the Bible and a lot of it is lost on people who've never really gone through it with an understanding of Gematria.

1
AceOfTrumps 1 point ago +1 / -0

You're not really wrong, though you're obviously using the sophist model which is overly complicated and when taught that way can easily obfuscate the transcendental nature therein (as an example, you have the order of the Trinity wrong. It always appears in nature in the same way)

Gematria is trash

2
Mkay 2 points ago +2 / -0

How does that theory square with the fact that the Church is described as the bride in the new testament?

1
swift_water 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah not a theory at all. The idea that "well that's out dated" is not an argument to be taken up with the word of God.

In line with that if a woman pastor always confessed to her preaching as a sin before she began I might be okay with it haha

1
Mkay 1 point ago +1 / -0

Wouldn't you be more concerned with someone who deliberately and continuously commits the same sin over and over than someone who thought she were was the call of her God by delivering His message?

And who are you (or I) to assume you know the nature of someone's personal relationship with a living God?

Leadership is a service. Women and men are all called to serve in various capacities. I wouldn't place limits on an individual based solely on his or her gender when God is not limited in how He uses His people.

1
AceOfTrumps 1 point ago +1 / -0

Isn't really theory, as it's demonstrable.

You'd have to show me the exact scripture you're referring to, but as all symbols you'd want to look at the nature of what a wife is o understand that nature they're ascribing to the church. I would also assume that it's a lesser symbol, so what it meant at that particular time is important. (This differs from greater symbols such as water or the moon which are effectively timeless)

2
Mkay 2 points ago +2 / -0

Fact usually requires some appeal to a non religious authority. Nevertheless, your assertion is that women are transformative, which the Church should not be. But if that is the case (even though you can't point to any specific biblical statement to support that theory) then why would the NT aunties consistently compare the Church to a woman?

But you already answered the question. The era in which the book was written. You just aren't applying it consistently.

1
AceOfTrumps 1 point ago +1 / -0

I haven't found anyone in the last 400 years that even knew the basics of the Trinity.

One of the old authors said that a 'sufficiently bright enough student could derive everything you would ever need to know from Deuteronomy 33:14' (don't bother with anything outside of kjv for that)... I agree with them.

Woman is a different word than bride. Bride is a role. Not all women are brides. Women aren't brides prior or after their engagement.

All lesser symbols require historical context.

1
JoseyMontana 1 point ago +1 / -0

Please, Last of the Retard Boomers, please die of a cocaine and viagra highball, please please please

1
Mkay 1 point ago +2 / -1

Whoa, calm down there young man. You don't have to get so emotional over an internet comment.

0
JoseyMontana 0 points ago +1 / -1

I'm blinded by your shining armor as you defend yon fair lady in-justice.

1
Mkay 1 point ago +1 / -0

Try again. Closer to successful, educated wife, mom, and businesswoman who finds it exhausting that so many jealous mouth breathers on this site waste energy shitting on women because of our sex when they could use that energy to do something productive and positive with themselves. I've been around long enough to recognize insecure assholes when I see them, and you can't hide it behind a holy book.

For such smart and natural leaders, you guys are really dumb. Strategically, it does not work in your favor to belittle and condescend to half the population when so many of us are conservative and want to enrich our communities and strengthen our common values. Don't push us away.

1
JoseyMontana 1 point ago +1 / -0

Okay boomer chick.

Never mind the cratering white birth rate . . . the failure to form white families . . . the fact MOST of the professional "career girls" I know from my high-end professional career in Manhattan and other world capitals -- colleagues sharing my Ivy-League-graduate-business-school-top-firm-credentials-with-a-client-list-to-die-for -- are CHILDLESS and MOURNFUL OF WASTING THEIR YOUTH AND BEAUTY ON STRANGERS FOR CASH MONEY AND EMPTY PROMISES. NO KIDS. SOMETIMES NO HUSBAND. NO PARTNERSHIP. JUST CATS and CHEAP WINE. MAYBE CHLAMYDIA OR HERPES.

HOOKERS HAVE LESS TO REGRET THAN "HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL" CAREER SHRIKES.

Funny. Feminazis hate their femininity and themselves and want for all the world to be a guy, but they hate guys because guys can't stand careerist feminazis and dump them for the hot young waitress or office secretary that never forgot she was a woman first.

Oh look ! I's bed time on the East Coast. Time for the geriatric Mary Tyler Mooresez to snuggle up with their cats, take a handful of Xanax and Prozac with a cheap Zinfandel chaser and hope to pass out before the nightly haunting from The Life That Might Have Been.

But YOU GO, GURLLL.

YOU CAN HAVE IT ALL ! ! ! ESPECIALLY ADOPTED JIGABOOS FROM HAITI TO PROVE YOU'RE A GOOD LIBTARD DESPITE BEING IRISH CATHOLIC, PRIVILIGED, AND LOADED.

1
Mkay 1 point ago +1 / -0

😂

2
jessejames 2 points ago +2 / -0

Floyd was a criminal and died from the drugs he swallowed to keep the police from finding them. Amy Barett is a huge disappointment. I thought she was a constitutionalist.

1
HighVoltage 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yep

1
the_sky_is_falling 1 point ago +1 / -0

So many pedes got voted down to oblivion for warning about her.

But noooo.... Daddy Trump chose her, so she was perfection!

If course, Trump didn't choose anyone - The Republican Swamp gave him a list and said, "Choose these! We picked them"