2016 Election -- Part II
Poll
 | 57 votes (47.89%) | ||
| | 33 votes (27.73%) | ||
| | 12 votes (10.08%) | ||
| | 10 votes (8.4%) | ||
| | 4 votes (3.36%) | ||
| | 3 votes (2.52%) |
119 members have voted
Quote: AxelWolfCould I say, anyone that wants that stupid, ugly, criminal Hillary Clinton to win over Trump is themselves a stupid Idiot?
Yes, Axel, you could. You can generalize all you want. (A lot of people here don't seem to fathom the distinction.)
Quote: boymimbo
People recognize Trump's weakness but their hatred for Washington and what it has become (a city run by money and lobbyists) and Hillary's approval and complicity/duplicity in working within this system makes people overlook Trump's obvious flaws. When I ask real people (actual people voting for Trump who are reasonable people who I work with) this is the explanation usually given.
This populist view of Washington is distorted at best. To say that the city is "run by" money and lobbyists is to exaggerate the fact that those things have INFLUENCE. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the functions Washington executes every day are not affected by those things at all. Regulations get drafted and enforced. Public services get provided. A million mundane functions that our society needs are performed without any fuss.
The populists don't see all that. They have a simplistic view of society. If they actually carried out their mantra of burn, burn, burn, everything would collapse. Including the societal mechanisms that allowed them the free time and the wherewithal to attend Trump (and Bernie) rallies and scream their heads off.
Clinton has undeniably been part of "the system." Why is that a bad thing? You parse it as "complicity and duplicity" as if she a) was participating in some vast criminal scheme and b) had been hiding her public service for years. On the contrary, she's been working for the things that she believes in (whether or not you agree with them) and doing so with plain old diligence, not bluff and bombast.
Seeing a complex system in simplistic fashion is a hallmark of poor intelligence. Stupid people can't fathom it all, so they adopt a couple of slogans and call it good. Also, blaming "those crooks in Washington" for the fact that your miserable little life isn't going the way you'd like it may be comforting, but it's like drinking to hide the fact that you're ugly.
I agree that one could come up with reasons not to vote for either candidate, but the reasons to not vote for Clinton are mostly specious, while the reasons to not vote for Trump are glaring and kind of horrifying. No sensible or reasonable person should vote for Trump. I have a couple of friends who profess Trump-love, and when I ask them why, they just spout slogans. I've yet to hear an actual reason from them, let alone a good one.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikIf they actually carried out their mantra of burn, burn, burn, everything would collapse.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikNo sensible or reasonable person should vote for Trump. I have a couple of friends who profess Trump-love, and when I ask them why, they just spout slogans. I've yet to hear an actual reason from them, let alone a good one.
He seems to be doing a bang up job of wrecking the GOP. It is my hope they will be irreversibly shattered. That way, their power is gone, hopefully they'll die, and then a new party has room and resource to grow. Perhaps a newer right, one that drops their historical ridiculousness and focuses on what a true right party SHOULD focus on. A girl can dream...
It is my wish (one that won't be granted) for this ridiculous man to do the same with .gov at large. Our actions alone have done more damage to our relations that this sad man could do (IMO, obv). He's the president, not the king, so his internal damage will be incredibly limited due to checks and balances (IMO). And, perhaps, it'll be such a f#$%arow that, just as he did the GOP, the damage will kill enough that New has room to grow.
So it MIGHT work out for the better. And if it doesn't, then things MIGHT burn down, which is also very palatable for some. Seems the worst case scenario is he does an OK job and things just keep on keepin' on.
Hil (IMO) is the obvious choice for the status quo, and if I get all objective, the status quo is pretty damn good. But I don't want "good". I want FREE. The Left seems to be all about playing nice with others for the betterment of all, and I just. Don't. Wanna.
Live Free or Die, even if it means Live Free AND Die. Don't care. Leave me the f#$% alone.
Quote: Face
Hil (IMO) is the obvious choice for the status quo, and if I get all objective, the status quo is pretty damn good. But I don't want "good". I want FREE. The Left seems to be all about playing nice with others for the betterment of all, and I just. Don't. Wanna.
Live Free or Die, even if it means Live Free AND Die. Don't care. Leave me the f#$% alone.
Well, the Left was originally about not stomping others flat and grinding them into the dust. Then it was about not casually enslaving or murdering them. Then it was about letting them walk the streets freely. Then it was about letting them exist in "our" society. Lately, it's been about letting them vote...an existential threat, to Republicans.
I for one don't WANT to live in a totally free society. One where my neighbor can use the apricot tree in my backyard for target practice. Where the guy across the street can drive his Camaro down the freeway at 110. In reverse. Where drugstores can quintuple the price of flu vaccine during an outbreak. Where schoolteachers can tell my kids that they have to pledge their souls to the Prince of Darkness or they'll get an "F." Et cetera.
Live Free or Die are actually not the only two choices. As soon as the second person arrived on this continent, the first person's freedom had to be curtailed just a little bit. It went on from there. You might think that isolation is a good thing. It is until you need a new chainsaw or new underwear or have to get a tooth pulled or want a candy bar. Those idiot reality TV shows--what's that one called, Morons in Alaska? feed into that myth that a truly independent existence is possible, never mind desirable.
So, you're NOT free. Thank whatever gods may be that you aren't.
Quote: boymimboPeople recognize Trump's weakness but their hatred for Washington and what it has become (a city run by money and lobbyists) .
Anyone see the movie Hillary got made fun of for a comparison to Lincoln (Danial Day Lewis)
There's a scene after Lincoln's election where he is meeting people (line around the block so to speak) and they are coming to "collect" their favors for their vote, or work in electing him.
Anyway, using Washington for favors and deals. Probably not so new.
Quote: RSIs this something YOU really want people to look at? That'd be like Hillary Clinton asking Donald Trump how many e-mails he's deleted.....
The answer would probably surprise a lot of people.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/13/trump-accused-destroying-email-evidence-lawsuit-10-years-ago-republican-hillary-president/85795082/
Quote: Joeshlabotnik
I for one don't WANT to live in a totally free society. One where my neighbor can use the apricot tree in my backyard for target practice. Where the guy across the street can drive his Camaro down the freeway at 110. In reverse.
I know. You hate me. No need to keep bringing up my use of my free time ;)
Anyway, I get it. I understand freedom and how it must be curtailed, how said curtailing saves us from the absolute horrors of reality. I was just offering a how / why as to why someone would want it to end. And if I were to attempt to be somewhat serious, I don't mind the lack of isolation. I might be striving for it, but I do see many ways it's just the pits. I have some of those problems you mentioned right now, and as much as it's misery, I honestly couldn't imagine if I were in the middle of the mountains of Montana, 20miles from any path and 200 from civilization and its clean water and miracles like amoxicillin. You are correct, sir. It'd be hell on Earth.
But I go back to my posts from a few days ago. I actually have a deep thread of "togetherness". I just helped a fellow yesterday by giving him something I, by all accounts, could not afford to let go of. I have mentioned there are several even here that have extended the hand of mercy to me. It's a really great thing. It's just the idea of doing this involuntarily, and being forced under the threat of violence to give to those who I do not know and have a good chance of really disliking. When Bob down the road needed vermin removed from his property, I dropped my grinding wheel and was in his yard 120 seconds later. When Phil from Idaho needs whatever, sorry Phil. You're not "my people", so please do LMTFA.
Ain't saying it's "right", ain't saying it's "better". Just giving you an answer that isn't a tired slogan.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikIf you equate the things Max says with the things I say, well, then...one would have to speculate on the reasons for that ridiculously skewed viewpoint. Partisanship, maybe?
You are the most partisan poster in this whole thread, imo. Trump is not about partisanship. He had to go on the ticket as a Republican in order to even have a viable chance of winning the presidency. Washington is corrupt to the inner core. Republicans and Democrats have been merged into one party with the talking points being used to create division. This keeps the population side tracked so the elite inner circle can continue selling out America and everything it stands for. You're viewpoint is skewed if you want to live on par with the rest of the world. I certainly don't. This election is a pivotal point in history. People should be voting as if there very lives depended on it. The destruction of America cannot be allowed to continue.
Trump is fighting for his families survival. Trump is America.
Quote: MaxPenYou are the most partisan poster in this whole thread, imo.
In his defense, AZDuffman and EvenBob seem to have abandoned this thread after the Trump campaign s**t the bed with the Access Hollywood tape.
Quote: SteverinosThe answer would probably surprise a lot of people.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/13/trump-accused-destroying-email-evidence-lawsuit-10-years-ago-republican-hillary-president/85795082/
The problem with your example is that Trump emails did not contain classified information and had every right to exist anywhere the possessor of same well pleased. Ask anyone who has ever obtained clearance and had to work with or handle such information. She is a criminal and a danger to society. Many intelligence assignees had to flee for their lives when some of those State Department documents were released. Some didn't make it.
That is why intelligence insiders have contributed dirt to wikileaks. They are interested in their survival. Yet this lady wants to blame Russia to try and draw you on her side.
I'll say this now with firm belief. Hillary getting elected=WWW3.
We'll be fine.
If you want Washington to work better, vote obstructionist Republicans out of office. And it appears that enough Americans are finally starting to realize this.
Quote: ams288In his defense, AZDuffman and EvenBob seem to have abandoned this thread after the Trump campaign s**t the bed with the Access Hollywood tape.
People don't care about that tape. If you have any testesterone at all I'm sure you have had much worse conversations with other guys.
"His supporters don't care about that tape." - Fixed for you
Quote: MaxPenYou are the most partisan poster in this whole thread, imo.
The destruction of America cannot be allowed to continue.
Trump is fighting for his families survival. Trump is America.
I would loathe Trump if he ran as a Democrat and would seriously consider voting for Hillary if she ran as a Republican. That's where your thinking is flawed. Opposing Trump is opposing not his party, but rather, his unfitness for office.
I agree that the destruction of America cannot be allowed to continue. That's why Trump must be stopped.
Trump isn't fighting for anybody's survival but his own. And he's doing a monumentally piss-poor job of even that.
And Trump isn't America. He's representative of the worst of America.
Quote: FaceWhen Bob down the road needed vermin removed from his property
Damn Jehovah's Witnesses.
Quote: MaxPenPeople don't care about that tape. If you have any testesterone at all I'm sure you have had much worse conversations with other guys.
Hahahaha.
Do you take pride in being provably wrong about literally everything you post?
I know plenty of guys with testosterone* who haven't advocated sexual assault in private.
*such a stupid qualifier, BTW.
Quote: SteverinosTrump, and his supporters, apocalyptic view of America is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo exhausting. Been listening to it for 8 years now and they made quite a few doomsday predictions that haven't come true.
We'll be fine.
If you want Washington to work better, vote obstructionist Republicans out of office. And it appears that enough Americans are finally starting to realize this.
I think it'll take a couple or three election cycles, though. The House will still be controlled by the Doofus party unless there's a HUGE backlash against them rather than the moderate backlash they'll suffer. It's also not a given that the Doofi (plural of Doofus) lose the Senate.
What I see gradually happening is that the Republicans are seen by American society as the party that actually nominated Donald Trump to be President of the United States, and are slowly becoming pariahs for that reason alone. Mainstream Republicans are attempting to weave the fiction that Trump is some kind of aberration, that he really doesn't represent Republican values. They're wrong--Trump is the perfect, the quintessential Republican. He is the logical culmination of all their hatred and bigotry over the last several decades.
Quote: ams288Hahahaha.
Do you take pride in being provably wrong about literally everything you post?
I know plenty of guys with testosterone* who haven't advocated sexual assault in private.
*such a stupid qualifier, BTW.
Well, Max appears to agree with Trump: if you're a manly man, you grope women. It's what real men do.
Quote: AxelWolfCould I say, anyone that wants that stupid, ugly, criminal Hillary Clinton to win over Trump is themselves a stupid Idiot?
You sure can, although, I might be hesitant if you directly quoted someone's post prior to saying that.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikWell, Max appears to agree with Trump: if you're a manly man, you grope women. It's what real men do.
Apparently.
Based on his post, MaxPen thinks that men who don't advocate sexual assault in private have low testosterone. How crazy is that?!
Quote: ams288Quote: JoeshlabotnikWell, Max appears to agree with Trump: if you're a manly man, you grope women. It's what real men do.
Apparently.
Based on his post, MaxPen thinks that men who don't advocate sexual assault in private have low testosterone. How crazy is that?!
What's frightening is that so many men still think the way that Max and Trump do about that.
I don't even think that Max is doing the Apologia-for-Trump Two-Step here. I think, based on his comments, that he truly thinks that Trump's behavior is no big deal and Hillary's sending emails is much worse than Trump assaulting women.
I am cheered by the fact that at least, Trump's sexual assault history turned out to be the deal-breaker for SOME of his supporters. Apparently, there WAS something that he could do or say that would drive them away--it sure as hell didn't look that way until now.
Get real it isn't sexual assault kissing a woman. It's not like your hiding under the stairs grabbing pussy. Grabbing pussy is the next logical step after kissing. Sexual assault is too serious to use the term for such minor things.Quote: JoeshlabotnikQuote: ams288Quote: JoeshlabotnikWell, Max appears to agree with Trump: if you're a manly man, you grope women. It's what real men do.
Apparently.
Based on his post, MaxPen thinks that men who don't advocate sexual assault in private have low testosterone. How crazy is that?!
What's frightening is that so many men still think the way that Max and Trump do about that.
I don't even think that Max is doing the Apologia-for-Trump Two-Step here. I think, based on his comments, that he truly thinks that Trump's behavior is no big deal and Hillary's sending emails is much worse than Trump assaulting women.
I am cheered by the fact that at least, Trump's sexual assault history turned out to be the deal-breaker for SOME of his supporters. Apparently, there WAS something that he could do or say that would drive them away--it sure as hell didn't look that way until now.
http://m.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory/2012-07/story-behind-famous-kiss
Is this sexual assault? No. You're using your political ideology to replace cognitive thinking.
It seems to me that men who claim that their drives are uncontrollable, as Trump claims, are putting themselves on a par with the very culture that they pretend to scorn.
As far as "real men" engaging in locker-room talk, it's sort of like AP. Those that are most successful talk about it the least.
Quote: onenickelmiracle
http://m.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory/2012-07/story-behind-famous-kiss
Is this sexual assault? No. You're using your political ideology to replace cognitive thinking.
Unwanted sexual contact, including kissing is sexual assault.
For instance if you're walking out of a casino and a dirty beggar grabs and kisses you on the mouth, it is sexual assault if you decide it was unwanted. If you decide you like it, he gets a break.
(Then you go on dates and live happily ever after.) Or whatever.
Whatever is more like it. The point is these things are too minor to even be labeled sexual assault and by doing so, you're degrading real sexual assault. In sexual practice, it is not normal to ever be granted permission before an immediate act. People aren't puppets and puppet masters saying touch here now do this now. It's an unspoken thing.Quote: rxwineUnwanted sexual contact, including kissing is sexual assault.
For instance if you're walking out of a casino and a dirty beggar grabs and kisses you on the mouth, it is sexual assault if you decide it was unwanted. If you decide you like it, he gets a break.
(Then you go on dates and live happily ever after.) Or whatever.
If the millions of guys complained about being bitten by women, all the women would be in jail in America. Sometimes they do this on purpose or do things you ask them not to, but it isn't sexual assault. We'd all being peeing the bed if it were true, but it isn't.
A dirty beggar would not be able to get close enough to kiss me and neither would Donald Trump. I would push him away and move my head back like the women who didn't want trump to kiss them. Sexual assault my arse.
Quote: DTRobersThen let's set up a real-world analogy. Shia law demands that females be shrouded (to a greater or lesser degree depending on the level of observance) so that males are not led into impure thoughts or actions by the sight of the female body.
It seems to me that men who claim that their drives are uncontrollable, as Trump claims, are putting themselves on a par with the very culture that they pretend to scorn.
As far as "real men" engaging in locker-room talk, it's sort of like AP. Those that are most successful talk about it the least.
https://m.facebook.com/?_rdr#!/WOMENSRIGHTSNEWS/photos/a.204542062921531.45848.184599864915751/556249217750812/?type=3&source=48
Quote: onenickelmiracleIn sexual practice, it is not normal to ever be granted permission before an immediate act. People aren't puppets and puppet masters saying touch here now do this now. It's an unspoken thing.
And your complaint is not a real world complaint. That is, the law protects you from someone laying their hands all over you if you need it, but to be successful you're going to have convince a judge or jury that your complaint was reasonable. That's why date rape can be more difficult to prosecute than stranger rape. Or marriage rape possibly even more difficult.
Because it's not a real world complaint that law is enacted strictly so we are all in danger from it. Some case results are unreasonable and that's the ones that often make the news.
Quote: onenickelmiracle
Is this sexual assault? No. You're using your political ideology to replace cognitive thinking.
It's kind of horrifying to see you rationalize this. LEGAL DEFINITION: Assault is the unauthorized touching of another person, OR threatening to do so. Sexual assault is, according to the Department of Justice:
any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient.
So kissing someone without obtaining consent is definitely sexual assault. There's nothing political or ideological about it. I think that YOU are the one who's excusing Trump's reprehensible statements and behavior based on YOUR political ideology. (I won't reuse your strange phrase, "cognitive thinking," as it implies that there is some other kind of thinking that doesn't involve cognition. Truly, you have studied at the feet of Trump the Master.)
Quote: JoeshlabotnikIt's kind of horrifying to see you rationalize this.
Horrifying? Yes. Unexpected? No.
Never underestimate how low the Trumpsters will go...
Other than the problems of Atlantic City, and he quickly exited that arena, he has not had much to do with said "destruction."Quote: JoeshlabotnikI agree that the destruction of America cannot be allowed to continue. That's why Trump must be stopped.
Quote: ams288Speaking of stupid idiots, look at the old white woman at a Trump rally yesterday holding a "Blacks for Trump" sign:
Maybe her last name is Blacks?
Of course she couldn't just be married to a black man or woman, part black (like our president!), friends with a lot of black people or something. Is every single person that holds up a "Black Lives Matters" sign black?
Quote: ams288Also, note the man behind her wearing the lab coat and stethoscope. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I'm pretty sure he's not actually a doctor.
I think they got that lab coat from the time President Obama decided that doctors dressed in suits didn't fit his narrative for a particular photo op and they rounded up a bunch of lab coats to make them wear. No way a Trumper could be smart enough to be a doctor is what I say...
Maybe the guy with other sign is straight, too!
Quote: RonC
Of course she couldn't just be married to a black man or woman, part black (like our president!), friends with a lot of black people or something. Is every single person that holds up a "Black Lives Matters" sign black?
No, but that's not what her sign says. Holding a sign that says "Somethings for Somebody" implies that you are a Something. As the people who get to stand directly behind Trump pay handsomely for the privilege, you'd think they'd give them an accurate sign to wave.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikNo, but that's not what her sign says. Holding a sign that says "Somethings for Somebody" implies that you are a Something. As the people who get to stand directly behind Trump pay handsomely for the privilege, you'd think they'd give them an accurate sign to wave.
You don't know that she is not black. You assume she is white because she looks white. I know more than a few people that are black but look pretty darn white. Of course, we all know of at least one white who claimed to be black. Bill Clinton was a black President. That NAACP chick claimed blackness but seemed to be white when it all came out. She is next to a black man, perhaps it is her husband and she supports him and chose that sign.
Ah, the hell with it...just banish with the other deplorables to some island somewhere....
Quote: RonCQuote: ams288Speaking of stupid idiots, look at the old white woman at a Trump rally yesterday holding a "Blacks for Trump" sign:
Maybe her last name is Blacks?
Of course she couldn't just be married to a black man or woman, part black (like our president!), friends with a lot of black people or something. Is every single person that holds up a "Black Lives Matters" sign black?
She is white. This was all over the news the other day. When you hold up a sign that says "Blacks for Trump," and you're a stupid old white woman, that just makes you and the campaign that gives you prime real estate for all the TV cameras look silly. Being married to a black man or being friends with a lot of black people still wouldn't make her black.
You are the 2nd righty in this thread to conflate her with Black Lives Matter. I don't understand why you guys are assuming everyone involved with BLM is black. You do know there are plenty of people of every race who support BLM? Saying "Black Lives Matter" is not the same as holding a sign that says "Blacks for Trump."
Quote: JoeshlabotnikSo kissing someone without obtaining consent is definitely sexual assault.
Therein lies a bit of an issue. Sure, you can define what "consent" means (ie: must say 'yes'). But c'mon, let's be real.....that's not how it happens. You don't say, "May I kiss you?" or "Do I have consent to put my **** in your *******?"
Legally, almost every man and woman has committed sexual assault.....even though only a tiny fraction of those "legally sexual assaults" * are actions that should be considered sexual assault. I assume the sexual assault definition from the DOJ you posted is accurate....if so -- you should notice the word explicit is written, not implicit.
Let's not forget someone under the influence cannot give consent....meaning any time you (generic) have sex while you or other party is under the influence -- yup, that's rape.
Quote: ams288She is white. This was all over the news the other day. When you hold up a sign that says "Blacks for Trump," and you're a stupid old white woman, that just makes you and the campaign that gives you prime real estate for all the TV cameras look silly. Being married to a black man or being friends with a lot of black people still wouldn't make her black.
You are the 2nd righty in this thread to conflate her with Black Lives Matter. I don't understand why you guys are assuming everyone involved with BLM is black. You do know there are plenty of people of every race who support BLM? Saying "Black Lives Matter" is not the same as holding a sign that says "Blacks for Trump."
I don't know if she's black or white or mexican or chinese or whatever else there is. (IMO she's white, though.)
But you post sounds a lot like when someone sees a transgenderite (Bruce Jenner) and says, "Nah, that's a dude". Or seeing a girl with short pink-dyed hair, saying, "Yup, she's a lesbian".
Were you up in arms when Trump called the judge in Indiana a Mexican?
Just seems a bit odd, usually the retarded liberals (this is permitted now, right babs?) are always going off about respecting people and "if she wants to be a he" or "just because he looks XYZ doesn't mean he's XYZ".....and now all of a sudden, it's something like this: "She looks white...she is white...period."
Not that I buy into any of that nonsense. Unless her husband is black (or has some close relations to blacks....like her children are black or parents or something [ie: adoption]), then a white woman holding that sign is pretty stupid. What I think is even more stupid? The contradictory way liberals are acting about it.
Quote: RSQuote: ams288She is white. This was all over the news the other day. When you hold up a sign that says "Blacks for Trump," and you're a stupid old white woman, that just makes you and the campaign that gives you prime real estate for all the TV cameras look silly. Being married to a black man or being friends with a lot of black people still wouldn't make her black.
You are the 2nd righty in this thread to conflate her with Black Lives Matter. I don't understand why you guys are assuming everyone involved with BLM is black. You do know there are plenty of people of every race who support BLM? Saying "Black Lives Matter" is not the same as holding a sign that says "Blacks for Trump."
But you post sounds a lot like when someone sees a transgenderite (Bruce Jenner) and says, "Nah, that's a dude". Or seeing a girl with short pink-dyed hair, saying, "Yup, she's a lesbian".
"Sounds a lot like" - only in your head, RS. Only in your head...
Quote:Were you up in arms when Trump called the judge in Indiana a Mexican?
Yep. I was.
Quote: ams288
You are the 2nd righty in this thread to conflate her with Black Lives Matter. ."
If everyone was a righty who you insist on labeling one, Hill would have zero chance to be our next president. But she will be.
Quote: mcallister3200If everyone was a righty who you insist on labeling one, Hill would have zero chance to be our next president. But she will be.
I have zero reservations about labeling anyone who is going out of their way trying to make excuses for the stupid old white woman holding a "Blacks for Trump" sign at the Trump rally as a righty.
Quote: ams288I have zero reservations
Fixed that for you,
Quote: mcallister3200Fixed that for you,
Careful. Some people get upset and start calling for bannings when you do that.
Quote: RSTherein lies a bit of an issue. Sure, you can define what "consent" means (ie: must say 'yes'). But c'mon, let's be real.....that's not how it happens. You don't say, "May I kiss you?" or "Do I have consent to put my **** in your *******?"
I can't believe I have to explain this to you.
Lunging at a woman and kissing her in the hope that she won't object--or worse, not caring whether she objects or not--has until recently been considered a male prerogative. It's sexual assault though, and was then as it is now. One of the elements of the recent empowerment of women is that they're no longer expected to put up with it.
There are degrees of behavior as well. A man can communicate with gestures that he wants to kiss a woman and do it slowly and gently enough that she has a chance to refuse--and can do it without a shove or a slap. And yes, in fact, asking "May I kiss you?" would be gentlemanly as well as decent behavior. Male macho culture, which Trump enthusiastically supports, says you should grab first and ask questions later. After all, what's a harmless little kiss?
Degrading and devaluing how women feel has been going on for all of human history, and that we no longer feel that's appropriate really bothers some men. I hesitate to put you in that category, but...
Quote: mcallister3200Fixed that for you,
Quoting someone out of context is a famous conservative/righty trick. I know you say you're not one, so why emulate them?
Also, this verges on personal insult. I get that you don't agree with ams, but why distort what he says because of that?
Quote: JoeshlabotnikMale macho culture, which Trump enthusiastically supports, says you should grab first and ask questions later...
Degrading and devaluing how women feel has been going on for all of human history...
As a kid I watched cartoons that showed a male cavemen knocking a cave woman on the head with a club, then dragging her into his cave.
Not anymore: things change, and social change is especially rapid-paced.
It wasn't all that long ago that our ancestors could buy and sell other human beings.
Some embrace change, others yearn for "the good old days."
Thanks for the tip. I'll just say, except for and leave that person's name off the list. (-;Quote: Mission146You sure can, although, I might be hesitant if you directly quoted someone's post prior to saying that.
Honestly I would never think about calling someone something derogatory or not liking them for what person they wanted to vote for, unless I was joking. Anyone that shows hate or is overly vitriolic towards others about this stuff is an ass hat.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ya, Maxpen has some wacky conspiracy views, but he's a successful, smart, good guy IRL and he's always a pleasure to be around.
Quote: AxelWolfYa, Maxpen has some wacky conspiracy views, but he's a successful, smart, good guy IRL and he's always a pleasure to be around.
Is he gonna owe you money when Trump loses?
LOL.Quote: JoeshlabotnikThere are degrees of behavior as well. A man can communicate with gestures that he wants to kiss a woman and do it slowly and gently enough that she has a chance to refuse--and can do it without a shove or a slap. And yes, in fact, asking "May I kiss you?" would be gentlemanly as well as decent behavior. .
I'm not sure the last time you dated a woman that wasn't in her 70's, but good luck if you ever do want to get any younger action, because that old school sh*t don't work.
Girls are not initially attracted to nice guys.
As I said before....Open the door for her and then smack her ass on the way through (-;
And don't twist what i'm saying. I'm not saying forcing yourself on or randomly grabbing girls pussys is a good thing.
This is good advice.Quote: AxelWolf
As I said before....Open the door for her and then smack her ass on the way through (-;
.
Quote: AxelWolf
Girls are not initially attracted to nice guys.
Given the philosophy that you're espousing, how would you ever know?
I think that 90% of society's problems are due to this macho guy horsecrap. Women prefer it when men aren't nice to them. RIIIIIIIGHT.
And re your crack about who I've dated: I've found that women of ALL ages GREATLY prefer to be treated with respect. I've gotten plenty of "younger action" by treating women like human beings. How well have you been doing with the "yo, bitch" and ass-slapping approach? My guess is that it doesn't work too well.
