@redpillschool I see where you're coming from with this example, but the processes that the Citizens United era took all the guardrails off from are far from offering T-shirts for sale with a slogan or candiate printed on them to do the influencing.

Whereas a businessperson or oligarch would have to have his relatives from Junior to Grandma each give a donation at the statutory limit of say $1000 to stay within the letter of the law before; now they are almost completely free to directly give limitless cash or in-kind donations.

Partisanship also plays a huge role. The same people I listened to railing about "Soros this" and "Soros that" during D administrations, not only don't bat an eye but ACTIVELY DEFEND Trump taking 7-8 figure donations from the likes of Miriam Adelson and Elon Musk, then ACTIVELY DEFEND every obvious quid-pro-quo policy change and action that these buy, even those that directly go against their stated principles of prior decades and their personal wealth and class interests.

@redpillschool Do you not remember the zeitgeist that culminated in Citizens United? Corporations made the argument that corporations = people and money = votes. The Supreme Court upheld this essentially enshrining it into law. Now it is considered "normal" especially by the Right and the modern Anarcho Capitalist branch of Libertarians.

"One man, one vote- money be damned" was long held as an ethos essential to valid and healthy Democracy. Now, "One rich man, millions of votes, after all he must be better than us average bears having made all that money" is not only passively considered normal, working class people actively argue in favor for it when it appears to be "Their Guy" doing it.

GayLubeOil and maybe Destraht would have called out the Slave Morality that underlies this attitude.

@Typo-MAGAshiv

You're right. He should have personally looked over the shoulder of every bureaucrat who was carrying out his instructions.

I expect this type of hyperbolic and emotional argument in the normie spaces elsewhere that I discuss politics.

I do NOT expect to see accountability and the very essence of what a position of leadership means get casually tossed aside on a partisan basis... in Red Pill spaces.

I also stand firm on what I said upthread, that generously forgiving misunderstanding CONCEPTS as trivial verbal mistakes ON a partisan basis, stands as a gigantic intellectual error. Like listening to someone strongly opinionating on the subject of "Nuke-you-lar" energy. Nuke-you-lar- meaning "of or having to do with the nuke-you-lus of the atom." That's not a simple verbal miscue. It's a tell that the person does not understand at a most fundamental level the vary basis of the subject they are running their ignorant mouth about. As Gaylubeoil used to say to such people, "Stay in your fucking lane!"

@Dark108 I see plenty of RMV red flags in this woman. That said,

When I suggested meeting halfway, she refused and insisted I either pick her up or pay for her taxi. I stood my ground and said I’d only meet halfway.

If your aim is to get into her pants, why make this the hill the opportunity dies on? Why not drive the fuck out to her to run game on and feel her out in person? If it's a litmus test of her investment into you, you're testing her before she's been offered a reason TO get invested in you. In fact, there would probably be something wrong with a woman who WOULD travel past plentiful candidates near her to take a chance on more distant you.

Don't get so caught up in "not appearing to simp and supplicate to her" that you completely turn over the table of how men and women naturally meet up and get into relationships with each other based on thousands of years worth of built up imperatives.