TimHauck

And over 20% of Republicans wanted to send the unvaccinated to quarantine camps

This was only really true since Omicron. Frustrating to see many people on twitter talk about this and say “this was true all along!!!” when it was not.

So safe to say then that Anyone who didn’t like Life is Beautiful is an anti-Semite? Anyone who didn’t like 12 Years a Slave is a racist? Anyone who didn’t like Hidden Figures is a sexist and racist?

#1 beer in America

Heck, aren’t you the guy that keeps saying kids are being nurtured to be trans? Don’t you think normalizing being trans by putting them in advertisements for women’s products will further that supposed trend?

This is true to an extent, but Bud Light’s losses are being spread out to various brands, so they may not need to hire much if at all to keep up with the demand. Not to mention it’s still TBD how long the increased demand will last. Oh and one of the brands reaping the rewards is Modelo, which is brewed in Mexico. Although honestly, I don’t really agree with the “end the boycott for the sake of the workers argument.” People are entitled to spend their money how they wish. I just think it’s dumb.

The same reason someone without kids gives a fock about trans people in locker rooms or girls/womens sports. Because they want to stand up for what they think is right in order to defend real women and protect them from being replaced. For example, here’s one of our resident white knights who seems very concerned with this particular aspect of transgenderism, posting about it in multiple different threads: So, I’m surprised someone like the idiot above wouldn’t be more concerned with Maybelline. Especially now that they not only partnered with Mulvaney at the same time Bud Light did, but didn’t “heed the warning” from the Bud Light boycott and have now also partnered with a bearded person. But it actually seems like some of the usual suspects (Libs of Tiktok, Ben Shapiro, etc) are picking this up so maybe in a few days the people in here saying “who gives a fock about Maybelline” might actually start giving a fock about Maybelline once they’ve been given their marching orders.

Who?

Don’t agree with them. Carry on.

No apple products for you either?

Lol; you’re really making the argument that putting Mulvaney’s face on a can is what makes the Bud Light boycott make more sense than boycotting Nike or Maybelline? Even the idiot righties here aren’t making that ridiculous argument.

Takes one to know one right?

Lol, I called it

And here is @Reality with his usual schtick of only commenting on other posters and not the actual topic…

They did. They all gave Mulvaney free products and paid her to make a social media post. Unless maybe your attempted gotcha is Bud Light putting Mulvaney’s face on 1 can, but that’s laughable if you think that made the difference between a massive boycott and a blip.

@RaiderHaters Revenge thinks so

But is it women actually doing most of the complaining in those situations Baker Boy mentions? I’d bet not, even if you want to claim the reason is they’re against it but they just don’t speak out because they don’t want to be labeled anti-trans. Which is exactly why I would think we would have seen more men complaining about Maybelline, if Mulvaney promoting a brand is such a big issue. The “erasing women” argument is that by hiring Mulvaney they could have hired a real woman instead. If your argument is that “well they can also hire a woman,” then now you’re getting it. Because that’s exactly why some of us find the backlash against Bud Light odd, because literally all Mulvaney did was make an Instagram post and they sent some cans including one with a face on it. It’s not like Bud Light invested millions marketing to trannies and got rid of all the rest of their marketing. And again Nike is selling an image too, if Bud Light’s image was tarnished by Mulvaney, then Nike’s should have been too.

Yeah, kinda just picked a post to bump the latest update. Interestingly, in doing a quick search for Celsius I never saw cdub talk about it being a Ponzi scheme (although others did), just that they “focked him.” But I guess if there’s one thing we learned from this thread, it’s don’t take crypto advice from cdub. Should’ve just stuck with the second part here:

Women aren’t part of “anyone”? I mean I knew you were a chauvinist pig, but geez.

Well I haven’t heard about Nike or Maybelline firing their VP of marketing for partnering with Dylan Mulvaney, have you?

RFK probably would have been better off doing that. He has zero chance as a Dem

So I guess we can all agree that men are more upset by the existence of trannies than women are? And yet, I thought part of the argument against trannies (particularly M to F ones) was they’re “trying to erase women.” If that were the case then people should be more upset when products marketed towards women are using trannies in their advertisements. But like Gutter said, with which you seem to agree, the moral of the story is the Bud Light boycott isn’t about putting an end to the trans religion or whatever buzzword people like to use, it’s just because they don’t like trannies being affiliated with stuff they use.

Lol

Or fraud

No