Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 Author Thread: Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 8165 (view)
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 1/21/2019 9:59:42 AM
John wrote:
And looks like the liberal media
The MSM is not that liberal. At least in my view. They are elite. Owned by elites, run by elites, and in general, broadcasts in line with what the elites want. There is a difference. A "liberal" media wouldn't generally push free trade, wars, or be a cheerleader for business and finance.

Of course, it depends on what one's definition of "liberal." I still prefer the old fashioned definition, anti war, mildly anti capitalist, pro labor, pro human rights. If you're a relic that still holds that (such as me lol) then the MSM is not liberal. It is elite. If your definition of liberal is the newer, ID politics based liberal, liberals who love bankers, free trade, and war ie. "limosine liberals," then maybe you could call the MSM "liberal." But still elite...and still with a lot of control/input from the right. Cuz the MSM generally push things both liberal and conservative elites want, i.e., war, free trade, more immigration, cheerleading for business and finance. And they generally both agree that there are things that divide like, race, religion, abortion, etc. etc. so these are useful to chum the waters.

But Trump deserves the harsh treatment he gets from the MSM, considering he came out with guns blazing against them, right from the start. He will never win that battle.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 58 (view)
Interstate Or Intrastate Migration
Posted: 1/21/2019 9:33:24 AM
LaFouGamboj writes:

As we can look back on his 2016 campaign............many did indeed "admire" his grit and his populist stance....and it would have perhaps truly been a "breath of fresh air"...........had he actually tried to do all that he promised in a coherent & methodical way (instead of the chaotic, haphazard methods he employs), which would have required him to actually LISTEN to people who are politically savvy and have some experience in politics (unlike himself).
I would agree. Problem is, there's no candidate who would have done it in a "coherent & methodical" way. And not enough consensus in Washington among either party, to support such steps such as tariffs, even sensibly implemented. So a ramrod and a hot poker is required to get these things done. I will say, that I doubt the Dem base here would be as irate if someone like President Bernie Sanders was acting so resolutely and chaotically to ram something like Medicare for all through Washington. I know, myself, I would cheer.

So far as Trump supporters are concerned..... better a sloppy attempt than no attempt at all, maybe? "Well, he tried! Which is better than any other POS pol of either party!" I can hear Trump supporters saying

a grifter notwithstanding) like you hiring a self taught Electrician (instead of a fully licenced & trained individual) to fix the bad wiring in your home because:

a) he speaks to you in simple direct terms
b) you like how he is able to pin point the problems and offered a quick fix
c) he won't charge you too much
You forgot d). He may just burn the house down. Which I'm sure, somewhere, somehow, a careless or clueless electrician has done. And to some, is better than sticking with the conventional establishment controlled system.

Net net, at least for me, is I mostly agree with you, but as a "protest" President, maybe part of the design is to make noise and break things, not be ultimately successful. And for the most part, I have already written elsewhere that he is contaminating the whole tariff discussion and building the perfect excuse for the next recession/depression. Because when we do crash, it will be tariffs, or "Trump's trade war," and NOT the deficit, NOT the idiot tax cut, NOT artificially low interest rates, NOT financial deregulation, NOT exploding inequality, NOT $100B/yr corporate tax evasion, NOT $trillions wasted on imperialistic wars. Or NOT that we are simply overdue for a slowdown/recession. It will be tarrifs. The table is being set for the harummphing from business elites and the neoliberalals...and their bootlicking MSM ...."We told you tarriffs were bad - they caused the recession!"
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 57 (view)
Interstate Or Intrastate Migration
Posted: 1/21/2019 9:19:59 AM
Baldwin wrote:

3) why does SS454 hear about the farmers? well, one reason is the tariffs hit when farmers are planning out how many seeds to buy and what they need to upgrade for growing season. so they held off, naturally, to see how much they were going to get screwed. as for factories who need cheap metal to make products, they too forcast doom, but SS454 never heard it.
Nah. Y'all gotta start looking behind the curtain a bit more.....I'm a bit more cynical. The answer is because Americans still hold farmers in high regard, because they're always portrayed as "Small farmers" as part of Americana....i.e. struggling, hardworking, salt of the earth folks, Cleve and Bessie and their sons Burl and Bubba, just barely ekeing a living..with a patch of land and a few cows. Who wouldn't pull for them? When in reality, most farms are corporate factory farms ultimately controlled by silk stockinged managers, traders and financiers on Wall Street..It isn't called "Big Ag" for nothing. Look at Trump's recent deregulations of EPA rules, where he points our he's "unburdening the farmers" from these draconian regulationss, as those farmers stood by during the signing.......but if you look who's lurking behind the veil, it's developers and fossil fuel industry who mainly benefits.

4) yes, it is traditional for Republicans to follow Nixon's southern strategy and bait the racists. Ford was the only one who tried to avoid it. as for factories polluting, funny thing...they're following the Paris accords, and what did chump do? as for hedge funds, we ain't following nobody in selling derivatives/options to suckers who don't understand these products of the devil--everyone's following us. When Greek took down the world economy last time, it was from cooked bookeeping we taught them. arthur anderson is dead, long live arthur anderson.
Yes, one of our large "exports" is now banking "expertise," and somehow these "exports" are sold to us as being as beneficial to us all, as exporting hard goods. This is not true, the export of smoke and mirrors benefit mainly a few in the upper echelons of business, but nobody else. That's one of the problems of globalization - when everyone builds using the same bogus house of cards, they all come down at once. But ultimately financial services deregulation and massive rollup of banking into behemoth conglomerates, that added risk to the entire system, was as a result of foreign competition - that was my point.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 11 (view)
Questioning America First
Posted: 1/9/2019 9:10:04 AM
Whatever. I knew you, as the primary Israel supporter on this board, would have something to say bout this.

"Cause we said so" DOES make it simple, and not "more complicated than it is." All the other tangential reasons are what makes it complicated.

I also disagree that Israel's existence does not depend on the U.S.'s support. Maybe I should have said "the industrialized West's" support. Do you believe that if Israel didn't have the support of the West, it would survive on its own?

But I am not interested in this debate.

I thought you would be happy that I am saying that Israel ain't goin' nowhere.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 10 (view)
Do you think she had sex with her cousin?
Posted: 1/9/2019 9:01:22 AM
Sounds really suspicious, really. Tread carefully! I would say it's some type of scam or at least a p2p scenario. Or a couple looking for a third.

Maybe you could ask for a little cam action and see if she then asks for your CC number.

Chances are, this is not an ideal scenario for you, if you are looking for a relationship.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 8 (view)
Questioning America First
Posted: 1/9/2019 8:47:15 AM
Not to pick on Israel, as it is only one global manifestation of this, but it's an example of the international law, enforced by the West, particularly the U.S.......known as "'Cause we said so." "Cause we said so" will supersede any international laws, ethics, traditions, governing body, precedence, rules, or constitutional mumbo jumbo of any individual country...even the ballyhooed constitution of the U.S. THese anti BDS laws is just another example of "cause we said so-ism."

Without making any statement of the right of Israel to exist or not....I will just say...Israel exists.....cause we said so. So the surface justifications (historical, humanitarian, religious) don't really matter, and it's not really a wise use of time to argue it, really. Israel will always be just makes too much sense, as long as the global economy is powered by oil, and we're interested in countering the boogeyman powers of Russia or Iran. The existence of Israel allows the West a nose up their *ss.

Dress it up all ya like, but to the anti-Israel camp...thar's your problem.

We can all argue til we're blue in the face about Israel's right to exist, defend itself, their legitimacy as a country. Those arguments are tangential to the real reason Israel exists. And the ulterior reason is to act as a proxy/bulwark to project Western military power and influence in the middle east. Otherwise known as spreading "freedom," aka known as corporate (elite) interests....."freedom" spread by guns, soldiers and bombs, an oxymoron but I digress....

BDS movements are a real threat because the power elites are scared sh*tless of boycotts. Boycotts, in a way, turn their ballyhooed "free market" against them. Of course, we're always reminded - by these same power elites - that the "free market" always produces optimal results; that it's the ultimate manifestation of "freedom," and the hallmarrk of a free society...... but - that's ONLY WHEN these power elites benefit. And when it DOESN'T benefit - then the power elites - the same crowd that loathes "big government" and regulation - resorts to big government and regulatatory edict to get what they want.

Thus the anti BDS laws........"Cause we said so-ism" superseding any principled or legal reason why boycotts should be allowed. Constitution, schmonstitution.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 52 (view)
Interstate Or Intrastate Migration
Posted: 1/9/2019 7:55:49 AM
LaFouGamboj writes:
at what expense?
-He wanted to repeal & replace Obama the expense of creating 20 million unsured overnight!
Got me there - That was bad, although O-Care was simply a nod to corporate, Wall Street driven healthcare. And our per capita HC costs continue to explode. But overall, I concede O-Care is an improvement over what we had prior and would never support repealing it and would not trust any GOP stab at trying to replace it.

-He wanted to stimulate the economy by giving the mega rich a tax cut....but he ballooned the deficit, and there is still no major substantive effects on the baseline economy itself (look up and see how much money companies such as At&T, Verizon, Walmart...ect, have made in 2108 because of the new tax law).
That idiot tax cut was probaby the worst thing he has done, so I havta agree here.

But the bottom line on this one, as well as the O-Care thing above, is that it can be argued that any other GOP Pol (Jeb? Kasich? Christie? Pence? etc. etc.) with the majorities Trump enjoyed.... may have taken steps towards these things, especially the ruinous tax cut.

-He threatens tariffs on Chinese goods.....and in turn China imposed heavy restrictions on Soy coming from the US, to the point where Trump has had to BAIL OUT soy growers all over the US
Al though I don't favor the willy-nilly way Trump is implementing tariffs, I do support tariffs. Trump is right about trade. And I will again ask this question, probably again to a chorus of crickets: If free trade is so great, will bring us so many good jobs, then why is agriculture held up as the main damaged industry when free trade is stopped? Yes, Ag - the industry of millions of dirty, hard, low wage jobs? The industry that employs 75% illegal labor? Where are the "good" jobs free trade is supposed to bring.? Um. There aren't that many. At least for the working class. Maybe it's just me, but ultimately I don't care about Ag, sure we gotta eat, but as as a glowing exhibit of a free trade industry that will produce good jobs for the future? Nah.

-He wants to build a wall on the southern border to stop "the brown menace" (his term); and spend over 5 billion of taxpayer money (when he promised it was going to be paid by Mexico), to stop imaginary terrorists from coming across (when the real port of entry are airports & seaports for most illegals & contraband)
I don't favor the wall. I don't favor demonizing brown people. I favor throwing CEOs in jail for hiring them.

...and you naively think that Trump hasn't "kowtowed" to money interests?
He's kowtowing less than a mainstream GOP'er though. Or a Dem. Implementing tariffs and stopping immigration definitely is NOT kowtowing to moneyed interests. Questioning drug prices is NOT kowtowing to moneyed interests. Calling out companies for offshoring is NOT kowtowing. Shouting Amazon down for its business model is NOT kowtowing. Most pols of both sides applaud these things, ie, they kowtow.

-Whatever happened to his pledge to corral the Wall street hedge-fund sheisters?
-What do you think prompted him to weaken the environmental (EPA) regulations and refute global warming?
Yes, these are bad. BUT........There can be made a case that if other countries are allowed to pollute more than us, it gives them an unfair advanatage and a chance to catch up with us economically. Same thing with Hedge funds/banking....if other countries let their own HFs/bankers rip them off, and crash their economies, we kinda gotta do the same thing, or else our financial sector falls behind. Whether you agree or not, it is an arguable point. But then again, that's why I am anti-globalisation.

Most democrats also favor it..........but there are better ways to do it.............compromise is the key.
That's news to me. I think it may be more accurate to say Dems favor making it easier to make illegal immigrants legal. And make it easier for people to immigrate. And for the record,, I favor some type of amnesty for those already here before curbing illegal immigration by other means.

If Trump were to pledge a resolution to the DACA problem........he could garner more support from the democrats toward erecting some form of barrier that everyone could be happy with.

In short, you get more bees with honey....... than you do with brine!
Ultimately, the frustration remains, though because most solutions from both sides, if I am not mistaken, increases immigration. I have no problem with immigration per se, we need the best and brightest, no matter where they are from, what color they are, what religion, etc. etc. etc.....BUT I don't think we need more unskilled immigrants. Not in an advanced, modern economy, that I've been reminded here ad nauseum we are now. Folks here will argue that "This is the way it is! A modern economy! Automation, computer skills, education is the future!!" So if that is the case, then WHY do we need to continue to allowed unfettered immigration of unskilled, undeducated people? Can't have it both ways, far as I'm concerned. All that does is suppress wages..which is the ultimate objective of immigration, for the most part, so the elites can make more money. Thus I oppose it.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 51 (view)
Interstate Or Intrastate Migration
Posted: 1/9/2019 7:17:58 AM
LaFouGamboj writes:

Except that big enterprise has lobbied politicians to "look the other way" for decades....and ignore the fact that they are being hired "en masse"...because there is a huge demand for cheap labor....., just like the demand for drugs.
Sure, I agree. And that is the problem endemic to BOTH parties, which is why both parties s*ck. Maybe for somewhat different reasons, as both push for the different objectives of the power elites. And that's why, in my estimation, you see so many fatalistic voters going for someone like Trump, i.e, not "business as usual."

And you think the Repubs are going to approve of such ^ action?......don't you see what Trump is doing?....It is far easier to scapegoat "brown" people, then it is to lay the BLAME on where it truly lies!
Of course the GOP doesn't "lay the blame where it truly lies," but then again, neither do the Dems. So if a citizen pays attention, and identifies corporate managements are the problem, a partisan remedy is moot. Cuz neither party has the cojones to slap down the ultimate source of their funding. That leaves destruction of the political system as the only tool the voter has left.. ...i.e. a "throwing a monkey wrench" into it. Enter Trump... as the bearer of that monkey wrench.

only if the lobbying for the status-quo stops
And more importantly, VOTING for the status quo. Thus...drumroll.....Enter Trump. Trump was an anti-establishment vote as much as anything, a vote for frustration, a vote for "let's blow this dang thing up!!!"

what traditional 'GOP pol' are you talking about?............was Reagan traditional?......
Reagan began his campaign in Philadelphia Miss for a symbolic reason. If you don't know, I'll let you look it up. Also "Welfare queens," etc. etc.

if so then why did he grant amnesty to about 3 million illegals
Reagan was smart enough to realize that poor unemployed blacks weren't of any help to the corporate elite, while cheap, desparate, malleable labor was.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 47 (view)
Interstate Or Intrastate Migration
Posted: 1/5/2019 8:55:37 PM
The way to fix our illegal immigration problem is to come down - hard - on those HIRING all those illegal immigrants. Period. Frogmarch a few plant managers, or CEOs, away in handcuffs would send the message that hiring illegals will no longer be tolerated.

But that would threaten critical interests from both parties....minority/immigrant groups from the Dem side, and business groups from the GOP side. Trump is merely doing what traditional GOP pols campaign on, but historically ignored, after coming into power....curb illegal immigration. In a way, I kinda admire him due to the fact that he is doing the things he campaigned on. Even though I did not vote for him, it can be a breath of fresh air for those of us who are sick and tired of politicians telling people what they want to hear, and then immediately kowtowing to moneyed interests as soon as they get into power.

I favor curbing illegal immigration - I can't fathom those who see nothing wrong with it - after all, it IS illegal......but Trump 's going about it the wrong way.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 59 (view)
What are things you see in dating profiles that will make you sadly skip past them?
Posted: 1/5/2019 8:33:54 PM
Guess the my biggest annoyance is women who say "I can get sex anytime, so if that's what you're looking for, move on!"

My thoughts on this:

1.) She has a stable of buddies with woodies to do her if I start dating her and we ever hit a rough patch

2.) She's looking for a sucker to wine, dine, and entertain her for the sex, while there are, somewhere, a number of lucky guys who don't have to spend any money or time to have sex with her

3.) She's insecure so she has to remind the world she's attractive enough to get sex anytime (although we all know that it isn't that difficult for even 500 lb BBWs to get NSA sex). But it must make them feel better to add that reminder.

4.) She's saying "You need me more than I need you, because I know you are looking for sex, too, and I can get that easily."

If I was looking for LTR, I would pass on any woman who has this clause in their profile. I would message them, though, just to ask "Not really interested in wining and dining..or getting to know you that much......but how do I get into your rotation for the "1-800- Gotta guy for sex" action?

Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 80 (view)
Ladies. how many messages do you receive?
Posted: 1/5/2019 8:25:39 PM

It's not so much that you have changed or gotten older, it's that that the world has changed.
Well, um, there is a point at which "gotten older" is a reason, too . But thanks for making some of us feel better. So we older folks can blame the world instead, cuz we know that we are still as sexy and exciting as we ever were.

"will not respond to one-line messages".
My strategy is then to write a two-line message.

If you get one that obviously took some time to write., will you respond if your not attracted to the photos? And taking it a step further, if you get a simple message from an attractive guy, will you reply to that one instead?
I think we all know the answer to that one.

I've realised I must have two heads
Well, technically, you do have two heads.

this place is full of talking corpses.
And real corpses, according to one post I just read. Maybe you should open your mail parameters to talking corpses then, or if you're not too picky, shy corpses, too.

I find that when some men moan about not getting the messages they think they should, they often forget to include the messages from people they don't desire from their presentation.
Yea, I tend to not count messages from men and prostitutes in my statistics.

Several of them were just to insult me such as calling me loser or boring
As long as they weren't men or prostitutes, I would count those, though, especially if they were hot.

Most of the messages I've received from women just said "hi". And every time I see that I think about how most women want the initial message to be longer than that. I don't mind. It's like talking to someone you're interested in IRL. The conversation usually starts with hi then goes from there.
THe "Hi" message is equivalent to the eye contact/smile in a bar. That's the extent of what she's gonna do to express interest. The rest is up to you.

I have received a few since I uploaded my Santa pic. Have gotten a lot more views too. Before that, every once in a blue moon. But I have plenty of things working against me. I pretty much expect nothing, really, so never disappointed. And Santa's going away, may as well winterize my mailbox, disconnedt the power and board up the windows til I can upload another pic.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 78 (view)
Do you feel you have run out of fish in your area?
Posted: 1/5/2019 8:14:20 PM

I know a man who passed away over 5 years ago. I actually took his profile photo for him. His profile is still here. I have reported it and messaged CSR repeatedly. /shrug/
And since there's no way to filter out dead people here, he probably still gets more messages than me.

Seriously! Newly married,and you have nothing better to do?
I agree... he shouldn't be bored enought to be doing this til at least after a year into the marriage!
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 55 (view)
Do you feel you have run out of fish in your area?
Posted: 12/24/2018 12:36:14 PM
OP wrote:
I'm not trying to be funny here but are you saying there are that few women 32 - 64 who are single, kept themselves in decent(not perfect) shape who's kids have grown up and moved out or never had kids, within a 20 minute to half an hour drive?
I'd say that, for the most part, is true. There is also a problem for those ~late 40s' - ~50s (of both sexes) that have taken care of themselves and look good. And that problem is they expect someone who, likewise, has taken care of themselves and look good But we all know that once you hit late 40's those folks become rare. Most people are content to just let themselves go. That is if you're looking at the same age range. So that's another thing you have going against you because it looks like you're in good shape and maintained your looks. I think if you were average looking, ugly, or fat, you'd probably find it easier because your expectations would be more modest.

Also if I were you I wouldn't be so dead set on the "Looking for LTR only" mindset. Sometimes I think that may add some pressure or undue expectations on the woman - and you. And why don't you go for the "nothing serious" crowd, too which would open up things for you, because ya never know, you may grow on 'em, or each other.. Have some fun. After all dating should be fun, whether it ends up in a LTR or not. "LTR or bust," in my view, kinda puts too much of a businesslike vibe to dating, something like it's on a "Goals" list.

Just my 2c
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 175 (view)
Posted: 12/24/2018 12:15:01 PM
platitude wrote:
There of course is always some sort of sliver of truth in your Dumbisms, for the wealthy elites....especially under Trump....certainly seem to be setting the agenda. In the end though, they are all going to end up at the end of a Rope if things get as bad as they possibly might under their agendas.
I don't know why it is so hard to see, or believe, that it's the "wealthy elites" that own both parties. I mean, you, as well as other anti-Trumpians, seem to believe it's only Trump, or the GOP, that's run by moneyed interests. Who is "setting the agenda" on the Dem side? Moneyed interests. Anyone who believes something like say, Obamacare, wasn't designed solely within the dictates of "wealthy elites," ..maybe a different set of "wealthy elites" from the GOP's - is naive or blinded by partisan politics. BOTH sides are run by, solely for the benefit of "wealthy elites." Just different sets of wealthy elites. And the sooner Americans realize that, the better our politics would probably become. Instead it's just both sides pointing fingers that the other is the mouthpiece of "wealthy elites." They just drop the red meat of race, guns, god, abortion, etc. etc. etc. and watch the back and forth, like a tennis match.

The net net is, the things BOTH sides of the wealthy elites agree on, wars, corporate profits, neutering of labor, etc. etc. are kept out of the national discussion.

Participating on traditional partisan politics is exactly the game the elites want us to play.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 8051 (view)
Will President Elect Donald Trump go quietly into that good night
Posted: 12/24/2018 12:01:33 PM
La Fou wrote:

It depends on how you see it............Big industry saw the cost of doing business rise out of proportion (due to labor, economic and union pressures) to the spending power of the public....and lobbied politicians so U.S. companies could shift jobs offshore.
Sounds about right. Blame labor. The business elite/investors can expect wildly high, and growing rewards from capitalism, while labor basically eats dirt. It should be no surprise inquality is rising and the middle class is disappearing. Not a surprise at all. With support of Democrats.

The populist pushback, i.e., Trump is understandable, and is something we, as a society entirely deserved - considering this group (labor) was tossed aside by Democrats, who found it better to accept money from Wall Street/capitalists and focus on ID politics instead.

for them to shift their production off shores so their profit margin remained good,
Again, sounds about right. Every aspect of our lives are expected to conform in lockstep to maximum profit margin requirements from Wall Street.

...obviously it resulted in people losing their jobs as higher skilled workers....and were forced into different lines of work....and I'm sure most adjusted to it.
Yes, they adjusted by going on the dole, and/or otherwise milking the goverenment largessesse as much as possible (Medicaid, WIP, SNAP, Obamacare, etc. etc. and/or getting 2nd and 3rd jobs. After all, part of Wallyworld's HR Dept's responsibilities is to make sure their employees are completely knowledgeable about where to apply for various government benefits.

The other "good thing" for the US governement is that they got more leverage in the countries where US manufacturing got shifted to.
This is true. But that's the hidden reason the elites embrace "free trade" Of course, we all know the unofficial ulterior motives behind "Free trade" are 1.) Bargaining chips/spreading our influence as you note, and 2.) to increase the wealth and power of the elites.

Whether the U.S middle class, or working class would benefit, was really beside the point, as long as they bought the general line of BS, AKA as the "Official" reasons why we need free trade. That "Official" reason, in other words, the marketing schpiel sold to the American people, also known as gullible sheep, are "better jobs" or a "better future". Nope.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 8037 (view)
Will President Elect Donald Trump go quietly into that good night
Posted: 12/21/2018 7:42:59 PM
Baldwin wrote:
>>>i'm surprised, Ss454...i thought you knew more about the american economy than that propaganda.
Not sure what "propaganda" I've been listening to, if what I wrote is untrue. Wasn't GM the largest employer at a point decades ago? Isn't Wal Mart the largest employer now? I didn't look it up and won't now, but seems I've heard that on left wing talk radio, radio that supports Dems fyi.

if you listen to the news this past month, you heard Trump talk about all the money made selling weaponry to the Saudis
Trump is saying what has always been true, though. He just has the b*lls, or more likely idiocy, to outright declare it. Even I'd imagine under Obama, Clinton, or any U.S. Prez in the era of Saudi's elevation to the world's largest oil producer. So where was the criticism of Obama, who I assume tacitly supported the same arms sales to SA? Even though we've always known SA is a ruthless dictatorship with few human rights? Yes I do know Obama tried to regulate the use of sales of some types of arms to SA...but overall, we've always looked the other way from many policies and actions taken by the SA government that we'd wax outrage over if, say Russia or Iran did the same.

Also, if you keep up on the news, you know that american farmers sell soy to china--or at least they used to. this fiscal year, farm bankrupcies are up 50% b/c soy sales to china went down 90%.
Yes, I did know that, so what's your point? I've always maintained that it's riduculous to wax outrage over blowing up a trade system that elevates an industry in the U.S. with low wages and uses ~75% illegal immigrant labor at the expense of sending good paying jobs, higher tech jobs overseas. So while it's unfortunate, and food production should always be given key attention, I don't sweat for the farmers that much. .If free trade is so valuable to the U.S, then why are farmers and all their dirty, unskilled, low wage, illegal immigrant work being held up as the main victim? What happened to all those "good" jobs free trade was supposed to bring us? They never came, is the dirty dark secret that bankers want to keep hidden well out of sight. And they've done a pretty good job at that.

Why would he do that, if it didn't benefit the american worker? you're not implying he's out to screw american workers, are you? that would make those who voted for him, rather silly.
See above.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 8027 (view)
Will President Elect Donald Trump go quietly into that good night
Posted: 12/21/2018 6:28:31 PM
LaFou wrote:
You do realize that Wal-mart type jobs are service sector opposed to GM type manufacturing jobs that required a higher skill set...........the reality is that few if any of these manufacturing jobs will ever return to our shores, regardless of the "tariffs" that Trump speaks of.............Big industry is quite content to have a working force that gets paid a fraction of what the American counter part gets paid; without any union/labor rights pressures and with friendly governements who will bend over backward to keep these plants on their soil!...making sure that the cost of doing business will be far less than anywhere in North america.
Of course I realize all this. Guess I don't see your point. So the economy is producing low skill, low wage jobs, while the "higher skill set" manufacturing jobs go offshore should be a good thing?

Guess all those laid off auto manufacturing workers should go back to school - mid life - to learn algoromithic stock trading, or become brain surgeons or lawyers. Or don the blue vest?
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 57 (view)
Turning down the bed, and whoever was in it
Posted: 12/21/2018 6:17:05 PM
Ms Micki wrote:
for women...we have been trained to believe a man will have sex at each and every opportunity...
so if a man turns them down...they take it personally.

Siasaa wrote:
Men are more used to rejection so they tend to take it a lot better. Like MsMicki said, women have been conditioned to believe that men are sex-crazed maniacs so if he rejects her, she's more likely to take it more personally.
Totally true. But...even though we're in the age of total equality.....there are still vast differences between men and women in the dating/mating game...a game where men generally are viewed to be sexual automatons, ready and willing to perform anytime, any place, with anyone...while women are viewed to be exactly the opposite....generally choosy, reluctant, picky, hard to get. Part and parcel of that dynamic is if a woman decides to have sex with a guy she likes, finally, after passing on all sorts of opportunities, and is refused, it's a crisis of her entire being. "What's wrong with me?" For a man, it's just part of, well, being a man. Rejection, rejection, rejection, droughts, 1-900 numbers, cam girls, sex junkets, hookers, blowup dolls, farm animals etc. etc. etx. and we take it in stride.

I can understand if the couple has been together a LONG time and health problems, an accident, intense weight gain, etc. befalls one of the people in the partnership.
True. That "intense" weight gain is a bummer. But then again, laid back weight gain isn't kosher either. Basically most long marriages end this way, unfortunately. With one or both partners exhibiting one of the above. If one really prioritizes sex, then a LT marriage isn't the way to go. The trade off is companionship. But if both partners become repulsively repulsive for some reason, it still may work. Allz they got is each other type of thing.

Endless wrote:
I know I was wrong and should have said something.
Your story sounds like a typical FWB type arrangement. I don't think you did anything wrong at all here, tbh. But in general women don't take a liking to being turned down. With her, it could have been insulting her woman hood, or maybe her final realization that you weren't really into her as a potential LT option. If men said at the outset of a relationship - no matter the initial expectations, "I'll bang you, but I'm not really into you physically," then the amount of sex would be reduced 90% in the world today. Totally unrealistic.

Lady in Red wrote
I know exactly what I'm going to wear.
Yup. Harley gear.

ssm wrote:
I might lower my standards for sex to some extent. But I still have boundaries. I probably wouldn't have sex with a woman if there was completely no physical attraction or interest in her.
My standards were like a multidimensional scatterplot with numerous variables.....looks, personality, inebriation levels, horniness, chemistry, and some other variables I probably can't (or don't want ) to remember. So my standards varied widely, depending on these variables. Particularly inebriation. I'll leave it at that. What's that old country song "Don't all the Girls Get Prettier at Closing Time" lol...sumpin' like that ...
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 7956 (view)
Will President Elect Donald Trump go quietly into that good night
Posted: 12/1/2018 5:57:26 PM
Baldwin wrote:
i know its favorable to complain about global trade treaties, but its surprising how many jobs exist because of them.
Yes the jobs that "exist because of them" entail wearing a blue vest that says "Low, Low Prices," ..or... "How may I help you?" making peanut$, vs automotive manufacturing jobs of yesteryear. Folks have a right to complain when the largest employer 50 years ago, GM, paid middle class wages, while the largest employer now, Wal Mart, pays a pittance in comparison. So those who seem to feel nothing's wrong are the ones who really need to brush up on what's going on.

It's "favorable to complain", because those who are really paying attention know how unfair they are. I've written this before and I will write it again.....Our Chief Executive Orifice DOES get a few things right...and I will applaud him when he does. Trade just happens to be one thing he does get right...but I will also say his intent is right, but his moves, rhetoric, and willy-nilly, dictatorial means to achieve such are horrible. He's giving protectionism a bad name. Of course protectionism doesn't work, when EVERYONE is protectionist. But it DOES work when there's one giant sucker (of course, the U.S.) in the bunch, just ask protectionist Japan, Korea, Germany, etc. etc. how it works for them. So the U.S., being the lone sucker on trade, makes the world trading system work - everyone else protects, we don't. They f*ck, we lube up and bend over. Yes, of course, part of the deal is we get to go all over the world and build military bases, invade, and bomb dark people without these trade partners objecting. But that's beside the point.

However....with all his bluster on protectionism, all Trump is doing is building a ready made excuse for the corporate elite/Wall Street to use when we get our well deserved economic reckoning very soon......I can hear the chorus now..."Trump's tariffs caused the recession!". Ya right, it wasn't the idiot tax cuts, it wasn't artificially low interest rates for a decade, it wasn't the deficit, it wasn't soaring inequality, $100 billion/year of corporate tax evasion, none of that. And that's cuz billionaires get richer on those things, while protectionism is a threat to their wealth. So "protectionism" will be the boogieman for the next recession, trust me.

And the lambs continue to not be led, but walk themselves, to the slaugher.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 7955 (view)
Will President Elect Donald Trump go quietly into that good night
Posted: 12/1/2018 5:51:53 PM
John wrote:
"the 1950's are long gone and I am not so naive as to believe it is coming back but many jobs are tossed out and explained away without addressing the issue.
Sure. But "the issue" will probably never be addressed; it's too threatening to the elites. And the issue is all the good paying jobs for non-college educated folks are being sent offshore, while the jobs created to replace them are for either for 1.) Educated or gifted hotshots, or 2.) Unskilled. And #1 are very high pay, and are taken by....well, the educated or gifted, and #2 are low pay, and are taken, by...well, we all know that one.. because these are the ..."the jobs Americans don't want!" Which is corporatexecutivespeak for "jobs that Americans don't want at what we want to pay, because we need to maintain our lavish lifestyles and upgrade our mansions in Aspen."

The truth an empowered, politically attentive, financially healthy working class is a threat to the rich. A powerless, uninformed, living paycheck to paycheck working class isn't. Then the working class is more amenable to become servants to the rich, or cannon fodder for them.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 353 (view)
Do nice guys finish last?
Posted: 9/25/2018 9:00:36 AM
SomewhereintheStratosfere wrote:

Sooner or later, you need to bring something else to the table because people get tired of looking at you.
Then bringing a blindfold to the table would probably work.

I could walk into a brain surgeon convention,
Begs the question, I wonder if brain surgeons ever talk among themselves about banging a chick's brains out. And if a brain surgeon does bang a chick's brains out, does his training kick in and he stops, scrubs up, and examines the chick's brains, and try to put them back in?

I haven't met a judge or lawyer yet, who wasn't highly intelligent. NOT ONE is single either,
That means NOT ONE is intelligent as you think they are.

It's usually men who are shallow and can't see beyond a pretty face.
True, but I bet your "highly intelligent" judges and lawyers are all married to pretty faces.

Actually, with one of my jobs, it puts me in contact with highly intelligent men on a semi regular basis
I've always attracted women who valued lowly intelligent men.

I would take a smart guy over a handsome guy. This no way means the handsome guy is stupid.
But all things equal, you'd likely take the handsome guy. Same with men; all things equal, they take the better looking woman. I guess the real issue is how much are folks - men or women - willing to discount character or other qualities for looks.

Norwegian wrote:
Well, you can't detect High intelligence (not just smart) by merely coming into contact with them. Detecting that takes much more than having a 10 second look across the room for looks.
Except if he's the only one wearing a "Big Bang Theory" T-shirt in the room.

Lady in Red wrote:
I dated / married men who were not looking for a maid or cook. They were totally able to do that on their own.
I've always been able to do them on my own, if they're hot.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 34 (view)
Should i delete most of my pics?
Posted: 9/25/2018 8:13:23 AM
Captainkitty writes:
Here's a question...if it's established that most people only look at pictures, then why do so many men only post multiple similar selfies? It's not very interesting and doesn't make me dash to my keyboard ;)
But if you're viewing said selfies, aren't you already at your keyboard?
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 33 (view)
Should i delete most of my pics?
Posted: 9/25/2018 8:11:28 AM
Pay no attention to the nit-pickers and those who want to find fault with everything. Your pics are just fine. And you have a valid question. However, it's my opinion that the more skin ya show, the more probability you'll get responses from knuckle is what it is. But with your lifestyle, beach and boating, it's understandable why you'd wanna show some matter what ya look like.....after all, it's part of the boating and beach lifestyle. Doubt you would be able to paint as convincing a picture of your lifestyle standing on the beach or on a boat wearing a button down Victorian dress or a head-to-toe burlap potato sack.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 19 (view)
How men mathematically sleep with more people than women
Posted: 9/25/2018 7:52:31 AM
Sienna wrote:
Literally all surveys show that men slept with basically double the people women did. You can't discount that and say it is lies.

The most mathematical sleep many men get, is counting sheep. And what they're imagining doing with those sheep,'s their business I suppose.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 14 (view)
911 > With Liberty & Justice for All
Posted: 9/20/2018 3:39:49 PM
Well, looks like it's been kinda boring 'round here since I last dropped in, so I'll try to remedy that, lol...

Whatever. I interpret this as an "up yours!", ya know, in caps and everything, for my post here.

But I suspect it's an easy answer for those who don't want to do the work it takes to research the facts. Or worse, don't research the facts cuz they're afraid of what they'll learn.

I make a post about schoolchildren getting bombed to bits by our allies and the response is "GOD BLESS AMERICA?" Sheesh. At best, I guess it's part of that "collective yawn" I wrote about in my post. At worst, well I won't go there cuz I suppose the response is intended to tell me to "stick it," and doesn't suggest "GOD BLESSING" every policy of our country and our military, including the one I posted about.

I'm as patriotic as anybody around, but I certainly ain't no pullstring puppet patriot. F that. If "patriotism" means "rah rah" unconditionally supporting EVERYTHING our government /military does, including humanitarian crises OUR government or OUR allies cause, then again, maybe I need to re-examine what being a patriot is, cuz then maybe I don't wanna be one. Because that's called blind bootlicking loyalty, not patriotism, in my book. If that's "patriotism," we may as well live under a dictatorship.

17 years later, I think we know a lil more about the reasons behind 9/11, and "Why they hate us." And it wasn't "They hate our freedom!" or "They're evil!" or any simpleton marketing campaign that's designed to win consent for perpetual war from the average blissfully unaware American

And YES this belongs in Off Topic. It SURE ain't bout dating relationships! It's possible to pay deference to those who died on 9/11, to believe we live in a great country, AND be critical to the policies that at least partially led to 9/ you won't get any warm and fuzzy response for me, ever, you "GOD BLESS AMERICA" folks, on this subject, if that's what you were looking for. NFW!!!!
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 56 (view)
global warming
Posted: 9/20/2018 2:28:39 PM
I'm also dubious about he efficacy of electric cars, especially after you factor in the pollution surrounding the manufacture and disposal of the batteries. My uninformed opinion is I think it's more of a "feel good" thing than anything. Something that makes the urban/suburban yuppies think they're doing something good for the environment, and still be trendy. I'd bet if they bought a stripped down econobox with an efficient 4-banger and a stick, it would be just as environmentally efficient. But that would be too boring.

And the the thing about global warming/climate change/pollution/environment, the one thing that nobody ever talks about is reducing consumption. Or reducing wasteful habits that would add inconvenience. That's why most talk bout the environment is mainly pie in the sky, or do-goooderism. Now THAT'S the inconvenient truth, in my estimation.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 97 (view)
Guys in PRISON on POF? WTF?
Posted: 9/20/2018 2:22:06 PM

Yeah, I met a guy I was chatting to and we had a lovely da together.
Well, ahem, I can certainly see how he enjoyed his da chatting with you.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 7345 (view)
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 9/20/2018 2:18:48 PM
Ya this place is dead, we'll agree on that.

SS45: I’m too fiscally conservative for this discussion to be meaningful, seeing as how I disagree with almost everything you said as far as party positions are concerned.
"Fiscally conservative" runs the gamut, though. Depends on what you mean by that. Whatever. You're right we will likely never agree, even if we met and you got me drunk. Guess that's whay you do with your dates, Hawking, get em drunk and "talk sense into em, eh?" But I ain't no pushover, drunk or not! Maybe I'd refrain from calling you a liberal Republican, that's bout it. Economic policy and inequality is about all I really care about, and if the Dems continue to be "GOP Lite," i.e. marching to the tune of neoliberalism, my DGAS attitude probably will continue and I'll just party and not worry, like Prince ..."Party over oops out of time!"

Fortunately, you sitting out this election won’t mean THAT much since you are in Illinois – if you were in Florida, I’m come to your house and talk some sense into you.
True, for the most part. But they need me for the Gov's will be very close.

Well, yes. But since they have a louder megaphone on economic/government/regulation stuff, they were able to convince some swing voters it was "big government" problems that caused the recession...not deregulation and out of control speculation by the financial sphincter, er..sector. And since Obama/Dems refused to punish, or reregulate Wall Street (in fact, they rewarded them, but I can't remember if was before the 2010 shellacking) it led to some disillusionment among those swing voters. And considering many Dems get their support from Wall Street, (including Obama himself) it isn't surprising. Hence the takeover of the party by the limosine liberals.

And to some extent they were right: arguably Billy C fiscal policy was the primary catalyst of the recession.
And Bill C's economic policies were GOP policies, besides his tax increase, and maybe a paltry min wage increase.

But I don’t remember very many moderates/independents blaming the Democrats at the time – if they had been, McCain would have won and Boehner would have been in charge of the House.
The real crash was happening precisely at the time of the election and people really didn't have time to formulate an educated opinion (not that the average ignorant American would have done so anyway). But after the fact, many swing voters were disillusioned about Obama's refusal to jail Wall Street criminals. (And immediately jumping into the race thing, with the Henry Louis Gates fiasco) And of course, the billionaires hijacked the Tea Party movement, and using those clueless people as pawns, sold the "big government" idea that became the meme of the moment used against the Dems and defined the early Obama years

The Democrats could just as easily successfully claim a 2019 or 2020 recession is Trump’s fault like they did in 2007/2008 because they hadn’t been in charge long enough or gotten enough power to fix the problems created by the current administration.
Yes, but their "fixes" will be like in 2009 etc. , just give more money to big business and the financial sphincter, not implementing policies that energize the middle class. (Besides "Get an education, you stupid dolt!") And they will blame any crash on tariffs, not out of control financial sector, mnot out of control debt, and not inequality. So they will kibosh the tariffs, and refuse to reverse the tax cuts, refuse to reign in Wall Street, and refuse to curtail spending on wars - exactly the opposite of what I would like to see. And with the pressure of a crushing recession, will look at "reforming" entitlements. Let's let the GOP do that. It's their plan, after all. Ruinous tax cuts, then when the deficit explodes, look at cutting entitlements. Let the GOP own it...their reckoning for their policies is way overdue. Let Humpty Trumpty fall off the wall and see if they can pick up the pieces.

You never know – the classic boom-bust cycle could have been upended by the Great Recession and the response to it. Or for that matter, post-Recession technology. Economists and the government can now micromanage the economy like hell and every time they see a problem starting to develop, they can quickly maneuver to prevent it.
Uh-Oh. That's what everyone was saying back in 2005-07...remember "The Great Moderation?" That was when the "Masters of the Universe" were all smugly patting themslves on the back, saying that we had it all figured out. No more recessions! No more crashes! Ya right! We're in for a bust, period, and the only reason we've had such a long bull market is that it's fake - based on debt and based on artificially cheap labor. It's hollow growth. An economy can't grow healthily when a smaller and smaller percentage is enjoying the growth, and a minority is taking an outsized portion. The economic law known as "The jig is up!" will catch up to us very soon!
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 9 (view)
911 > With Liberty & Justice for All
Posted: 9/15/2018 8:26:43 AM
Backcreek wrote:
Because WE are Willing and Able Too >

... " attempt "

... > to slow down the progression <

......................................... of EVIL, within our world ..........................................
Sorry to say, but it ain't that simple. With due respect and observance to those who died and were injured in the 9/11 attacks, and those who so heroically mounted the rescue efforts......I guess it depends on what one considers "evil." And more importantly, WHO is perpertating that "evil."

From the Guardian:
On 9 August, the US-backed Saudi-led coalition waging war in Yemen against a Houthi-led rebellion dropped a bomb on a school bus packed with children. According to reports, the excited kids had been on a school trip marking the end of their summer classes, and as they passed a busy marketplace, the bomb directly hit their vehicle.

The results were horrific. Of the 54 people killed, 44 were children, with most between the ages of six ando 11.


From the Guardian:
Trump’s indifference to the suffering in Yemen is to be expected, But what about ours? Do the American people not realize that our bombs are killing innocent children in Yemen or do we just not care? The lack of public outrage – or even just attention – to what the US-backed Saudi-led coalition is doing with American support and American-made munitions indicates something disturbing. Despite the evidence that we have become more politically engaged since the 2016 election, we still have little to no interest in what is done in our name overseas.

If this were Syria, or Russia, or Iran, or N. Korea, a travesty like this would be plastered over every front page of every major newspaper and news website all over the Western world. President Trump would be huffing and puffing, blustering to drop bombs on the savage perpertrators of this savage crime against humanity. But because it's OUR ally, Saudi Arabia, and OUR bombs doing the killing, I guess something like this is a blip on page 32 of the newspapers, and a collective yawn from the general public in Western countries.

Back to the OP's statement.....guess it begs the question is what's considered "evil?"

It depends on WHO is perpetrating that evil, doesn't it??

And as far as to why do they hate us so much? Osama bin Laden spelled it out himself, below.

The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates..

And the 40+ schoolkids killed is just another long illustration of the fact that we don't really care what innocents are being killed, or who is doing the killing, as long as the perpetrators are on the side of "freedom." And "Justice for all?" Doubt these schoolkids will get any.

And yes, this should be in the Off Tropics.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 7327 (view)
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 9/13/2018 7:34:03 PM
Hawking wrote:
Most of those were more like social moderates/fiscal liberals. To some extent the people in those states don’t care that much about low taxes for corporations, but it’s very difficult to win states like those as social progressives. Jones in Alabama mostly won because Moore was a terrible, disgusting candidate, but had he been a firebrand social liberal, Moore probably would have won anyway. Only a social moderate could ever win in rural states (as of right now, a black social liberal is leading Georgia’s governor race, but just how rural is Georgia these days? Plus it has a lot more minorities than Alabama does, much less West Virginia, the Dakotas, Iowa, Montana, etc.).
I think these ex-Dem Senators of rural states were more socially liberal than you think. And yes, they were fiscally liberal. In my view, that's the problem with modern Dems. They're moving right on fiscal/economic issues, including labor issues. and left on social issues. Undoubtedly because they're benefiting from being bought off by corporate money. They've bought trickle down. And they're allowed to move left on social issues, by their benefactors, because that doesn't threaten corporate profits. I mean, sure, having the power of government behind the trans- community will cost corporations some money in developing new policies, and/or adding some new bathrooms, etc. etc. but NOTHING like the threat of having the power of government behind labor, or behind regulating or taxing them. Moving left on social issues serves two purposes - 1.) It allows Dems to continue to enjoy the flow of corporate money, and 2.) It allows Dems to continue to differentiate themselves from the other corporate bought and owned party, and 3.) It introduces cultural wedges that keep people fighting on ANYTHING besides wars and corporate greed.

I’m not sure that’s entirely accurate. The Democrats were in charge of Congress when the economy crashed, yet Bush got nearly all the blame, as evidenced by Obama’s butt-whipping of McCain and the Democrats getting a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. It’s generally agreed Obamacare, gerrymandering and lazy mid-term progressive voters is what doomed the Democrats in the 2010 midterms. I will say, if the Democrats regain complete control in 2020 and if they don’t deliver on some of the progressive agenda (particularly immigration reform/Dreamers and higher minimum wage), then progressives will give up on them again and they’ll be in a mess in 2022. But I guarantee you if the economy collapses after the Democrats regain control of Congress in 2018, Trump will be blamed – and he’ll probably deserve, since it seems likely his trade war will be at least partially responsible for it, which even Republicans are saying.
I think Dems were blamed by many for the recession. THe GOP's butt whipping was as much about the natural pendulum, the public being sick of Bush's wars and his stance on immigration as much as anything. At least that's the way I remember it. I believe the average ignorant American didn't even realize who was in power at what time during that crash/recession, and just believed what their favorite biased news source told them. And I remember Fox put on Glen Beck right after Obama was elected, and he became the media star of the moment, and pretty much blamed everything on Obama and the Dems. And people listened.

And Trump should not be entirely blamed for the oncoming recession, really. First, one is way overdue. Yes, his ruinious tax cuts certainly put gas on the flame, and are only kicked the can down the road, but this thing has been brewing for a long time. Considering Obama's/Dem's role in throwing all that money at big business/finance after the crash to engineer this fake economy, they're just as much culpable, along with the Fed, as Trump will be. And while I do support implementing tariffs, I don't at all support the willy-nilly way Trump is doing it. I mean, he's giving tariffs a bad name. Done with careful planning, I don't see a problem with reasonable tariffs. We are, after all, being screwed by our trade partners. Trump's dead right about that. But, of course, when the crash happens, protectionism will be blamed - and this message will be funded by corporate - and of course it won't have anything to do with deregulated Wall Street crooks, stratospheric consumer debt levels, or artificially low interest rates.

All this being said.....I just don't see anything that would make me want to leave my couch to get up and be excited about the Dems in November. They're too much tied into "Trump=bad," social issues, and ID politics. The worse the GOP gets, and they're about as bad as they have even been in my lifetime, the worse the Dems can be, the less they can promise, and still have a chance to win. A race to the bottom.

As for now, I'm sitting at home. Things could change within two months, but ...I'm not holding my breath.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 18 (view)
The old codger's hardwiring has short circuited. Welcome, HARMONY.
Posted: 9/11/2018 2:33:29 PM
wizzard wrote:
10. “Am I exposing myself to a computer virus?”
Yes, exposing, no pun intended...but I can imagine malicious viruses such as the "Bobbit virus," in which her instructions are to, well, ya know, sever all relations immediately in the midst of, well, ya know. Victims would be known to emit the blew scream of death upon suffering that fate.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 16 (view)
The old codger's hardwiring has short circuited. Welcome, HARMONY.
Posted: 9/11/2018 2:05:36 PM
flowers wrote:
They say Harmony doesn't replace sex with real people; she just offers an alternative. I mean, what's more attractive than dating a man who ****s a sex robot on the nights he doesn't bang you?
Would it be that much different from dating a guy who's having a passionate dalliance with a blowup doll at the same time he's seeing you? Or a the guy who cheats using spank0ff dot com on the nights he doesn't see you?. I don't see that much difference, except for the fact that you may have a higher probability of stumbling on that sex robot hidden in his closet or under his bed when you're over at the old frump's house.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 15 (view)
The old codger's hardwiring has short circuited. Welcome, HARMONY.
Posted: 9/11/2018 1:48:22 PM
raavis wrote:
Like any innovation, it will follow the money and probably show up in the prostitution trade first since they will be too expensive for individual use when they first come out. Going to the arcade will take on a whole new meaning.
Yeah - I see something akin to Uber, where the too expensive to purchase sex robot can sign up with a wh0reshare company, called "Oooh and Ahhhber." And just go from guy to guy. Who would ever want to purchase one? That would be too much like being married. Then again, I guess if you wanted to move on, you could just drop her off at the electronic recycling center, and be done with it.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 69 (view)
Do women want to be judged on their looks?
Posted: 9/11/2018 1:39:13 PM
Missvixen wrote:
We wear make up because it is just something we have the right to do. We wear makeup to make a stylistic statement. I wear it not to attract a soul. I wear it because it gives me a confidence boost and I like it. I wear it FOR ME.
If there were no men in the world, and no sex, the beauty industry would be much, much smaller. Like nonexistent.

My opinion is the only one that matters in that regard.
Yes, everyone has the right to their own opinion.

And your theory that attractive women get away with everything is so far fetched it's ridiculous.
It's not that farfetched. Not "everything," of course, but I believe it's conventional wisdom that an attractive person of EITHER sex can get away with more than an average or below average person can.

Beauty and brains DO exist sweetie.
If you say so. Problem is, I've never seen a brain in a bikini.

Cooldog wrote:
Understood, but your bikini pictures aren't about getting male attention?
I think mostly it's about this, but I do believe women also seek compliments from other women. But overall, it's about attention and approval. It's about flaunting whatcha got. More power to ya. I have no problem with it; my issue is more the denials that it's for any reason other than that.

Stratosfere wrote:
rather than trying to shame this young lady for what she wears.
And we wouldn't hear the hoots and comments from the wimminz here should an attractive guy show up here, showing off his bod wearing only a banana hammock?
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 7316 (view)
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 9/8/2018 8:32:17 PM
Hawking wrote:
Had they united behind Clinton like Republicans did behind Trump, then, sure, a lot of goals would have gotten stuck in 5th gear out of “moderation,
"Moderation." That's the key word. And that's precisely the reason Trump got many of those swing voters. Maybe they wanted someone who wouldn't "moderate."

This is not a realistic solution and again it’s very shortsighted. Proportional representation by party/ideology does not exist in the United States, only proportional representation by geography, and that is tilted strongly against progressives as I previously explained.
It's tilted strongly against progressives in these areas now because progressives have somewhat abandoned their interests. Or conservatives have made a stronger case. "What's the Matter with Kansas" is a good book that explains this. I mean up until fairly recently, there were progressive minded/and or longtime incumbent Dems in rural states states such as the Dakotas, Iowa, West Virginia, and Wisconsin etc. etc. Harkin in Iowa, Dorgan in ND and Feingold in WI were super-progressive. These were all voted out, or retired and all replaced with conservatives....In the case of ND, a conservative Dem. Going from Tom Harking to right wing nutcase Joni Earnst is pretty much emblematic of Dems' problems in rural areas. The problem is the Dems are losing these voters. Trust me, I also think it would be nice if somehow Dems could rejigger the rules to remedy the rural/urban imbalance, but as you have pointed's not gonna happen. Dems need to make a stronger case to these people, or just wait til all these Bubbas move on to that great tractor pull in the sky. I'd say the latter will happen first.

So you better be ready for some bloodshed if you truly want the system to be blown up, because it LITERALLY has to be blown up.
I think Prince wrote a song about how he would handle impending doom...."Say say two thousand zero zero party over, oops, out of time, So tonight I'm gonna party like it's nineteen ninety-nine"

This is a good piece I just read tonight about the folly of our system and the "head in the sand" approach we're taking with our economy just so a relatively few people can get richer and richer. The system needs dramatic reform. I felt Obama had a generational opportunity to reform (more like cut their b*lls off, with no anesthesia) Wall Street early in his Presidency, the public was certainly behind something like that, but no, he "moderated," and now we're in another Wall Street produced bubble which will end badly. I just don't see any way besides some type of upheaval. Dems' are proposing "same ol, same ol"
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 7315 (view)
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 9/8/2018 8:05:27 PM
Hawking I will say it's more interesting to debate progressives, just to think years ago I was battling Tea Partiers, lol..debating birth certificates, death panels, Churchill busts, gay Indian lovers, even some knuckleheads who thought that Obama had a secret past as a rapper, evidenced by his appearance at :46 in this video. LOL.

Hawking wrote:
giving the keys to Trump to blow up the system: judges are like herpes and are forever.
Yes, I am aware of that, and I'm aware that I should vote Dem and help put a giant condom over Trump to prevent that herpes. Actually, SCOTUS choices and Obamacare were the reason I finally fell in lockstep and voted for HRC in '16. But I did vote for Bernie in the primaries.

Assuming he isn’t removed from office early, the best case scenario for progressives is that a bunch of Democratic progressives take over Congress after the midterms and make life miserable for the Trump administration for the next 2 years.
Sure. But the downside if that happens is it's possible we'll have a rerun of 2006, where Dems started storming back on Bush, just in time for the worst crash/recession since the Great Depression. And then get most of the blame. Devil's advocate says, we're in the longest bull market in history, largely based on smoke and mirrors, and it will end pretty badly. It's unsustainable. Maybe we should let the GOP/Trump own it, rightfully, considering it's largely conservative policies that have caused most bubbles/crashes since we abandoned sensible regulation on the financial sector and limits on credit/debt.

Gay marriage, abortion rights, equal rights -- we won't be seeing those again for decades
Sure. But the fact that you stress these areas - YES, they are vital and YES I support them all - without mentioning anything regarding economics/labor/etc. shows the divide between what I call the "social issues" camp, vs. the "economic" camp on the left. The Dems have become a largely social issues party. And some of that "economic" camp went Trump because they felt the Dem party doesn't represent them any more on economic issues.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 7299 (view)
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 9/6/2018 10:33:21 AM
^^^^ all of what you say may be true but it is unlikely the average trump supporter understands any of it, nor do they get that trumps policies favor big business and the elites at their expense. We may need a disruptor, but not one who is mentally ill like trump with possession of the nuclear football.
The thing is, though, is that Trump's policies favor big business a tad less than a traditional GOP politician, i.e., someone like Pence. Sudden tariffs/trade policy rewrites definitely don't favor most big business. And disruption of immigration, both legal and illegal, doesn't favor big business. Taking a more hard line approach to national borders, matter what you're talking bout...people, products, money flows, ideas, etc. etc......doesn't favor big business. Indeed, it's big business who pushes for a borderless world. Borders cost financiers and business money. So there are a few Trump positions that don't favor big business. That's why I believe that much of big business joins in with the anti-Trump chorus, along with the usual suspects, i.e., Dems/liberals. But it's also why there is a certain crossover appeal, i.e. all those Obama voters who flipped to Trump.

But overall, you're right, no matter who's in the Oval Office, the elites expand their power and wealth at the expense of the lower classes. At least the middle/lower classes in the West. At some point this will cause problems. I think the rise of Trump, and the populist right. in the developed economies, portends this.

And about the nuclear football...well, what can I say bout that. The ultimate "kicking the table over."
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 7297 (view)
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 9/6/2018 8:44:12 AM
Hawking wrote:
My last post wasn’t about policy. It was about the threat Trump presents to the national security of our country, which arguably is more important than any policy, considering you can’t have policy if you have no country.
First of all Hawking, I can understand how people of color have a visceral reaction towards Trump, and may more unconditionally support Dems. Now that that qualifier is out the way...This still doesn't change my response. Politics, policy, national security, whatever. Trump's voters want someone who changes all these areas. Yes, there are plenty of risks putting a disrupter in charge. Who's fault is it that the voters are in such a devil may care mood the last few years? Traditional Washington. As the piece above that I posted, when one has no chips, they're much more blase about the table being kicked over. Sadly, I believe that there are many people in official Washington or business powers, who still aren't listening. I can only believe that both parties, but especially the Dems just await the "Big Bubba Dieoff" so the older, white, rural voters lose power.

When it comes to Trump and his schtick, what comes to mind is a something I learned something waay back, in school a negotiation class... ..and that's that the side that cares less about blowing everything up, figuratively of course....has the negotiating advantage. And that's what Trump voters want. A Disrupter-in-Chief.

At any rate, I also never said Trump was "a breath of fresh air," either. I just try to explain his immovable base, and explain the unexplainable - which is how so many people voted for Obama, and then Trump. I think many thought Obama would be a disrupter, but he turned out to be just another Wall Street friendly, traditional politician, and same with HRC, (and most the GOP field in '16 for that matter) and the Dems of course underestimated the public hunger for a disrupter. They had one of their own, Sanders, but they put the finger on the scale for HRC to kibosh Bernie.

As far as Trump vs. Pence, my thoughts are this: Trump does have some positions that are traditionally left wing positions, i,e., trade. That's the danger of Pence. Pence is a doctrinaire conservative, moral, social, economic, pro-globalization...who has much better ties to the GOP billionaire donor class....and this billionaire class wants a borderless world for business purposes, so would I would expect Pence to immediately move to undo all Trump's trade machinations, including probably reintroducing the TPP. In other words, back to "same ol' same ol'" take care of Wall Street and let it trickle down. I also think Pence would be more friendly to immigration - after all it's his benefactors - big business - that's the ultimate driver for that, although they do use the well intended altruism of liberals to help them attain big business's goal of easy immigration to keep labor squished and powerless under the boot heel of capital. Pence is no longer the bull in the China shop...not a disrupter....things go back to normal, i.e. smiling and talking smoothly, promising the world, while backing policies that continue middle class dissolution. Personally I believe Pence in the Oval Office would be a huge blow to the energized Trump faction of the GOP and I guess that's what Dems are after maybe.

And for the war thing, well, little difference between parties. At least as much as I know about it. After all, the U.S.'s spending of $100s of billions of our tax dollars is LESS about "protecting our freedom and security" and MORE about protecting the free world so capitalists can develop new markets, protect/find resources, and exploit communist oppressed labor. All of which I belive are dubious value to the western middle classes' rank anf file. And this is something BOTH parties agree on. War has been reduced to background noise, a necessary appendage to commerce, not even a key point for the public to protest, here in this age of protest. And considering that how much the rest of the developed world benefits from our willingness to underwrite their security, I believe it is reasonable to have the opinion that we're getting the short end of the stick having to pay for the lions share of it. Another reason we have Trump.

These are two pieces, links below, again that illustrate the angst of Middle America - a bit dated, but they ominously portend what's to come: The seeds of Trump. A common theme is economic - bankers and outsourcing/globalization/offshoring/China. Yes, to paraphrase some here, "Those jobs are gone! Get an education!" ..may be true but people don't have to be happy about it. And they aren't. Not in 2010, nor in 2016. But according to the polls, you are correct, seems the Dems will make a bounceback this year....with or without my vote. And my vote won't really matter anyways, as IL is far from being a swing state lol.,9171,2024225-1,00.html,9171,2019633,00.html

Actually reading these articles, knowing the future held the rise of Trump, I can hear "Jaws" music "Da dum da dum da dum" in the background lol...
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 7296 (view)
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 9/6/2018 8:20:39 AM
Vlad wrote:
They declared a businesses right to make profit comes before a workers right to strike.
Yes, seems the citizens of the developed West should bend over, tap dance, and conform their lives as pliable peons in favor of investment returns and the requirements of business, I guess. "They" say it's just foreign competition, but when that foreign competition's labor toils under an authoritarian boot heel, and enjoys advantageous trade rules, just so bankers and big business can make more money, faster.... it should come as no surprise as to the rise of the populist right all across the West. The thing is, I'm more of a lefty but it shows there's an overlap at the fringes lol, and I'm sure this "populist right" has picked up many supporters from the left.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 7276 (view)
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 9/4/2018 6:51:05 PM
Hawking wrote:
Really, SPD? Just stopping Trump isn't good enough for you?
The problem is, the worse Republicans get, the worse Dems can get, and still stay better. Or the less Dems have to offer the voters, and still be better. It's a race to the bottom. There is only one way to stop it, and that's to blow things up.

I will acknowledge that if I were a person of color, or a woman, I may feel a bit differently. But, alas, I'm a middle aged white dude, with a southern accent to boot, so I'm slap dab in the middle of the Trump sweet spot demographic. But I hope you have read enough of my posts to realize I don't support our Chief Executive Orifice for the most part. I've voted Dem far back as I remember, even Clinton passed NAFTA (I was too stupid then to realize how bad a pact that it was, I just believed the script undoubtedly written for him by big business). But even then, I continued to vote Dem, mainly because I did realize NAFTA/free trade was primarily a GOP supported policy, and also supported other deregulation type things I oppose, even more than Clinton/Dems did, after all IIRC Bush I started the ball rolling on NAFTA. But as time has passed, to my dismay Dems have moved closer to the GOP on my 2 biggest issues, neoliberalism (trickle down economics) and perpetual war. And, in my view the Dems have picked up things like trnasgender bathroom issues. Excuse me if I don't really give a rat's patootie bout that. But it's important to the newer type Dem, who is an affluent limosine liberal, likely urban, cool, and far removed from the working class labor roots of progressive Democrats

But whatever..I can go on forever bout that...this column reflects my thoughts for the most part. This guy, I would consider from the left also, like I consider myself. More of an old fashioned, economic, pro-labor left winger. Kinda who the Dems have abandoned in my view.

From the column:
You could point out that Trump was foul-mouthed and, in his ignorance, could pull the whole system down. But if I had no chips left, why should I care if he knocked the card table over? I might enjoy it.

Remember that in my alternate life, liberals and Democrats had rubbed salt in my wounds, preaching from the gospel of globalization: I needed to understand that foreign competition was a good for the economy. It forced us to improve the products we sold abroad, etc. etc.

But as I saw it, those exports included my job.

Excerpt from column:
So who champions this rigged game? Some are Republicans. Theirs has long been the party of big business. Others are Democrats. Theirs used to be the workingman’s party, but now it belongs to the hip and affluent. It feels increasingly like the party of the lawyers, accountants and MBAs who reap the benefits of globalization — a soaring stock market — but find Republicans too stodgy.

They’re into trendy restaurants and art galleries. They’re the winners, and as such get to live in urban lofts that once were factories and warehouses.

The losers? The punch-press operators who formerly worked there and used to vote Democratic. Without them, it’s going to be well nigh impossible to bring a progressive agenda out of hibernation.

And like the former prolific Republican-lite poster here, GTO-Mustang, would say to me, from on high, "Those days are gone! Get an education!" But in a capsule, that's the problem I have with limosine liberal Democrats. That attitude is dismissive and pompous. No wonder conservatives paint Dems are the party of the "elites," when in reality both parties are.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 7273 (view)
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 9/4/2018 11:08:13 AM
Hawking wrote:
Democrats leading Republicans by 15 points in latest generic ballot. Gillum leading DeSantis in another poll. Looks like Democrats are in a pretty good position to get that monkey off their backs.
It is interesting criticizing Dems from the canvassers that come by the house. Most aren't that well equipped to debate criticism from the's mainly "Trump bad!" ..or "Rauner bad!" (Our governor's race) They're preloaded, from the mothership, with their anti-Trump or Rauner arguments and when I argue from the left they just get a look "Does not compute!"

Our Governors' race pits one billionaire vs another, which is another reason to sit it out. One who did nothing useful to earn his, inherited his (hotel chain), and another who did nothing useful to earn it (hedge fund). I just tell them I'm sitting this one out. "Stop Trump" or "Stop Gov. Rauner" isn't good enough for me.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 1078 (view)
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 9/4/2018 10:50:17 AM
Sandbyday wrote:
Keep a keen eye out for the new kneepads line with the logo of a pig dressed as a police officer.
I would think something more along the lines of the NFL cancelling or revising Nike's role as official supplier of game day apparel, or something like that. I mean, this is a huge poke in the eye of the uber-powerful NFL owners. Actually I still can't believe Nike did it. And the owners DO have the right to cancel any contract or switch to other suppliers, etc. etc. , legalese permitting, and even with protective legalese, it wouldn't surprise me if it couldn't be terminated because, regardless of the altrustic or noble intentions, it is clearly a slap in the face of what the NFL owners feel is their "interests." No customer wants a supplier that doesn't act in tandem with their interests...especially something as publicly sensitive as this. But termination of a contract would be a huge escalation, and more bad press.

I can hear the right, crying that the military - whom Nike is siding against in this case, in their view - protects the seas, especially in seas where there's plenty of seagoing commerce, thus enabling all those containerloads of Nike shoes and apparel coming from China, Vietnam, or whatever slave wage h*llhole they come from....And thus protecting Nikes profit stream. The right would have a fair point there.

Actually this is becoming more interesting to follow than the impending games.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 1075 (view)
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 9/4/2018 8:50:35 AM

NY58 wrote;
Try jobless like Krapernick.

I replied:
Kaepernick is jobless as a football player. I imagine he could get a job pretty quickly somewhere else in the world of football, or activism.
See below.

Former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick will earn millions from his endorsement deal with Nike and have his own apparel line with the company, Yahoo Sports' Charles Robinson reported Monday.

The new Nike ad reads:
“Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.”
Looks like they agree with SS4544Spd.

I wrote, awhile back:
I happen to think it's a pretty d*mn noble thing for some of these players, particularly Kaepernick, to sacrifice their cushy lifestyles and futures to help those in need of help, back in their neighborhoods.
Maybe I can send the Nike ad department a bill.

Guess the plantation owners are scrambling to figure out what to do next lol...

Yup, can't believe a U.S. multinational did something right for a change, and took the side of a left wing populist. Daymn. Just dayum. Still think it's risky and not sure it will ultimately work for them, considering I believe conventional corporate wisdom is to steer clear of ultra polarizing issues to maximize sales revenue.

Ya, I'm sure the right wingers will have their Nike version of "Disco Demolition Day," outside NFL

Trump will probably threaten to stick a tariff on their products.....Too bad I don't like Nike shoes, lol..
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 7224 (view)
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 8/30/2018 8:20:06 PM
plftre wrote:
You miss the point SS4544...even if we assume the system of trade is geared for business.....well just who engages in Global Trade other than big business?
I don't think I miss any point. My problem is the jobs that are being lost with the "finely tuned" global trade system are disproportionately jobs done by blue collar/rural people. I mean, what's so "finely tuned" about China having a 25% tariff on autos and the U.S. having a 3% tariff? Do you think that's fair?

And what people need to understand is blue collar/rural people are the losers on all these trade deals because of the relative unfair policies vs. developing countries on manufactured goods. Manufacturing, Agriculture, and Mining are disproportionately important to blue collar/rural people. It is always easy to champion a cause that puts the kibosh on *someone else's* job.

That's why they don't like the trade deals, nor do they like all encompassing global clean air pacts, because it hurts fossil fuel/mining. Both hurt blue collar/rural industries that provide jobs. And add massive illegal immigration to take the jobs in the one growth area, big ag, and food processing, and this becomes another of their "hot button" issue with them that Trump is taking on. It is not rocket science to see how he is popular with them.

And before you hate on me, note I did NOT vote for Trump. I think he's repugnant. I am simply trying to explain the rationale for his base. And yes, I will admit there is some racism, but I still maintain this is less weight than the jobs/economic issues.

There is nothing that Trump is doing that is going to help fly over America....or the little guy
See the above. Keep in mind that Trump doesn't really even need to be ultimately successful at these things. Because they see him working towards these means, making a lot of noise, a lot of press, and that is more than what they feel they can get from a Democrat.

I know you don't want to hear it, but there is a somewhat rational basis - admittedly a bit unrealistic - for Trump's support.

But we should all be worried that blue collar/rural are being left behind and will continue to be, no matter what, due to globalization. They will be a force to contend with, electorally, til the BBDO (Big Bubba Die Off) occurs.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 1070 (view)
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 8/30/2018 7:38:32 PM
anonymoususer 2018 wrote:
If they still refuse to stand, fire their ass.
Not sure of the legalities of firing them, because they are all union, but I from what I know, which may not be much, the owners, I don't think, would just fire them. Simply because another team would probably pick them up. If teams will pick up a wife/GF beater because they're a good player that will improve their team - which happens - they will pick up a kneeler. So the owners will not fire them, even if they have the right. Kapernick's clearly being blackballed though, so it may be different because he's the main one - besides Trump - that caused them this headache.

If teams started firing or releasing kneelers, it would set up a spiral of teams appearing more and more "tolerant" in this issue, to sign these players and improve their team. Then we'd have the ridiculous possibility - admittedly a stretch - of a team improving so much this way that the NFL would have a team full of kneelers make the playoffs or the Super Bowl, under the brightest media spotlight out there. LOL......Again it is a stretch to imagine that, I think there are salary caps too, but releasing all these kneelers would trigger the "free market" for those players,....and of course "free markets" are what most billionaires remind us ad nauseum solves all problems...... when "the market" is in THEIR favor. But in this case the market would work AGAINST most of them (especially the most vocal like Jerry Jones), so they would like to abandon their hallowed free market and use force, edict, or use some type of intimidation in its place. Pretty typical of business elites.

We all remember when small-government conservatives in Missouri went to, yep, government they so hate, to try to get government edict to silence black U of Mizzou players' protest a few years ago. Boycotts are powerful and effective and they terrify not only the NFL owners, but ALL business they will move heaven and earth to assure they don't catch on.

otball I'll watch this season if I watch any football at all.
Even though I disagree with you, this is a position I can respect. You are a better man than I in this respect. I can't say I'm that strong, or that I am not a hypocrite on this matter. But I don't watch that many games anyways. Mainly an excuse to get out, sit on a barstool, look at women, and drink beer...but then again, this drives up beer sales, and thus the power of the NFL and the owners, so in effect I'm a hypocrite.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 560 (view)
Women making the first move...
Posted: 8/30/2018 7:18:42 PM
I_Am_Cons wrote:
adultery is alive and well

people are carnal beings-not just men!

Julystorm wrote:
Some men (and less often women) always have the desire to want to see what else is out there.

Problem is, today's go-go, transitory lifestyles and the internet/technology are huge enablers of this.

In my view, NSA sex has never been easier to get, and meaningful relationship/LTRs have never been harder to get or maintain. One probably has to do with the other.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 142 (view)
Never been married suddenly at 50 you wanna marry someone REALLY
Posted: 8/30/2018 7:04:04 PM
MsMicki writes...
Some of us made those same choices in their 20's and 30's....
Of course. There are exceptions. Some people have always made wise, rational decisions all their lives. That would not be me. But in general, I'd believe looks are more important amongst the younger folks. Older and wiser means character starts becoming more important when choosing mates, particularly with women. But maybe that's just me.

At is still highly important to me!!
55 (yawn). It's more exciting at 65 or 70, even 70+. Don't you have any interstate highways around there? You haven't lived yet!

Sorry, that comment just reminded me of the Sammy Hagar song for some reason lol......But seriously....."Highly important," of course. But I'd still bet that for most, in the hierarchy of priorities in life, the relative ranking of sex takes a hit as we get older. In general.

There will be many situations where that doesn't really follow, though....for example where younger folks' sex drive may take a hit, i.e, raising kids, job demands, etc. and older folks' may grow, i.e. divorce and finding a new partner they're more interested in. Bout that last point, there will be a difference in drive/interest between a 55 year old in a 30 year marriage and a 55 year old with a new partner, say <5 years. Maybe I'll take a few barbs on that one, but it is what it is.

All things equal, though, our interest in sex gradually declines. Young people are meant to bang each other, older people...not as much. Sexual carelessness in youth has an evolutionary allows for more babies. If everyone was sensible and careful bout sex, there would be less babies.......which isn't as important now, but it was important back eons ago.

You're probably one of the exceptions, so good on you!!.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 189 (view)
Is dating harder for men or women?
Posted: 8/30/2018 10:03:16 AM
^^ Patchman
I get it, but I do understand that women, particularly attractive women, don't get a valid sampling of the men that are out there. In IRL or OLD....and that's because the @ssholes are more likely to approach, and the "nice" guys don't. Actually I would think more "nice" guys would have more success in OLD because it takes out a lot of the risk of a cold approach. That's one of the conundrums of life. I guess that's one of the reasons many women go for the men they are interested in, instead of waiting around for men to make a move.

No matter if we agree with her...I didn't on many things..she was entertaining to read. But I'll look on the bright side, maybe now that she's gone, my Cleavage Tunnel Syndrome will get a rest.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 188 (view)
Is dating harder for men or women?
Posted: 8/30/2018 9:53:21 AM
Patchman wrote:
You can walk by a store that carries clothing for bigger women and see pictures in the window of obese women in underwear for all to see. Can you tell me the last time you walked by a men's clothing store and saw a picture of an overweight guy with a beer gut and plumbers crack standing in his tight whites in the front window?
Too funny. Come to think of it, most mens' mannequins are built like greek gods. I can imagine an obese dude mannequin wearing tight briefs, giant belly hanging out...plumber's butt....and he's holding a beer in one hand, cigar in another...with a "who really gives a f..*I* know I'm a 10!!!" expression on his face!

Dearly departed Juju expounds on masturbation:
IN MY IMAGINATION it has an amazing body.
So, men aren't allowed to be "10s" except in your imagination?

It doesn't ask me who I was out with last night.
Unless you know sign language.

It doesn't complain about my cats
Of course not. If it didn't like cats, it wouldn't....nevermind.

And you are hard pressed to walk in any place and see a man in his tighty whities.
Of course not, they'd be arrested for indecent exposure, or taken away to the perv farm.

Cooldog wrotr:
We have something in common and it isn't gardening
Hopefully, it isn't "given up trying to find a man," either. Not that there's anything wrong with that, though.
Joined: 8/31/2016
Msg: 186 (view)
Is dating harder for men or women?
Posted: 8/30/2018 9:18:30 AM
Looks like our Juju has spontaneously human combusted. Too bad...kinda liked her.....Hope she comes back.

Dearly departed Juju wrote:
typically every man thinks he is a 10 and every woman realizes she is NOT even close to a 10.
And who's fault is that?

I think it's healthy for everyone, especially men, to consider themselves "10s." And I say "especially men," simply because they are, for the most part, the ones who have to have the confidence to take risks and make the moves.

Walk like a man, and talk like a man.
Walk like a man, hey baby, you can call me your man.

A little girl asked me what am I gonna' do,
When I get old and blue and worn clear through?
And I say by that time I ought to be in my prime,
I'm gonna' strut like a****until I'm ninety-nine.

The men who use online dating are very much about what the woman looks like. They are guys who don't have the courage to approach these women IN the real world. ONLINE DATING gives them an opportunity they WOULD never have in the real world. Approach a woman they perceive at pretty. .
Probably kinda true. I agree that the anyonymity of OLD gives many timid men, inexperienced men, and @sshole men the means to contact attractive women, if for no other reason cuz they these women probably see the gamut of the worst men have to offer. I don't doubt that at all, given the proponderance of toxic dialog forums enable, no matter what the setting. Just witness the Off Tropics here. Considering that many men are pigs, I shudder at what some attractive women must receive in their inboxes. So it should be no surprise that some women just check out and get bitter.
Show ALL Forums