They DON'T need flawed, "relatable" main characters.
This is disproven by your own image, which shows one of the most famous heroes of the last century in Han Solo who was flawed in many relatable ways at the outset.
The problem is Lefties champion flaws, instead of seeing them as something to fight and overcome. They see relatable as "is fucked up just like me and that's great!"
Heck to go with the Transformers examples in the OP. One of the most famous and popular characters in it was Dinobot from Beast Wars, whose flaws were so pronounced that he was constantly changing sides in the middle of a war.
But he was written to be holding strong to his principles instead of wavering in nuance and doubt, so each time he did so you believed he might have a point just like Optimus himself did. His flaws defined him, but also made him stronger and his entire character arc was still learning to hold true to them while also gaining some semblance of loyalty and trust.
That's something young boys need to see. Men dealing with men level issues and solving them like men do.
Lol, he ain't gonna offer it free. That's propaganda to simplify it. The same way abstinence is taught rather than the nuances of safer sex.
But just like every other form of salesmanship, it being there massively increases your chance of buying it. These are salesmen, they know how to sell you things. Even if they are dealing out of a dirty trap house, the same techniques still apply and will be used as they would at a car dealership or furniture store.
So, while you might be someone who is able to not fall for those tricks, they work on the majority of people consistently. That's why they are taught and used.
The only people I ever knew who were willing to suck dick for drugs didn't actually want the drugs.
You haven't met enough women then. This is usually how they start, sucking dick to get free drugs gleefully before it turns into "I hate this but I need it." Shit its why drug dealers always have girlfriends lined up, even if they are ugly goblin men.
brags that fan-girling a murderer has led to the biggest audience growth she’s ever had
He's a true crime icon in the making, a brazen murderer (regardless of your stance on it being justified) that is/was super hot. That's the kind of crime that literally soaks women's panties and is a billion dollar industry.
Of course the "safest horny" possible, a politically motivated killer most people (especially women) support, is going to get her growth like no other.
Because they don't want to actually do anything. They want to make the government/charity give a bunch of money to the problem to just magically solve it. Maybe send someone else's children to die in it while they are at it.
it still shouldn't be hard to deport illegals
It shouldn't but trying to do it the "right way" requires playing by all these shitty rules and laws, even if he is trolling as he does so. And doing it "un-civilly" is violent and a much worse look optically for the more delicate sensibilities.
we have a history of mass deportations here the US
We do, but historically the problems were both much smaller and much more localized. Its a lot easier to deport X group when they are both all in a handful of ghettos and probably smaller than the population of most towns across the entire nation.
Also I never heard of the man but upon looking up his name this quote came up:
“My hatred is a thousand times more powerful than all your good intentions.”
And that describes my politics, ideologies, and life entirely pretty well, I cannot lie. Guess I'll have to look into reading this guy.
I'm a bit surprised that you don't care about that, given your history.
I'm also a horrific racist, who is happy to just deport every Hispanic, Jeet, and other flavor of brown unless they can bring forth their own proof of legit citizenship. And that doesn't include loopholes like anchor babies and other "free" versions of it.
I do believe there should be some process to it, but I also think they are literal foreign agents operating on American soil against American interests. So they are on the same level as spies, terrorists and treason-ers, and deserve that level of scorn.
Part of that is they don't deserve due process because they are not American citizens, but foreign enemies, and thereby get no protection under American law. Proving their legal citizenship is not a hard process, as all of us are not only well tracked (thanks to government spying) but have a paper trail proving it. Whether that's birth certificate esque or the green card process.
overwhelmingly, pro-immigration people make the economic arguments
Then we live in very different circles. Not saying you are wrong, just my experience is the opposite, where pro-immigration arguments are overwhelmingly "RACISM" level from people who cannot understand high school economics.
He is reveling in the uncivility of it all.
No, he is just being a prick about it. Civil has two definitions, one is polite and the other is in accordance with civil law. He is working well within the law, even if it requires using obscure ones, to do it. And that is slowing him down considerably, the need to justify himself.
Where is your evidence that this would be popular with young men?
Talking to them. Shockingly a very useful tool in learning about the world instead of burying your nose in news articles about polls they conducted. I also used the word "probably" to show that I had nothing to show you but my assumption, I pointed out to you earlier those little phrases/words are important.
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.
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.
Shenko here openly refers to himself and his nation as Socialist, and has nothing "former" about being a Communist nation. They literally just named him the President and continued as they were, including with being a Russian vassal.
And in doing so the entire country lives like agricultural slaves to prop up his little family as privileged royalty.
There exists more than one axis of evil and destruction in politics, and being the 180 of what we have now does not default them to "based and good."