You make no sense. Walz lost that debate by being weak and LOW testosterone, not bc of his “braggadocio and testosterone fueled posturing”. If Walz had been strong and manly and had pushed back against Vance’s aggression, he would’ve won. Letting the Repubs gallop over you is a losing game. - ThreadSky

richardhartley.bsky.social • 6 days ago

You make no sense.
Walz lost that debate by being weak and LOW testosterone, not bc of his “braggadocio and testosterone fueled posturing”.
If Walz had been strong and manly and had pushed back against Vance’s aggression, he would’ve won.
Letting the Repubs gallop over you is a losing game.

Comments

comaed.bsky.social•6 days ago

It *is* still posturing from Vance. You're also specifically advocating for 'high testosterone' signaling is a preferable posture. I see that as a dead end for society in the long run - so 🤷‍♂️. I won't engage further.

richardhartley.bsky.social•6 days ago

I’m advocating for competing to win based on the reality of what works.
You can’t win a war waged with guns if you’re not going to use guns to fight back.

dsmechwarrior93.bsky.social•6 days ago

Wow, shit lib alert.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply