andrew yang 2020

[diamenz]

nobody is talking about this guy, yet apparently he already has a spot in the democratic primary debates (he's not a democrat, but running as one). he has some interesting ideas and talks about a lot of things that aren't mainstream talking points, like robots taking over our jobs in the very near future. he advocates for a $1k a month universal income for every american. before you scream socialist, u should check out his pitch behind it first. i'm not sure how true this is, but i heard that a lot of trumpers are listening to him. his website is littered with details on policy, and should catch your attention at the very least.

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjFyGVc8E3U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTsEzmFamZ8&t

[STATUTORY]

the Manchurian candidate :applause:

[scuzzy]

Asian candidates must be respected


Sleeper minority pick in next election

[InfiniteBaskets]

He doesn't have the name recognition other candidates do and identity politics is very much a thing when it comes to electability.

That being said, some of things he calls to attention make sense to me. A large portion of the non-STEM US population work in Transportation, Retail, Fast Food and Call Centers. There is a definite threat of automation coming, with much of those profits by-passing robots and AI going straight to shareholders and executives. Those people aren't going to all of sudden learn how to code or engineer.

Now he might also be 8 years too early given most people only see Amazon displacing Mom and Pop shops or a few fast order kiosks in retail in today's world. But I'd like to see him on the debate stage at the very least. I can see Bernie taking him on his cabinet.

[AirBonner]

How does everyone feel about universal basic income? Can it be done successfully?

[Akrazotile]

How does everyone feel about universal basic income? Can it be done successfully?


Machines are the big wildcard in this concept. Without smart machines the answer is simply no, next question.

IF machines make 90% of human work obsolete, then obviously we’re all going to eventually use the products/services provided by them, even if each person doesnt own the machine itself. So in a way you would have to ration their output, and if machines can just do these jobs endlessly around the clock, I guess there’s no reason not to.

But at the same time... there’s still going to be SOME requirement of human labor and expertise. Someone will have to be in charge of various factories and fields and service centers where machines work. And theyre not going to do it just to be rationed out the same amount of stuff as some guy playing video games all day. Anyone whose knowledge or time is valuable will expect commensurate compensation. Also, people who want to get a little bit ahead, get a little bit extra, will still find ways to make extra money. Maybe give massages. Or do stand up comedy for weddings and bar mitzvahs. Machines arent going to suddenly make everyone’s income equal, nor make everyone satisfied with equal income.

Also keep in mind, if you artificially raise income, it just leads to inflated prices. Yes it’s better than zero income, but the only people with zero income are deranged bums sleeping on the street. Give them 1,000 bucks a month and watch how gross shit turns real fast. Beer bottles all over every corner etc.

People live this delusion that everyone makes an effort and everyone is decent and everyone is fit for society. That’s not nature’s way. Some people are never going to say “oh, youre giving me this income, let me be a responsible citizen to uphold my end.” Some people have schizophreni. Some people are raging alcoholics. Some people are violent masochists. “All you need is love” isnt the reality. Nature makes defective humans. Not having at least a minimum standard of being a decent citizen to EARN your 1k a month... how about I just catch a jail sentence and save up 12k of other peoples $ while I **** around and lift weights for a year? How do you stop me from doing that?

And for all the people making minimum wage now, then get 1k per month... diaper costs will go up, milk costs, car parts... companies price these things where they can make a profit. If people can suddenly afford to pay more for them, theyll charge more. People wont suddenly be able to afford “extra” stuff. Maybe the first few months, but in the end youre just endlessly chasing the dragon.

I dont see how you remove the competitive element from society. That’s what ideologues want, but I havent heard a good logical plan for it. It’s frankly completely unnatural.

[Ben Simmons 25]

He's a democrat and... I would vote for him.

What he's talking about, whether he's right or wrong in terms of how to fix it, is the number one most pressing issue humanity faces today... it's a bigger issue than climate change, even. And it's coming in our lifetimes. And I would vote for him for that reason alone.

I've looked at his policies and I certainly don't agree with all of them.

But if you listen to the guy it's pretty clear he's smarter than any candidate that is likely to spring up out of the democratic party... or republican party, for that matter... were this an election year in which both parties were putting up a stable of candidates.

I agree with Akrazotile that giving everyone $1000 a month just inflates prices as it drives up demand for all goods and services, and additionally, it would debase the currency... but at the end of the day... we have to do something, lest we have world wars or massive amounts of death and population reduction.

Doing nothing is certain death.

[Rocket]

I am not sure who this guy is but Trump should easily win a second term in 2020. He has won over too many never-Trumpers with his actions. People like me who held their nose and voted for him solely as a vote against Hillary are now fully on board with him him. We will be excitely supporting him for re-election.



Universal income would have the opposite effect of what it is intended to do.

[nathanjizzle]

Hes the man. He has real intentions for being president and he knows what hes talking about.

Ive already discussed this years ago with another trumptard uk2k who scoffed at the idea of "free handouts". This isn't a free handout, if anything the american people are "handing in" their jobs. Theres really no choice, either give americans basic income to survive or else a very large population will not have a job. And when people don't have jobs, violence, crime and death increases. anyone with an elementary education can understand this. robots taking jobs = less jobs for people.

[Ben Simmons 25]

Here's why UBI could work, if done correctly, in theory, anyways...

So... all of these tech companies are getting ready to eliminate a ton of jobs over the next few decades and beyond... and not just tech companies... but retailers, restaurants, etc... it's all coming down the pipe.

A business owners' expenses are going to plummet as a result of not having to pay disease carrying, idiotic, inefficient and lazy sacks of shit that make up the majority of the human population... and even if they were the perfect employee, they still need to sleep and take breaks... and those costs will continue to plummet particularly as time goes on and the tech becomes more and more refined.

Ok, so now we have a ton of displaced, unemployable people... and as far as the companies go, they don't really care... right? They don't care because their expenses are down. And that's true.

But then you have to re-examine this situation because once you realize that you have a ton of people that are unemployable, there is no doubt about the fact that total sales are going to decline for everyone and thus also eating into profitability of these companies that roll out technology that displace jobs... it's a circle.

And as such... we now arrive at the conclusion that one of two things has to happen... we have to see a drastically reduced population globally to come into balance with all of the displaced jobs... which, actually, I think is the correct way to go. Human population needs to decline radically. But since that's not going to happen without some sort of global scale war, and nobody wants that... the other option is that the large companies are absolutely going to have to start contributing far more in taxes which can then be re-distributed to the everyday folks who buy their shit.

There is no incredibly easy answer here.

My true opinion is that humans need to decline massively in population numbers to achieve global homeostasis. However, realistically speaking... despite the fact that I believe it to be 100% true, that is a bit cold hearted, and not a pragmatic solution. The only option is for fat cats to stop getting so incredibly overwhelmingly disproportionately fat.

[Ben Simmons 25]

And while maybe not as of today, 2-23-19, is his statement correct... I do think his statement is very soon to be wholeheartedly correct... and that is that capitalism AND socialism are both dated and incredibly flawed.

Again... assuming we don't just have a massive population reduction... in which case, capitalism would still be best.

[Akrazotile]

Here's why UBI could work, if done correctly, in theory, anyways...

So... all of these tech companies are getting ready to eliminate a ton of jobs over the next few decades and beyond... and not just tech companies... but retailers, restaurants, etc... it's all coming down the pipe.

A business owners' expenses are going to plummet as a result of not having to pay disease carrying, idiotic, inefficient and lazy sacks of shit that make up the majority of the human population... and even if they were the perfect employee, they still need to sleep and take breaks... and those costs will continue to plummet particularly as time goes on and the tech becomes more and more refined.

Ok, so now we have a ton of displaced, unemployable people... and as far as the companies go, they don't really care... right? They don't care because their expenses are down. And that's true.

But then you have to re-examine this situation because once you realize that you have a ton of people that are unemployable, there is no doubt about the fact that total sales are going to decline for everyone and thus also eating into profitability of these companies that roll out technology that displace jobs... it's a circle.

And as such... we now arrive at the conclusion that one of two things has to happen... we have to see a drastically reduced population globally to come into balance with all of the displaced jobs... which, actually, I think is the correct way to go. Human population needs to decline radically. But since that's not going to happen without some sort of global scale war, and nobody wants that... the other option is that the large companies are absolutely going to have to start contributing far more in taxes which can then be re-distributed to the everyday folks who buy their shit.

There is no incredibly easy answer here.

My true opinion is that humans need to decline massively in population numbers to achieve global homeostasis. However, realistically speaking... despite the fact that I believe it to be 100% true, that is a bit cold hearted, and not a pragmatic solution. The only option is for fat cats to stop getting so incredibly overwhelmingly disproportionately fat.

First bolded: But as you said, companies will have lower revenue if all their customers are out of jobs. So what are you going to tax?

On the other hand, if you just dole everyone out a universal income, companies will raise their prices to whatever level they can make the most money from. People will have to pay more for the basic necessities, because those will all cost more.

Okay, so then... we make everything socialist? The government requires companies to provide free diapers and food suppplies and furniture to everyone. Who is going to volunteer to oversee the machines while everyone else is out playing frisbee and blowing dandelions??

Basic income is just going to cause inflation AND increased apathy.

You cannot have a society where a critical mass of people aren't contributing. It just won't work. Yes, when enough people are working we can afford to take care of the odd parapalegyic or down syndrome outliers like Nigel. But if you have 80% of people not producing anything... who's gonna volunteer to be the police? Why would someone risk their life to make the same money as all the people playing video games or shooting hoops? Its not gonna he as simple as people think.


Second bolded: Basically this. It's not pretty but it's actually the BEST solution IMO.

[iamgine]

UBI is nice, but where do this additional $4 trillion per year come from?

Also, I suspect once the robot takeover is complete, most of production will be centralized. When no one's working, won't be long before money loses its value. Which gives no incentives for most companies to stay.

[tpols]

is the 1000 bucks / month still redeemable even with your salary? (ie youre working)

shit ill take it. Tax it from the top 1% and give us some trickle.

[Akrazotile]

Also, people not working and having no ramifications for losing a job they need to support themselves, will lead to exponentially more crime, mischief, fighting, rapes etc.

Societies need structure. You cant just have everyone running around. But who

[Akrazotile]

is the 1000 bucks / month still redeemable even with your salary? (ie youre working)

shit ill take it. Tax it from the top 1% and give us some trickle.


You dont understand basic inflation.

Prices will go up commensurately. In a year from now, your extra income will buy exactly as much as your regular income does today.

You dont get something for nothing. I know you want to keep looking for workarounds, but it doesnt work.

[Ben Simmons 25]

[QUOTE=Akrazotile]Also, people not working and having no ramifications for losing a job they need to support themselves, will lead to exponentially more crime, mischief, fighting, rapes etc.

Societies need structure. You cant just have everyone running around. But who

[Akrazotile]

Subtle. :roll: :roll: :roll:


:lol


The reference was for lulz, but I actually mean it.

If everything automates overnight (figuratively) it could obviously create real difficulty.

We might actually have to prohibit it at some point.

[Ben Simmons 25]

:lol


The reference was for lulz, but I actually mean it.

If everything automates overnight (figuratively) it could obviously create real difficulty.

We might actually have to prohibit it at some point.

You can't prohibit it. You can't contain it. Once a genuine self improving AI hits the market, the ship has sailed.

It would require every single country in the entire world getting together and outlawing AI to even have a shot at stopping this. And even if that happened, which there is a 0% chance that it will, some rogue people/nation would still do it. lol.

There is no stopping it.

Paradigm shift or bust.

[iamgine]

I'm not sure what people are worried about. After a period of adjustment, life in the AI world is going to be easy. No more work if you so choose, no more hunger and poverty. I for one are pretty excited to find out what kind of society we'll have then.

[Akrazotile]

I'm not sure what people are worried about. After a period of adjustment, life in the AI world is going to be easy. No more work if you so choose, no more hunger and poverty. I for one are pretty excited to find out what kind of society we'll have then.


So let's say I spend my entire month's ration over a weekend on an 8 ball and some hookers.

Now I can't afford to make rent. Or buy food. What are you gonna do about that? Just let me live on the street? You HAVE to provide for me.

I'm out of money. I spent my UBI. I'm broke.

But I need food and I need shelter.

"Spend your money smarter. Get a job."

You can't say that. That's pre-machine talk. Nobody is allowed to be homeless or hungry. Doesn't matter what responsibility I take. YOUR ideology says that's not allowed.

Otherwise what's the difference?

As soon as I get my UBI check, it's going to drugs and hookers. And you're still gonna have to feed me and put a roof over my head with your own money.

Otherwise what's the difference?

I dont have to be responsible for nuttin.

Bring on the machines :rockon:

[Akrazotile]

I'm not sure what people are worried about. After a period of adjustment, life in the AI world is going to be easy. No more work if you so choose, no more hunger and poverty. I for one are pretty excited to find out what kind of society we'll have then.


Also, think about how drastically different life is today than it was 3,000 years ago. When all they had was wheelbarrows and oxen. No electricity. No vehicles. No phones.

We ALREADY live in the machine age. Every grocery store throws away tons of food every night. We have so much shit right now people are depressed because nothing matters anymore. Things are TOO easy.

I live in what is often ranked as "the best city in America."

And guess what?

I can take you to a number of corners that are basically disgusting, filthy homeless encampments.


You think shit gon change.

Shit gon stay the same.

[iamgine]

So let's say I spend my entire month's ration over a weekend on an 8 ball and some hookers.

Now I can't afford to make rent. Or buy food. What are you gonna do about that? Just let me live on the street? You HAVE to provide for me.

I'm out of money. I spent my UBI. I'm broke.

But I need food and I need shelter.

"Spend your money smarter. Get a job."

You can't say that. That's pre-machine talk. Nobody is allowed to be homeless or hungry. Doesn't matter what responsibility I take. YOUR ideology says that's not allowed.

Otherwise what's the difference?

As soon as I get my UBI check, it's going to drugs and hookers. And you're still gonna have to feed me and put a roof over my head with your own money.

Otherwise what's the difference?

I dont have to be responsible for nuttin.

Bring on the machines :rockon:
No no. I'm talking further along the AI revolution. They gonna have food synthesizers by then. Even today labs are creating artificial meat.

[egokiller]

How does everyone feel about universal basic income? Can it be done successfully?

It removes the incentive to work harder if everyone is getting the same. It would fail.

[Akrazotile]

No no. I'm talking further along the AI revolution. They gonna have food synthesizers by then. Even today labs are creating artificial meat.


Maybe.


There will still be a limited amount of attractive mates everyone will be competing for.

Once career success is no longer a factor (bc it presumably doesnt exist at that point, everyone has everything).... who’s gettin laid?

Only 6’+ dudes with chiseled jaws and great hair?

Nobody who isnt a model will have any alternatives for attracting women. And there wont be any prostitutes because theres no money anyway, women already have what they need. How’s Bobby Kraft getting laid when his money is worth nothing?

Im not sure the incels will go quietly into the night. Humans have to compete. It’s our evolutionary programming.

Machines arent gonna bring about some kind of utopia unless humans themselves change radically. Even then Im not sure.

Theres more people depressed than ever today. And we hve more technology and surplus than ever.

Utopia is far more elusive than most people really realize IMO.

[iamgine]

[QUOTE=Akrazotile]Maybe.


There will still be a limited amount of attractive mates everyone will be competing for.

Once career success is no longer a factor (bc it presumably doesnt exist at that point, everyone has everything).... who

[Akrazotile]

It's actually nice if those are the only kind of problems we have :lol


Hey, could be. Time will tell.

But IMO it

[nathanjizzle]

So let's say I spend my entire month's ration over a weekend on an 8 ball and some hookers.

Now I can't afford to make rent. Or buy food. What are you gonna do about that? Just let me live on the street? You HAVE to provide for me.

I'm out of money. I spent my UBI. I'm broke.

But I need food and I need shelter.

"Spend your money smarter. Get a job."

You can't say that. That's pre-machine talk. Nobody is allowed to be homeless or hungry. Doesn't matter what responsibility I take. YOUR ideology says that's not allowed.

Otherwise what's the difference?

As soon as I get my UBI check, it's going to drugs and hookers. And you're still gonna have to feed me and put a roof over my head with your own money.

Otherwise what's the difference?

I dont have to be responsible for nuttin.

Bring on the machines :rockon:

thats for the retarded people. UBI are for average responsible americans who will not be able to find a job. which will be a significant portion of the population. the losers will remain losers.

[nathanjizzle]

a silver lining of UBI is that other than the quality of life will be better for most people, that creatives/geniuses will have the time to spend doing what they do best. inventing. Imagine if youre a genius, out of highschool or out of college. instead of having to work full time, you can spend your time doing what you want, learning what you want, creating what you want. how many of these genius will sprout from UBI? what will be invented in peoples garages now that they have the time and money to put toward their ideas? our current lifestyle isnt condusive to incubating creative people. imagine if you can spend a year working on what your passionate about, and not worry about anything else? even if it is fruitless, the quality of life is that much more higher, because most people that lived and died cant say they took a year off to pursue their passions completely.

[Kblaze8855]

I agree with Akrazotile that giving everyone $1000 a month just inflates prices as it drives up demand for all goods and services, and additionally, it would debase the currency... but at the end of the day... we have to do something, lest we have world wars or massive amounts of death and population reduction.

It would just depend on how you handled the rest of government services. A huge portion of society costs more than 1,000 a month as it is.

There are states that spend about 50K a year on even non violent prisoners. Plenty of people on section 8 and food stamps getting more than that in total help.

A true rebuild of the budget to eliminate nonsense would find us well over 12,000 a year for all Americans who need it....but you would have to make it a true 1,000. Not 1,000 plus all the other shit you already get for free.

[Kblaze8855]

Once career success is no longer a factor (bc it presumably doesnt exist at that point, everyone has everything).... who’s gettin laid?

Only 6’+ dudes with chiseled jaws and great hair?

Nobody who isnt a model will have any alternatives for attracting women. And there wont be any prostitutes because theres no money anyway, women already have what they need. How’s Bobby Kraft getting laid when his money is worth nothing?

Im not sure the incels will go quietly into the night. Humans have to compete. It’s our evolutionary programming.


This line of thinking has always been odd to me. It makes me wonder what kind of lives people lead to think the only way to sleep with an attractive woman is to have money or be a model.

Fat and odd looking guys have been ****ing women off personality forever. If youre funny and halfway groomed you can find a woman.

[Loco 50]

This line of thinking has always been odd to me. It makes me wonder what kind of lives people lead to think the only way to sleep with an attractive woman is to have money or be a model.

Fat and odd looking guys have been ****ing women off personality forever. If youre funny and halfway groomed you can find a woman.
:oldlol: It's so much easier for them to label women as superficial gold diggers than it is to use a little self-reflection and admit their utter ****ed personalities.

[Akrazotile]

This line of thinking has always been odd to me. It makes me wonder what kind of lives people lead to think the only way to sleep with an attractive woman is to have money or be a model.

Fat and odd looking guys have been ****ing women off personality forever. If youre funny and halfway groomed you can find a woman.


Part of the appeal of charisma and humor is theyre suggestive of social mobility.

Think of the funny/ugly guys you know that date attractive women. Guarantee most of them have at least solid jobs. Even if theyre not rich they probably make the money and provide the security in the relationship, and the women enjoy being in the protective sphere of their funny teddy bear. Attractive women arent looking for funny guys that tell jokes sitting on the couch all day.

Youre underestimating how valuable success/stability is IMO, or even the prospect of it, and how much men still dominate financially relative to women, and how much of a draw that is.

A lot of women will probably not care to get ****ed by men at all once every human’s income is equal. Security has been the incentive for sex as long as humans have existed.

There will be far more men looking for sex than attractive women willing to have it with just any random hobbit because he’s “funny.”

[Akrazotile]

:oldlol: It's so much easier for them to label women as superficial gold diggers than it is to use a little self-reflection and admit their utter ****ed personalities.


Deep take yo, thanks for the sophisticated contribution.

[Ben Simmons 25]

Part of the appeal of charisma and humor is theyre suggestive of social mobility.

Think of the funny/ugly guys you know that date attractive women. Guarantee most of them have at least solid jobs. Even if theyre not rich they probably make the money and provide the security in the relationship, and the women enjoy being in the protective sphere of their funny teddy bear. Attractive women arent looking for funny guys that tell jokes sitting on the couch all day.

Youre underestimating how valuable success/stability is IMO, or even the prospect of it, and how much men still dominate financially relative to women, and how much of a draw that is.

A lot of women will probably not care to get ****ed by men at all once every human’s income is equal. Security has been the incentive for sex as long as humans have existed.

There will be far more men looking for sex than attractive women willing to have it with just any random hobbit because he’s “funny.”

This is spot on. Women aren't looking for funny guys... lol, that's a joke.

Women want want one of two things... they either want a hot guy to **** because they're attempting to pass on their genetics with what they deem as good genes in a mate OR they want security, which in today's society has manifested as financial well being. And I don't blame them. That's nature. And if they have to pick, most women are going with the financial security... maybe trying to hide the handsome side piece later on.

So if you're ugly and poor, you aren't banging 9/10 and 10/10 girls by being funny. Maybe for one night... but certainly not long term.

It's the same way men want women that are hot as ****... passing on their genes to "optimal" candidates... women's income doesn't matter in 99.99% of cases because they aren't expected to be the provider. Nature doesn't work that way. Probably factoring in if a woman would make a good mother is a distant second to looks. This is all natural.

[Ben Simmons 25]

It would just depend on how you handled the rest of government services. A huge portion of society costs more than 1,000 a month as it is.

There are states that spend about 50K a year on even non violent prisoners. Plenty of people on section 8 and food stamps getting more than that in total help.

A true rebuild of the budget to eliminate nonsense would find us well over 12,000 a year for all Americans who need it....but you would have to make it a true 1,000. Not 1,000 plus all the other shit you already get for free.

Well he said he's talking about not giving you 1k on top of your existing government benefits. So if you're on social security or welfare you aren't getting an extra 1k on top of those benefits.

If you're getting more than 1k, you get nothing in terms of that pie. If you're getting less, it gets bumped up to 1k. If you're getting nothing, you get 1k, if you so choose to take it.

That's my understanding of what he was saying.

I don't think the 1k will be necessary by 2020 by any stretch of the imagination, but I mean I do think it'll be within 10 years that we will have a large number of unemployable people. Proactive or reactive? I like proactive.

[Kblaze8855]

All I can say is we must have lived very different lives.

I know too many unemployed somewhat to totally fat guys who get women.

I dont know how you live a normal life and think women wouldnt even like sex if all income were equal. Cute college girls are ****ing charming waiters as we speak. You should have seen enough in high school and college to know better than to think it all comes down to money.

A woman might not wanna marry a broke guy but broke normal and below average guys have been ****ing forever. Some guy who sells dime bags of weed is ****ing the fiance of a handsome rich guy right this second.

From what ive seen easily the #1 thing you have to have is confidence. Guys women consider attractive might not even understand that they are being hit on. There are so many handsome lames in the world its amazing. How they dont gain confidence coming up I dont know. Now...a handsome guy who has confidence and personality? Hell he might **** Miss. Universe if he bumps into her. But the normal or somewhat fat guy with it? He could easily **** the hot girl at your job or some cute ho coming out of the mall.

You ever talk about these things with women? Most of them have such people in their past. Most women just ****ed some random guy who knew what to say and how to pick up on the cues lame guys who arent used to women dont.

The guys ****ing a lot of women are simply the ones who dont care about the ones that arent attracted to them. Its the guys who hit on 9 women in a night and forget the 8 who weren't receptive ever existed. It isnt the ones who read about what women want, how to mold themselves into a perfect package, or what sex tips they need.

Often the workout freaks are doing it because of a lack of confidence. The out of shape guys who still take off their shirts in public are just....fun and care free.

I know an unsigned unemployed rapper who is probably 250 and always has his shirt off. Covered in tats. Confident. Has cute girls posting his facebook videos and talking about how they love him. Hes one of 3 unemployed fat guys I know are ****ing cute women.

Only one of them has any hint of money in the family. Hes the son of a club promoter from the 90s and hes got women here, one in colorado, one in canada, and one in japan believe it or not. Women are all over him. Black...white...hispanic. He actually does best with white women id say. Ive known him maybe 20 years. I dont hang out with him often(hes younger than most of my friends) but when I do I can tell why. Hes just full of life. This is him here:


http://i67.tinypic.com/2utnw55.jpg



He has done a crazy amount of living for his age(Hes like 35). He may not do much more though. His kidneys are at like 20% and they want him to start dialysis...and hes refusing. He has to lose weight to even get kidney transplant and he acts like he doesnt give a ****. His family is freaking out but hes just down to die. I suppose he really doesnt give a ****. And thats probably one reason women love him.

Its the uptight boring guys who dont get women. The fat guys who stay home and decide to go on diets to find a woman. That lack of confidence shows in everything they do. This guy will walk into Blue Flame strip club in atlanta and have a stripper dancing wearing his hat laughing her ass off 5 minutes later and end up ****ing in the car when the club closes and never see her again. She sure isnt in it for the no money he has. He used to have long permed hair looking like Katt Williams and have women laughing their asses off. He wasnt even well dressed.

Yall out here trying to break down the subconscious motivations of women who for the most part...just dont like lame boring guys who are unsure of themselves.

The only people who dont get women are the ones worried about how to get women.

[Ben Simmons 25]

Yeah except you missed the part where I said long term and so your entire post is invalid.

[Kblaze8855]

Was I talking about long term in the post of mine you replied to?

I said:



This line of thinking has always been odd to me. It makes me wonder what kind of lives people lead to think the only way to sleep with an attractive woman is to have money or be a model.

Fat and odd looking guys have been ****ing women off personality forever. If youre funny and halfway groomed you can find a woman.



You going into every encounter with a woman thinking long?

Plenty of women wont **** a guy just because he gives off that vibe. Fun loving types dont. Both sides know its just a nut.

Its not supposed to be more than that.

[Ben Simmons 25]

You going into every encounter with a woman thinking long?

Plenty of women wont **** a guy just because he gives off that vibe. Fun loving types dont. Both sides know its just a nut.


I did when I was about 15 years younger, and you're absolutely right it's off putting to women... but I also don't sleep around for kicks. I know I'm not like most guys in that regard, hell, most people... but I've always been odd in all aspects of life.

[Kblaze8855]

Actually I see you replied to someone else who replied to me. I

[Kblaze8855]

I did when I was about 15 years younger, and you're absolutely right it's off putting to women... but I also don't sleep around for kicks. I know I'm not like most guys in that regard, hell, most people... but I've always been odd in all aspects of life.


When the lightbulb came on in my head and I realized that women want sex just like we do and often dont want strings attached...that plus slowly evolving out of being a *****....I didnt even know what to do with all the options I had. And this was when I was poor.

Id been buying flowers and showing respect....not knowing that respect makes a woman think you are thinking of more than sex. And most of the time...who wants more than sex? Half of them have boyfriends they dont tell you about anyway...just like us.

I think this is the source of the whole friend zone thing. Women dont only friend zone guys because they arent attracted...often its because they know ****ing someone who is in love with them sends the wrong message and has him wanting to be exclusive. Friend zone goes away when you dont appear to care if they live or die.

[Ben Simmons 25]

Oh I know about the friend zone shit from when I was in my late teens and early 20s... those are mistakes I won't ever repeat and I pity the poor bastards that weren't raised properly with a father should have articulated such things. My dad certainly never taught me as it pertains to this. The friend zone doesn't exist in the sense that women put you there. You do that shit yourself... or you don't.

Basically what it boils down to is if you don't value yourself and you view them as something more than what they are, they're going to know it and run for the hills. If you don't respect yourself, they sure as hell won't respect you either. If they can tell you're sizing them up for long term right off the bat, that's even worse.

Women like a challenge, confidence, and free spirits... sorta echoing the things you said earlier. But as I said, you aren't nailing a 9 or 10 long term without either looks or money. Lower than that? Sure, no problem... they're everywhere.

Also it's amazing to me how incredibly unfaithful married women can be. I've had too many married women to count throw themselves at me, back when I decided to have a social life, anyways. This, amongst other things, has made me incredibly jaded. That's enough introspection for the day.

[Kblaze8855]

Thats just runs us into a whole other issue. Your ten isnt everyones ten.

Im not gonna assume a 700 pound guy is gonna be charming enough to **** the hottest woman in a group of 50 but keeping it realistic?

A fairly well groomed overweight guy or a guy who just isnt that handsome in general?

From what ive seen...your league is what you think it is. What people are attracted to is hard to quantify.

Cute women with an education still get turned out by pimps without even being drug addicts. Hot women are with their dad bod boyfriends who work at the supermarket and beat them.

Theres no formula.

[Loco 50]

Deep take yo, thanks for the sophisticated contribution.
Here's the thing my little philosophizer, your thoughts ain't deep. You mistake quantity for quality.
[QUOTE=Akrazotile]
[B]A lot of women will probably not care to get ****ed by men at all once every human

[Akrazotile]

Here's the thing my little philosophizer, your thoughts ain't deep. You mistake quantity for quality.

This quote tells us you don't have much experience with women, but that won't stop ya from writing paragraphs of theoretical gibberish now, will it?

I've mentioned it before, but you'd really be much better at this stuff if ya just learned some logic. Put in some effort. Learn that you have to prove A, before assuming that B, C and D are truths. Otherwise, you just go off on nonsensical rants.


So far in this thread you haven't substantively disputed a single statement I've made.

You've just claimed I'm wrong by repeating phrases like "you dont know what youre talking about" and "if you had any clue at all..."

This is from the DeuceWallace school of debate. Never actually render your own opinion, just accuse others of fallacy... thereby leaving them to assume you "have the answer" but just don't feel like spelling it out. When in fact you have the least amount of meaningful input to offer of anyone.

Fool.

[Loco 50]

So far in this thread you haven't substantively disputed a single statement I've made.

You've just claimed I'm wrong by repeating phrases like "you dont know what youre talking about" and "if you had any clue at all..."

This is from the DeuceWallace school of debate. Never actually render your own opinion, just accuse others of fallacy... thereby leaving them to assume you "have the answer" but just don't feel like spelling it out.

Fool.
Bro, some women like sex, some women hate sex (there's an underlying pathology somewhere if someone can be bothered to figure it out), and some women LOVE sex.

:wtf: is there to dispute?

You stated you think there needs to be an incentive to have sex............sex is the incentive.

I can't be bothered to read through your stuff carefully anymore because you've proven repeatedly to have limited knowledge.

It's not time well spent.

[Loco 50]

Also, this isn't debate class for me. It's a conversation.

When people spout off things that may be true from their limited experience, but absolutely false to anyone that isn't naive, it bothers me.

Fortunately, you write so much that I can be certain that most people don't read your entire posts anymore. I should do the same.

[Hawker]

Bro, some women like sex, some women hate sex (there's an underlying pathology somewhere if someone can be bothered to figure it out), and some women LOVE sex.

:wtf: is there to dispute?

You stated you think there needs to be an incentive to have sex............sex is the incentive.

I can't be bothered to read through your stuff carefully anymore because you've proven repeatedly to have limited knowledge.

It's not time well spent.

While it's true that some women just want sex (are we talking all women or are we drawing specifically from examples of chicks you boned that happened to be in their sexual prime in their 30s?) I think they still have to get "that vibe" to be able to sleep with a dude. And that dude has to have something to give that vibe...if he's not super good looking. He has to make them feel "comfortable" even if it's just a one night stand.

I kinda get where starface is coming from...the drive to be amibitious is killed so women are no longer attracted to dudes for the long haul. I think starface originally talked about the long haul anyway so all this, "fat dudes pull a hot chick" examples don't really count.

Wasn't there some okcupied survey that found women found only 20% of men above average looking and men found the majority of women were above average?

[Cleverness]

It would just depend on how you handled the rest of government services. A huge portion of society costs more than 1,000 a month as it is.

There are states that spend about 50K a year on even non violent prisoners. Plenty of people on section 8 and food stamps getting more than that in total help.

A true rebuild of the budget to eliminate nonsense would find us well over 12,000 a year for all Americans who need it....but you would have to make it a true 1,000. Not 1,000 plus all the other shit you already get for free.

I was wondering the same thing. Does anyone have a good answer from Andrew Yang about this?

How will he change other gov't social services?

How does he plan on paying for this? For Medicare For All?

What is his plan for the national debt? So far I've only heard one (potential) candidate even mention it (Howard Schultz).

[Loco 50]

While it's true that some women just want sex (are we talking all women or are we drawing specifically from examples of chicks you boned that happened to be in their sexual prime in their 30s?)
All women want sex. Just like men. Some will convince themselves that they don't want or need it. The reasons behind that thinking are infinite.



I think they still have to get "that vibe" to be able to sleep with a dude. And that dude has to have something to give that vibe...if he's not super good looking. He has to make them feel "comfortable" even if it's just a one night stand.

Yes, the penalties for not being careful are much more severe for women than for men so naturally they trend towards being more cautious when compared against men. Assuming sobriety here of course.

Initial attraction is entirely dependent on being able to develop some sort of rapid vibe or attraction. Goes without saying and it goes both ways though too. Men aren't getting an erection in an anxious state just like women aren't going to let the situation even get that far if he's setting off warning signals.


I kinda get where starface is coming from...the drive to be amibitious is killed so women are no longer attracted to dudes for the long haul. I think starface originally talked about the long haul anyway so all this, "fat dudes pull a hot chick" examples don't really count.

Gonna need some clarification here from you. Women are attracted to so many different random things that I find the statement untrue and that's assuming that he's correct in assuming that humanities drive to be ambitious is killed by economic stability. That's a big ASSumption and why I can't even discuss any of his ideas because they're flawed in my view.

Some women are attracted to men with drive. Some women are turned off by overly ambitious men.
Some women are attracted to men that have helped them and have shown that they can be caring and supportive. Some women are attracted to independent men that won't be a danger of being clingy.
Some women are attracted to men that have shown that they can be loved. Some women are attracted to men that that **** themselves up with drugs and alcohol or otherwise dangerous behaviors.
Some women like men that can fix their car. Some women are attracted to that man's car.
Some women like men that cook for them. Some women like men that like their cooking.
Some women like hairy men. Some women like men that aren't hairy.

It's endless, so to try and argue that women won't find schlubby men attractive because they have lost ambitious drive.......nah.

Some people struggle to find positive things in themselves. Those that are so deep in self-hating depression are the ones that have problems attracting women. That's basic, but difficult for some to get a grasp on. It's for the best that these people get their shit in order before they go about trying to find a woman, because you sure as hell aren't going to find a healthy chick if you, yourself ain't healthy.

So the one night of sex turns into something more and turns into a longer relationship. Then it goes south. What happened?

Sometimes physical attraction fades and the relationship falls apart.
Ditto job status or financial stability.
Maybe attitude changed.
Maybe it's decline in sexual performance.
Again, way too many variables to pinpoint what the problem was and guaranteed to be many problems in all honesty.



Wasn't there some okcupied survey that found women found only 20% of men above average looking and men found the majority of women were above average?
Most likely, I believe both sexes find a woman's body to be far more attractive.

[Hawker]

All women want sex. Just like men. Some will convince themselves that they don't want or need it. The reasons behind that thinking are infinite.


Yes, the penalties for not being careful are much more severe for women than for men so naturally they trend towards being more cautious when compared against men. Assuming sobriety here of course.

Initial attraction is entirely dependent on being able to develop some sort of rapid vibe or attraction. Goes without saying and it goes both ways though too. Men aren't getting an erection in an anxious state just like women aren't going to let the situation even get that far if he's setting off warning signals.

Gonna need some clarification here from you. Women are attracted to so many different random things that I find the statement untrue and that's assuming that he's correct in assuming that humanities drive to be ambitious is killed by economic stability. That's a big ASSumption and why I can't even discuss any of his ideas because they're flawed in my view.

Some women are attracted to men with drive. Some women are turned off by overly ambitious men.
Some women are attracted to men that have helped them and have shown that they can be caring and supportive. Some women are attracted to independent men that won't be a danger of being clingy.
Some women are attracted to men that have shown that they can be loved. Some women are attracted to men that that **** themselves up with drugs and alcohol or otherwise dangerous behaviors.
Some women like men that can fix their car. Some women are attracted to that man's car.
Some women like men that cook for them. Some women like men that like their cooking.
Some women like hairy men. Some women like men that aren't hairy.

It's endless, so to try and argue that women won't find schlubby men attractive because they have lost ambitious drive.......nah.

Some people struggle to find positive things in themselves. Those that are so deep in self-hating depression are the ones that have problems attracting women. That's basic, but difficult for some to get a grasp on. It's for the best that these people get their shit in order before they go about trying to find a woman, because you sure as hell aren't going to find a healthy chick if you, yourself ain't healthy.

So the one night of sex turns into something more and turns into a longer relationship. Then it goes south. What happened?

Sometimes physical attraction fades and the relationship falls apart.
Ditto job status or financial stability.
Maybe attitude changed.
Maybe it's decline in sexual performance.
Again, way too many variables to pinpoint what the problem was and guaranteed to be many problems in all honesty.


Most likely, I believe both sexes find a woman's body to be far more attractive.

I agree that all women want sex but I think one distinct difference is that men are more willing to lower their standards than women when it comes to one night stands.

I generally agree with you that women are unique in terms of what they find attractive but the confidence and ambitious qualities in a man to me are always the most consistent in "what women find attractive." My cousin has had two kids with a man that isn't stable at all and is pretty dumb. He's a great and sweet guy but in terms of general responsibilities, he's short. She's amazing though. So I know where you're coming from. It's all pretty complicated...the last year has been ridiculously succcessful in terms of dating and falling into women...and I don't really know why. It just happened.

Maybe starface isn't saying that but I find those two qualities to be generally associated with "successful" and "stable" dudes.

[Loco 50]

I agree that all women want sex but I think one distinct difference is that men are more willing to lower their standards than women when it comes to one night stands.

:oldlol: This is all about options. Whoever has less options settles for what they can get. Fact of the matter is, 9 times outta ten, a dime is going to get whatever she wants whenever she wants, so you better be ready. Just the way it is.


I generally agree with you that women are unique in terms of what they find attractive but the confidence and ambitious qualities in a man to me are always the most consistent in "what women find attractive." My cousin has had two kids with a man that isn't stable at all and is pretty dumb. He's a great and sweet guy but in terms of general responsibilities, he's short. She's amazing though. So I know where you're coming from. It's all pretty complicated...
Yes, I'd agree that confidence is by far the most important factor in short term success. I've known many people that were too dumb to know better have the confidence to pull women that also should have known better, but whatever. They got a W, good on them.:applause:

the last year has been ridiculously succcessful in terms of dating and falling into women...and I don't really know why. It just happened.

Glad to hear it. I think, Kblaze mentioned when you stop caring so much things get much easier. Also, as we age the fvckups kinda start dropping out of the race so less competition for attention.


Maybe starface isn't saying that but I find those two qualities to be generally associated with "successful" and "stable" dudes.
I'd agree with you almost entirely. However when it comes to women, this assumes that there aren't plenty of women that love a project, or a partner in crime as well, or even someone to look down on. Same as men.

[iamgine]

wtf has this thread turn into :lol

[Kblaze8855]

wtf has this thread turn into :lol


I feel like at this point if I said what I think it would be taken wrong. Like im being mean or something. I genuinely dont understand the life someone could lead to come to some of these conclusions. The women wont even want sex without income inequality part especially.

In my experience women like sex more than men do. A woman getting good dick will lose her mind and behave like a child without it. Throw temper tantrums and show up outside the house and shit.....

Fatal attractions go both ways.....but there are more sex crazed women than men in my opinion. Especially now that its socially acceptable to admit it.

Bitches out here bragging about their dick appointments.......

[diamenz]

yang on shapiro's show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DHuRTvzMFw

i've yet to watch it but i'm sure it's worth the time.