They do if they know they can make a good point! If they can stand your argument on its head they will answer questions all day long.

The problem with <WTPY> is that he knows if he answers our questions, it will expose his worldview as silly and illogical, and that would embarrass him.

The Elite Posters can sometimes forget that the other posters aren't intellectually inclined and aren't intellectually curious and haven't developed an intellectual reflection on their own worldview. We think just because we do it that most people do it.

That is not the case.

Most of the libs on the Other Page live what Socrates called the Unexamined Life. They are Sleepwalkers. They think only about surface issues and never deeper than that. They dislike engaging the muscle of their mind. They are intellectually flabby and lazy, which is why they follow the crowd, go with the trends and end up being libs in the first place.

First of all, some women do like smartasses. Just because uptight, high-strung, grumpy, bitchy feminist chicks don't like it doesn't mean that a cool chick can't dig a joke. Some women have a great sense of humor.

Secondly, let's say that women don't like smartasses, just for the sake of the argument. That doesn't mean laughing at your own jokes is something a beta would do. That has nothing to do with it, which is why I said it was not applicable to being beta or alpha.

I don't think you really know what the difference is between an alpha male and a beta male.

I'm going to try to share some insight into this subject, since this forum demands serious, substantive and insightful posting.

There are lots of ways to describe the differences and I guess a lot can be written about it, but put simply, an alpha male is a real man and a beta male is unmanly in many or at least some ways.

A manly man is confident in himself and conducts himself like a man. A beta lacks self confidence and it comes across in so many ways, including body language, tone of voice and overall countenance.

An alpha male has strong character and this gives him confidence, or vice versa. For example, an alpha male is okay with being the only one to stand up and disagree with the crowd around him. The idea that the onlookers will judge him does not cause him discomfort and if it does, he's got the courage and character to go his own way and do what he thinks is right.

A beta male is easily coerced by peer pressure to conform because he is a weak man in his very essence. His weakness characterizes his essence. It's what he truly is. Weak.

An alpha male doesn't get nervous or lack confidence around beautiful women at all. He doesn't have to put on a front and act macho either. An alpha male will not let a woman dominate him with her games, her tricks, her attitude, her bitchyness, her crying, her emotions, her attempts to make him jealous - none of it works on an alpha male because of who he is inside. His strength of character is not a put on; it's real.

A beta male is easily manipulated by a woman and is putty in her hands because of his undeniable weakness. Weakness leads to fear. Fear of rejection, of judgment and everything related to that. This is why beta males are dominated by their wives or girlfriends. They are embarrassed by this, so as a defense mechanism, they invent all sorts of BS reasons to justify their weakness and make believe they aren't weak.

Alpha males tend to emerge as leaders, in one way or another, in the groups that they are a part of. This is because they are willing to go the hard work of going their own way regardless of the peer pressure others would feel. This is why people follow an alpha, because they don't want to be the one out front. It's easier to follow. Not everyone is a leader.

In my view, being an alpha male does not have to do with the conquest of many women. Some believe that, I don't. True, some alphas take advantage of their attractiveness to score tons of chicks, but that is <because> they are alpha. It's not what <makes> them an alpha.

All women want an alpha male and no woman wants a beta. If a woman is stuck with a beta, yes, she will make up a narrative to justify it and save her own face, but no woman really wants a beta. Women are naturally attracted to an alpha male, and beta males know it, which is why they hate the alphas.

Betas are jealous because of their essential inner weakness.

They can't hide their bias, lies, greed, and immorality. (We've also seen "right" alternatives pop-up)>

Starting your own FB/Twitter/Google is like starting your own electric company. But humans need hope.

<<<<2. The Federal government is a Swamp that cannot be changed through the electoral process, as was proved by the election of Trump.>>>

I disagree.
(You've just set an impossible benchmark)>

Yet somehow, with 18th-century technology, our Founding Fathers were able to reach the mark in 1788:

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog...

<<<<>>>The left takes nothing without power. As I've said before, an open supreme court seat was the only reason I needed to vote Trump. Everything else was just gravy.>

Yeah, and John Roberts voted for Obamacare. How do you like SCOTUS' rulings on abortion and gay marriage?

<<<<4. The Left won't debate.>>>

Who cares?
I want to defeat these people, not debate them.>

See my conclusion #2 here:

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #3958)

<<<<6. Liberal-run jurisdictions (states and cities) are becoming chit-holes right here in America. >>>

See number 2.>

When I say we can't obtain our objectives through the electoral process, I am referring ONLY to the political right. The political left certainly can obtain their objectives at the ballot box. In fact, even when the Right wins, the Left wins the election anyway! Because RINOs.

In the last 13 presidential elections, the Right has won the presidency 8 times, to 5 for the Left. Yet we lost on abortion, gay marriage, celebrating homos, Obama Care, immigration, repealing the "Great Society", and probably other important stuff that doesn't come to mind right now. 52 years of moving to the Left, and that all came AFTER LBJ's Great Society [GS] was enacted. So not only are we not walking back things like GS and abortion on demand, we are getting flooded with more liberal perversions, such as Drag Queen Story Hour.

<<<<>>>If the left has "woke" the right also has "woke" (Rwoke?)>

I propose "wokeR".

<<<<>>>Trump has forced them to run their dirty laundry up the flagpole. This is what pushback looks like.>

Where's my 'e-verify'? Instead, I have more Spanish-language radio stations than County music stations. In Idaho.

<<<<>>>If you notice, BLM doesn't speak as if libs are their friends.>

First of all, some women do like smartasses. Just because uptight, high-strung, grumpy, bitchy feminist chicks don't like it doesn't mean that a cool chick can't dig a joke. Some women have a great sense of humor.>

I can follow this, indeed a point can be made that traces of postmodernism can be seen in the Enlightenment and Kant. Although one should of course be wary to stamp Kant a "postmodernist", every single philosopher since Kant was influenced by him.

<Here's my question - I laughed at my own joke. Is that alpha, beta, or not applicable to alpha/beta behavior?>

Not applicable. In general it is a bit lame to laugh at your own jokes but one has to experience the situation to really pass judgment.

Kamala is a far left politician who is being coached to come across as a moderate for the election. She's a good choice for Biden because she's colored and a woman. Because she's colored, she will bring out the colored vote. In America, colored people don't vote based on qualifications or policy, they vote on the color of the candidate. She will likely appeal to female voters as well, especially the suburban women (they call white women suburban women now). Women are a huge voting block and they like to get out and vote, so whoever the women vote for usually wins.

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

Yet somehow, with 18th-century technology, our Founding Fathers were able to reach the mark in 1788:>

Their swamp was over in England.
(and when it came here, you got to shoot at it)

<Yeah, and John Roberts voted for Obamacare.>

Weren't you the guy who supported Obama to stick-it to Bush voters?

<In the last 13 presidential elections, the Right has won the presidency 8 times, to 5 for the Left. Yet we lost on abortion, gay marriage, celebrating homos, Obama Care, immigration, repealing the "Great Society", and probably other important stuff that doesn't come to mind right now.>

It's a byproduct of freedom.
The only thing that always "wins" when it wins, is fascism. It just shows we need greater benchmarks. A 5/4 court isn't a lock under freedom.

Freedom never really has a win.
When freedom wins, a new war on it starts the next day.

Within a week after "winning" the Civil War, Lincoln got a bullet in the head. A Democrat was President, and the whole cycle started again. This was finally resolved by 1964! We had a few months rest, and finding no more ways to oppress the minority, Democrats switched over to owning him in 1965.

Democrats are doing nothing new.
We've simply lived in a relatively quite period where they grew the monstrosity of government through "helping" the poor.

That game is now over.
So they have pivoted to illegals/Healthcare/Climate/FreeStuff for all.

This is much more complex than "RINO."
They tell me Republicans never took power until 1994. (and just barely) Is that "RINO" fault, or "We The People" fault?

The Court that made abortion legal was a "conservative" majority supreme court. Over the last 5 decades, the "conservative" court has gone further and further left the whole time. Trump's appointments are no better, voting with the libs on the important issues.

<This morning, the Supreme Court announced its decision in June Medical Services v. Russo, the first big test of whether, and how, this Court—with two Donald Trump appointees—would revise abortion rights in the United States. When Trump was running for president, he explicitly promised to appoint judges who would “automatically” overturn Roe v. Wade, the case that established the constitutionality of abortion. Today, the Court has repudiated Trump’s promise with its decision in June Medical. While the ruling does not signal that abortion is safe at the Supreme Court, it’s a message that anti-abortion advocates cannot simply expect the Court to reverse abortion rights just because conservative justices now dominate the bench.>

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...

<Two conservative justices joined decision expanding LGBTQ rights>

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/15/poli...

<The 6-3 decision was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump's first high court appointee and an unyielding conservative on most disputes.>

Trump's appointments ensured that nothing would change for the foreseeable future, contrary to what the voters had in mind when they supported Trump.

It might as well have been Mitt Romney or John McCain in the White House, as far as the court goes.

This surprises a lot of conservatives, but they shouldn't have been surprised. As I said in 2015,

<I consider Trump to be a centrist Democrat to tell you the truth.>

Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #195133)

<Trump is a bit liberal for me, as you may have guessed, but I'm willing to compromise because I think he's a natural, he's got common sense, he's not PC and he's an outsider.>

Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #195181)

<Trump may not be the most conservative candidate but he's conservative enough. He loves the veterans, the military, America, wants to kick illegals out, build a wall,...>

Yet we lost on abortion, gay marriage, celebrating homos, Obama Care, immigration, repealing the "Great Society", and probably other important stuff that doesn't come to mind right now.>

Well, you were left at the time, and "won." Notice that the "victories" didn't keep you in the party.

Except for "cost" they had little impact on your life.

Yes there is. The interesting thing is that many people are not geared to think this way so they don't see it. They've been conditioned to not think in these terms.

Trump's appointments are no better, voting with the libs on the important issues.>

<gezafan> is right. There is a persecution in course against white people:>

Not applicable. In general it is a bit lame to laugh at your own jokes but one has to experience the situation to really pass judgment.>

Thanks to everyone who replied.

<Is it possible for anyone to give an unbiased opinion on <Kamala Harris> in here? I know the rudimentary stuff but that's about it.>

Let me reply to you in your own words:

"Is it possible for anyone to give an unbiased opinion?"

In America, colored people don't vote based on qualifications or policy, they vote on the color of the candidate.>

I thought they voted for the color of <<<<>>>Democrat>. [Shout out to Oprah in "The Color of Purple"!!!]

Or do they vote for the color of <<<<<<>>>>>"Government Green">?

<She will likely appeal to female voters as well, especially the suburban women (they call white women suburban women now).>

I thought we were calling them <AWFLs> now:

Affluent
White
Female
Liberals

Awful. Just awful.

<whoever the women vote for usually wins.>

And then the country loses.

<In this election, Biden is just a Trojan Horse for the radical left.>

Could have fooled me. My point: I thought Biden *is* part of the radical left. The way he moved from race realist to woke in the last 50 years, is my evidence in support of my point.

The tell, though, is this: Hannity has been looping Biden speeches from WAY WAY WAY back in the day, when SLEEPY JOE BIDEN talked about the <racial jungle> that he didn't want his kids to grow up in.

*THAT* Joe Biden was a race realist.

<He won't make it 6 months as president if elected because he will have "an accident" or something else come up where he is forced to step aside, and we'll be stuck with this black lady for president, and she will be a total puppet for the deep state, hard left, communist driven overlords.>

I actually think he would make it a couple of years. Somehow, there will be a cognitive exam requested, but it won't be requested by Prez Joey B, unlike the way President Donald J. Trump personally requested one.

Their swamp was over in England.
(and when it came here, you got to shoot at it)>

True 'dat.

<Weren't you the guy who supported Obama to stick-it to Bush voters?>

Guilty as charged. I enjoyed all flavors of Kool-Aid back in the day.

I thank the Lord God and Jesus Christ that my eyes were opened and I escaped from the "Progressive" mind loop.

However, I still maintain, to this day, that George W Bush (aka "Dubya") was the worst president of my lifetime. That is one horrific POS.

When/if he appears before God for his judgement, I sincerely pray that stupidity is not a defense for his horrific crimes against humanity, and crimes against his own voters. And against the American people.

It's a byproduct of freedom.>

I vigorously disagree!

<abortion, gay marriage, celebrating homos, Obama Care, immigration, repealing the "Great Society", and probably other important stuff that doesn't come to mind right now>

None of this stuff was *ever* on the ballot for 170 years!!!

<The only thing that always "wins" when it wins, is fascism.>

Anti-fascism [ANTIFA] seems to be winning too.

<Freedom never really has a win. When freedom wins, a new war on it starts the next day.>

OK, any proposals to fix this sad situation?

<... A Democrat was President, and the whole cycle started again. This was finally resolved by 1964! We had a few months rest, and finding no more ways to oppress the minority, Democrats switched over to owning him in 1965.>

<Democrats are doing nothing new. We've simply lived in a relatively quite period where they grew the monstrosity of government through "helping" the poor.>

This is an insightful observation, but I am not sure how it moves the conversation forward.

<That game is now over.>

OK, this might move the conversation...

<So they have pivoted to illegals/Healthcare/Climate/FreeStuff for all.>

It seems so, based on facts.

<This is much more complex than "RINO." They tell me Republicans never took power until 1994. (and just barely) Is that "RINO" fault, or "We The People" fault?>

The Court that made abortion legal was a "conservative" majority supreme court.>

Hmm... The term "RINO" comes to mind

<<<<>>>Over the last 5 decades, the "conservative" court has gone further and further left the whole time.>

Exactly. Why do you think that is?

<<<<>>>Trump's appointments are no better, voting with the libs on the important issues...>

Of course they are no better. What does this say about our "Free and Fair" elections?

<When Trump was running for president, he explicitly promised to appoint judges who would “automatically” overturn Roe v. Wade, the case that established the constitutionality of abortion. Today, the Court has repudiated Trump’s promise with its decision in June Medical.>

As expected.

<While the ruling does not signal that abortion is safe at the Supreme Court...>

Hahahahahahahahaha! If you think abortion isn't safe at the SCOTUS level, you are either a retard or you aren't paying attention! Wake up, get "wokeR".

<it’s a message that anti-abortion advocates cannot simply expect the Court to reverse abortion rights just because conservative justices now dominate the bench.>

Finally, someone states the obvious.

<Two conservative justices joined decision expanding LGBTQ rights>

I am shocked! Simply shocked! That gambling is occurring on the premises. BTW, where are my winnings???

<<<<The 6-3 decision was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump's first high court appointee and an unyielding conservative on most disputes.>>>

Trump's appointments ensured that nothing would change for the foreseeable future, contrary to what the voters had in mind when they supported Trump.>

Yup.

<It might as well have been Mitt Romney or John McCain in the White House, as far as the court goes.>

Yup. Or, even Obama.

<This surprises a lot of conservatives, but they shouldn't have been surprised. As I said in 2015...>

I was extremely conservative from 1987 to 1999. Ferociously conservative. I wasn't surprised then.

Well, you were left at the time,>

Don't remind me!

<... and "won." Notice that the "victories" didn't keep you in the party.>

Notice it??? It's been one of the keystones in my life for 4 years. I cannot help but "notice" it daily!

<Except for "cost" they had little impact on your life.>

Well, the National debt irks me to no end, so even the cost impacts me.

<At least when there was union support, libs could pretend they were for individual success.>

Seems to me that "libs" can pretend at everything that has no relation to reality. Is it one of the "perks" of being woke? Or is it just simply mental illness?

https://m.jpost.com/breaking-news/i...

This is the biggest item in the news.