I'll never forget that the US Government once felt comfortable enough telling Native US Citizens that they had to stop speaking their own born in America language (Cajun French) and learn English or be heavily punished by being denied access to all government programs and benefits, including schooling (aka, you become a criminal because of truancy laws).
But those were just silly white people, so everyone just laughed at the backwoods coonasses getting dabbed on by the Fed.
Polls and elections are the best evidence we have of opinions and beliefs.
Elections yes, polls not really. But good try putting them in the same sentence to consider them anywhere near the same.
Why is that?
Because he is attempting to do it civilly, which means a lot of retarded bureaucracy and slowness instead of hanging every illegal from a lightpost in the center of town. Which would probably be a pretty popular choice if he did it with a lot of younger men, and no one else.
I am, but my point doesn't rely on it. I only used it to say yours wasn't reliable.
And there is little evidence to be provided of opinions and beliefs. We are past the point of immigration being solvable civilly, which makes any poll of women's beliefs now useless. And Macron will won the majority of women's votes (against a literal woman) in the last election, meaning their actions are in support of continuing the problem regardless of the poll anyway.
I grew up in the 90s being berated with "weed is a gateway drug!!!" being slung at me from every direction. Both my mom and sister are heavy tokers, but neither have expressed interest in meth, cocaine, heroin, fentanyl, pain-killers, or anything else
This slippery slope was heavily simplified for marketing slogans, but it wasn't wrong.
Where I grew up (and likely most areas of the country) the guy selling you weed was also the guy selling you the harder stuff too. He had vested interest in getting you addicted to more expensive, more addictive stuff. Including lacing it in the weed he was selling you if necessary.
Not to mention for a lot of people their introduction to weed comes from a place of "wanting to rebel" or "social pressures" both of which will only increase the chances of them moving on to higher "party drugs" with time.
Most people who heard the slogan assumed incorrectly that "you'll need cocaine to get the same high as weed eventually!" when the reality is "people who do X have a much higher chance of moving onto Y" and it was a better idea to keep your chances nearer 0% by simply never doing it in the first place.
A good amount of people will never have issue in this regard, and if kept in a healthy society, with a healthy community and mental state, the chances of it going wrong are probably pretty low. This applies to pot and porn alike.
But do you think we live in such a world? Do most people have such resilience and self-control? Should we always assume something will be used in the most optimal method and environment when making our judgements and decisions of it, or do we shame it because of how horribly wrong it can go?
Pedophilia is more often than not not purely an attraction to the kids themselves, but to the taboo and degeneracy of the act. The evilness of it is what turns them on, which is why things like Early Porn Introduction and Grooming are such an integral part of the overall problem.
In this way, the AI porn would probably make the problem worse, as the normalization of "jerking it to something so awful" will lower the enjoyment they get out of it and lead them to further and more fucked acts a lot faster. Whether that's forcing it on other people (like BLACKED spammers do) or getting further down the rabbit hole (like trannies and cucks do).
I remember
Very key phrase. A great example of how statistics and facts can be manipulated to support your narrative. You can just say "I don't recall" and not be lying or wrong even despite saying untrue or incomplete information.
There were polls everywhere, from hundreds of sources that said Harris not only was winning but was crushing. Were they good? What was their sample size? How was the question posed and was it misleading or vague? Doesn't matter, its a poll saying what they wanted to hear! And when it was proven as wrong as it obviously was, it was discarded from your memory as useless information.
they are better than what you have presented
What was needed to be presented? Considering you already said my points were too confusing for you, I've been trying to simplify it.
They were told they would die if they ate it. Eve ate and didn't die. Thereby he had no reason to mistrust her when she offered it. Without knowledge of good and evil, he couldn't discern that God lied for his benefit or not, she might be lying, that they were fucked, anything. He could only follow the thing that God himself said was "one in flesh" with him.
Heck by the way the Bible is written, its not even 100% confirmable that Adam wouldn't be fucked regardless of it he had eaten if Eve already had. They were in fact "one" as God decreed it upon her creation. You could argue just as easily he was the one at fault for not controlling and preventing her from doing so if you wanted.
Also I don't think him knowing or not knowing changes a whole lot other than making Eve look worse and him look even more innocent, but the end result is the same.
Because polls are simple, empty gestures that require no commitment or action, nor seeing the hard parts of the decision. Polls also said Hillary would win easily, Biden was amazing, and all sorts of other things we know to be manipulated or misleading.
We could make this a breakdown of how statistics work and how they lie as naturally as they breathe, regardless of if they fit your narrative or not.
They had choice within the world they existed in. The fruit was of knowledge of good and evil, knowledge that allows one to make decisions such as "lesser of evils" and "for the greater good." Morally good choices, that are still stained with sin regardless.
Such as betraying your wife because she fucked up. Morally good, but its still betraying one you are meant to love and protect. It doesn't seem complex to us because we already have that knowledge, but to a being without that knowledge it wouldn't even enter his mind.
He did know it, but he also loved his wife. He knew nothing of mistrust (suspicion requires knowing evil exists), so he simply ate what she offered to him. Its not even said if she told him it was the fruit beforehand, but that's extra headcanon territory.
Because you said it didn't happen, I pointed to an example from recent history of it in fact being used as a tool, which they would not do if it hadn't been effective in the past.
We can never know how truly effective it was or not due to the 2020 election being incredibly faked, but his gains in 2024 with women was massively on tranny hate.
You mean a literal Communist "president" who has been in office for over 30 years and keeps state ownership of most industries has destroyed his nation so thoroughly that he is willing to sell it out in his twilight years to maintain his life of luxury and power?
Shocking, really.
I haven't even heard much about it in years, and I can't tell if that's because everyone gave up trying to get past them or Steam did what it often does and just stopped enforcing it to defacto undo the rule.
Because I see plenty of high school games get by now, when that was the big contention back then.
No, but to abandon her he would have to already be sinful. The very notion of going against her, his love, and that unblemished existence would require sin to already be part of his mind.
Choice and conditional love are parts of a flawed human mind he didn't have until the knowledge granted him that freedom.
committing treason or terrorism, enlisting in a foreign military engaged in opposition to the United States, or lying in applications for citizenship or as part of the naturalization process
I think being an illegal immigrant, or helping one be in the US (and thereby committing untold amounts of crimes by doing so) falls squarely into 2/3 categories listed here.
The only difference between when Arab terrorists did it (and thereby was free game to deport to Guantanamo Bay Cuba) and a Mexican one is that people pretend the Mexicans somehow are nobler in doing so.
Heck the very existence and continued use of Gitmo really undermines all their points, as clearly its totally cool to house US Prisoners in another country if we want to. Just not this time because they exploited the law a little more.
I think what I've said is pretty direct in meaning, what part of it is still confusing to you?
I don't see that happening.
The entire "kids in cages" debacle was that happening. It was meant to emotionally charge and manipulate an issue that had been becoming increasingly universal.
Undoubtedly true, but there is a mountain of video evidence of Japanese tourists in France and other European towns being awful, loud and unlistening to rules until it causes problems for everyone. From flipping boats to damaging historical sites.
Point is, they aren't "innocent" of the same things they decry other people of doing in their country when they go to other countries. "Gaijin fatigue" is just "thing, Japan" of a problem the world over.
That's why I said doing it civilly. Its easy to just physically and violently remove. Otherwise it will always be hamstringed and distorted, whether through direct subversives or simple emotional manipulation of voters, something women are particularly weak to. Its why the meme of "14 images that'll make you say fuck having borders" keeps repeating, its effective at returning them to the fold.
And they already provided the power, an action that cannot be undone as simply as "I oppose this now!" Once lodged, its very hard to dislodge.
Many things in life are easy to go down and hard to go back. This is especially true when it comes to things like law, politics and demographics.
So its easy for them to vote it into place, and near impossible to (civilly) undo once it is. Super easy to virtue signal about being against it, especially once the consequences come home to roost, though.
They are the source because they provided the power and authority to the Powers That Be, mostly through voting Left consistently and easily. This doesn't mean they are the ones in charge in any way.
Imp had no solutions and the ones he had were either utopian or complete madness. He could barely hold a conversation without sperging and made his own side look worse by being that level of sperg. That alone is reason to oppose him.
You can agree that something is a problem without having to agree with every person also saying that.
Its not only shouted from every fucking corner possible, but its been billions if not trillions of dollars "raised" for it and barely a difference made in terms of actually doing anything about it.
They still just go to chemo, lose their hair, and get their tit removed. Same old song and dance as it ever was.
The difference in death rate is minuscule to the amount we could have improved every single life in America by just giving them that money back as a rebate. Including preventing deaths from literally everything else.