Paul Teuscher retweeted
I'd have much more sympathy for LINDSAY CLANCY - if SHE were in a grave too, with her murdered 3 babies, Cora (5 yrs old), Dawson (3 yrs) and Callen (8 months).
She strangled each. While they were playing and laughing and fully conscious.
She subjected each to terror and horror for 5 eternal minutes, ignoring cries and tears and frantic struggling and biting and scratching and kicking. Ignoring the soul-deep horror of betrayal in their eyes. Of the evil they'd never had to confront. Three times she did this!
How much RAGE is necessary to EXECUTE your children this way?
WHY wasn't she compassionate? WHY didn't she quickly slice the carotid so they could bleed out in 5 minutes, like falling asleep? WHY didn't she hold them close and tell them "it'll be okay sweetheart... we're going to heaven to be with Jesus"?
Nobody has explained why she killed her children. Nor why she tortured them. Shall we even try to imagine what they saw and heard?
Is it just the norm now that when a mom goes nuts, of course she kills her babies? And we are to shrug and say, "Oh! She must have been crazy!"?
No one has explained why she - a nurse - who "wants to die" - didn't slice her own carotid so she could bleed out in 5 minutes. She knows exactly where it is. She knows the minor, quick pain she'd feel. She knows her death would be peaceful and like falling asleep. And GUARANTEED.
She WAS in a rush, right?
Maybe she snapped out of her psychosis JUST when she was about to do herself in... how convenient...
...the horror of killing HERSELF "snapped her out of her rage", but the HORROR of torturing and murdering her children DIDN'T?!
Then she hung from a window ledge, and dropped, willing to break a leg or two - for what reason? The paralysis is incidental.
She didn't kill herself. She killed her babies. Then she sent their father to experience the worst horror he will ever experience.
How much RAGE does it take to do this? Four victims, not just three; victims of her rage.
Has any witness said that she was devastated when they confirmed that her children were dead? Did she go off her head again?
There are so many questions. And yes, I believe we are very gullible in general, desensitized to actual victims, and don't believe ENOUGH in EVIL. Or free will, agency...
The defense is working hard to convince us to blame everyone but the person who TOTALLY CONTROLLED HERSELF when she "needed" to... but TOTALLY LOST AGENCY when she DIDN'T "need" to. Think about that LONG and HARD.
It's NOT Patrick's fault, nor her medical team's fault, that those babies are dead...
It's also not to Patrick's credit, nor her medical team's credit, that SHE is alive.
She can't and shouldn't have it both ways.
Paul Teuscher retweeted
That's absolutely false. In fact she separated the older two children, apparently so they wouldn't see what was happening. This story is horrific enough without making things up to make it sound deranged.
Paul Teuscher retweeted
She didn't just strangle them, she tortured them.
She sent her husband out of the house, lined them up against the wall, and then made her other children watch their sibling be choked to death before she moved on to them.
They must've been screaming for Mommy, & when that didn't stop her, they must've screamed for their Daddy.
Those children's last moments on Earth were literally staring into the pit of Hell & a demon wearing their mother's face stared back at them.
Every woman who donated to this monster should be thrown into an asylum to get the help they claim they & so many women desperately need. They can't be trusted, especially around children until they've rid themselves of this unholy brain rot.
Paul Teuscher retweeted
Do you see men donating $700,000 for a murderer? Do you see men collectively, just like this situation, defending the criminal? Because I tend to see women do it a lot, EX: Luigi Mangione, That black kid who killed metcalf, women aborting babies, a lot of illegal rapists.
Paul Teuscher retweeted
time to reconsider the 19th amendment in general, not just because they’re women, but rather because we need responsible folks voting
-if you’re not a net positive tax payer, you should NOT be able to vote
-if you do not own any assets (have skin the game to actually care about what happens to the country), then you should NOT be able to vote
-if you have not been employed in the past 3 years, you should NOT be able to vote
-if you have served any sentence in jail (fraud, theft, violence, etc…, you should NOT be able to vote
I do think the more contributions a member of society provide to the country, they should be rewarded with an additional vote or two.
-if you own a small business, with 3+ employees, you SHOULD get an additional vote
-if you contribute more than 100K in tax revenue, you SHOULD get an additional vote
-if you’re been recognize for an innovation accomplishment, or something substantial that benefits the country (save a life, volunteered 100+ hours to charities/food banks), you SHOULD get an additional vote
Reward those who contribute
Punish those who don’t
Paul Teuscher retweeted
Feminists should really take a hint from their own side's propaganda.
"In the end, yes. Which is what ruined my life. Power ... is something else. ... It lays eggs in you. It becomes a parasite you have to feed. Power does nothing but eat."
"Like a vampire."
"Like a vampire."
Paul Teuscher retweeted
there was a study done that showed women were less tolerant of political allies than men were of political enemies. women are consensus seeking creatures and anything even slightly deviating from consensus must be crushed for the good of the hivemind.
Paul Teuscher retweeted
They don't even need a war. On those ships, they get pregnant when that WestPac cruise goes too long at sea like the carrier over in Persian Gulf right now.
Paul Teuscher retweeted
What happens when 1) national security is compromised because it's full of women and 2) they magically all get pregnant when a war they voted for arrives? I don't think this solution fixes the problem, sadly.
Paul Teuscher retweeted
I am once again saying that we need to condition voting on being part of the DRAFT & making women opt in to the draft.
The large majority of women will not opt in, gutting the foid vote without disturbing the 19th amendment.
Paul Teuscher retweeted
I got fired for saying this, but I still think that it is a civilizational imperative that we repeal the 19th.
The majority of people celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk were women. And now women are collectively donating and supporting a woman who strangled her 3 babies to death.
Putting political power in the hands of bloodthirsty true crime conspiratards under mass psychosis will destroy us. For the sake of even women’s own wellbeing, we cannot allow these people anywhere near the levers of power let alone participate in politics.
over $700,000 now raised for a woman who strangled her 3 children to death with exercise ropes. every single donation is from a woman. hundreds of thousands of women in a tiktok true crime psychosis where they believe the husband did it because he looks mean
Paul Teuscher retweeted
Are you or are you not a being capable of agency. It is a simple question. If you have no agency while your "hormones are unbalanced" then you have no agency period. Please pick a lane, or work to repeal the 19th. We cannot function with this whiplash as a society.
Paul Teuscher retweeted
She's not wrong
I do think that some men who want it to "come back" are more responsible than your gigilo boy toy fck boys who don't care either way
but you do have a subset of irresponsible losers who think it would solve problems it probably wouldn't
but your high earning conscientious male who has no patience for nonsense wants it to come back because he believes he makes better decisions than the current system allows
and btw, he also wants to disenfranchise the loser male population
i know very few of these repeal the 19th types who aren't also in favor of returning voting entirely to property owning males
they're not trying to get rid of women who are a bit flighty, but also idiot males who can't get their life together enough to even by a house and vote for nonsense like people who remove bail or defund the police etc
My sneaking suspicion is men who want patriarchy to return societally wise would suffer the most under it and haven't really thought ahead
Because their idea of patriarchy is women have no rights and men have everything
You'd shoulder infinitely more responsibility, there will be no-where for you to hide and far more expected of you
You've been allowed to move how you have through the feminization of men you complain about, you are the feminised men and haven't really noticed it
By all means bring it back and take my rights, but your whining and "think about my feelings" is finished
