I have only been restating my opinion slightly differently to correct those who MISREAD my posts for the last day....like you

Yup, when everyone else in the thread disagrees with what you are saying, or how you are saying it, or the other things you're doing, it's obviously everyone else that has the problem... =)

No, I'm more worried about what the movement actually does, and feminism only works for women's equality.

Wow, talk about painting the world in broad strokes. I guess all Catholics are pedo's too?

You people were all triggered and apparently can't read because of your anger.

*giggle* Yup, it's everyone else. Not you.

PS: The bold (by which I think you mean the capitalized) was not PASSIVE aggressive, the edit was.

No, the bold that I put bold html tags around so it showed up as bold...

And I'm the one that apparently has reading problems. X D

I'm just done with this constant sniping by people who can't or won't read. Bye.

Don't let your ego hit you in the ass on the way out the door. /waves!

ps. You have far more in common with the 3rd wave feminazi's than you would like to think.

Edit: pps. Downvote me more baby, just shows you for the petty little sook that you are. ; )

@newtboy

Ah, yes. "Fair." The cri de coeur of the idealist.

I can guarantee you that nobody who fights as hard as she has, and has the delegates to gain the nomination, is going to give it up nobly.

Obama didn't buckle under the pressure to give up. Sanders isn't buckling under the pressure to give up.

And Clinton should?

Ain't gonna happen. I don't think it SHOULD happen. I want a fighter for President, with a healthy ego and sense of purpose (I know you don't think she has one, but she does.)

And. Bernie might yet pull it out. He has gotten farther than anyone thought he would.

Yeah, 'cuz it worked so well when the other Republican candidates did it (attacking him)...

Trump doesn't follow the rules. Attack ads and criticism (however legitimate it may be) don't work. In fact, they have the opposite effect. He's got a cult of personality; anything you say about him only adds to it.

The only curveball she can throw at Trump is to completely ignore him. His rabid supporters aren't going to drop him, no matter how stupid you make him look or how well you can show the logical flaws in his ideas. But ignoring him would rile him up even more -- Trump's ego *demands* to be the center of attention. Ignore him, and he *will* say crazy stuff to try to draw you out. Crazy enough stuff to turn away the sane independents, moderates, and plenty of more level-headed Republicans.

But the last thing you want to do is get into a shit-slinging match with Trump. Sun Tzu: He who is prudent and lies in wait for an enemy who is not, will be victorious.

Yeah, I think he'd keep truckin' and run on his own as an independent. I think his ego is big enough. Plus, he'd have a pretty legitimate beef which would solidify his supporters and potentially draw in some more who are displeased with the modern GOP. I think he'd take somewhere between 30%-60% of the republican votes with him all the way to the general election.

That thought made me wonder what other independent or 3rd party candidates have done in presidential elections, and I found this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third_party_performances_in_United_States_elections#Presidential

I think he'd be somewhere between Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 and Ross Perot in 1992. Roosevelt got nearly 30% of the vote, took 88 electoral votes, and placed 2nd of 6 in the race. Perot got almost 20% of the popular vote, but took no electoral votes and placed 3rd of many.

I think Trump running as a 3rd party could take somewhere between 20%-30% of the popular votes (40%+ of Republican-leaning voters, semi conservatively). It would be hard to match Roosevelt's percentage of electoral votes, but he'd get at least *some*, unlike Perot, because of states with proportional rules about allocating electoral votes. And I think he'd place second, like Roosevelt. In that sense, you could argue that the Republican candidate (whoever that would be) "stole" the election from Trump, rather than vice-versa as would be the GOP's narrative.

--I should note that I'm not an expert about any of this, these are just my thoughts--

About Reid Fleming, I hadn't actually heard of that before -- but I got my handle from a character from a different (web) comic called Red Meat:
Homepage
Milkman Dan comics

If they were successful in blocking Trump, do you think he'd run on his own? I don't see him having the stamina to continue to campaign, but his ego might override that.

On another note, you don't happen to work with Reid Fleming???

http://www.reidfleming.com/

I would actually say that's what makes a personally successful politician, but not a professionally successful one, and as far from a perfect one as it's possible to be.
I think we need both election reform and finance reform to make a difference. Election reform to be able to actually hold politicians accountable to their voters at least once every few years, and finance reform to make them want to work for the voters rather than the donors.

A perfect politician would be fair minded, not greedy, not ego driven, not 'tribal', honest, willing to sacrifice for the greater good, thoughtful, consistent but willing to change in the face of new information, moral (not the kind of morality where you force your specific morals on others, but the kind of morality where you can be a role model for them), and still influential and successful at not only finding solutions to problems that are at least palatable to all, but also successful at getting them implemented. I'm not sure I've ever seen one of those...but as I see it, Sanders checks more boxes than most, far more than any other candidate.

Definitely anger issues here.
The use of force can only be explained 3 ways :
1. Immediate danger to himself or others ...
2. Inability to use propre technique to obtain compliance
3. Ego, he got angry and let his emotions dictate his actions.
Unprofessional and dangerous = Get him out of there.

Hey, at least Trump admitted he didn't know how long they should get in prison. That's a big thing to do for a man with such an enormous ego.

in my own practice, for a long, long time i found myself practicing my strengths, and i never really got far. Spun my wheels a lot. It appealed to my ego, but that was it. I think we tend to do this a lot as a society.
After a Berklee Music workshop in which I learned that most 7th graders had better fundamentals than myself, I almost quit music. I was pretty down. but...I kept working on getting over myself, and began focusing on my weaknesses instead of my strengths..., which really made me feel considerably retarded, but I kept at it.
With drumming, the weakness is generally the left side. And it was with me. No left side = no independence. So i worked at that, a lot. and in my late 30's, my muscianship took a huge positive step forward.
I'd say, practice your weaknesses, play your strengths. you can do it.
the approach dictates what you get. imho.

What a woman does with her body is her choice.
A fetus is NOT a living entity. It cannot live outside the mother's body on it's own. It is a biological process that is part of the mother's body. It's up to her if she wants to terminate the process, not yours or theirs, or anyone Else's decision!

It is not murder, there is NO independent living being. I don't know how anyone's EGO gets so big and over inflated that they feel they get to make the decision for some one else. Personal opinion or personal religion doesn't give you authority.

If you don't want to terminate your own pregnancy, then don't. Bravo to you. And by the way. Men can't get pregnant. A man's opinion to not terminate is null and void. This is the choice of the woman herself, and it's our place as men to support what ever they decide!

I will not counter argue this. I will not concede. Move along...

He was far and away the best thing about the Golden Globes.

Some seriously awkward "comedy" and huge ego trips this year.

But I watched the whole thing. Because Gervais.

I'm pretty open minded about religion, but I think if you have actual two-way spoken conversations with God in English, you may be schizophrenic or at the very least have a bit of an ego problem. Also, here you are, having a chat with the all-knowing, omnipotent, omnipresent creator of the universe, and best you can do is make small talk about what you plan to do with your private airplane? Granted, I'd probably find myself a little tongue tied in that situation, but I'd at least try for something more significant--at least enough to write a short epistle.

Slavoj has more experience with oppressive regimes. Effective oppressive regimes let "ordinary people" do most of the oppressing. Much more zealous than any government agency can be. For any "good citizen" it is enough to know what the party line is and that one must not deviate.

Perhaps vaping sections on aeroplanes (I hate people vaping in my vicinity) or semi-secret performances of smoking operas (for people who like those) would make the world less oppressive for some people without sacrificing too much selfrighteous ego. Perhaps the selfrighteous ego is just too strong.

A ban on smoking in pubs has just been passed over here. Again, I am fine with that in the pubs I go to, however there are pubs in small villages out in the country where only smokers ever go and all they do is drink and smoke. Will they have to meet elsewhere, rename the pub to a "smoking club" or just become underground smokers against the establishment?

My favourite Yugoslav joke is BTW Q: What is the national record for the 100 meter sprint in Montenegro?

A: 80 metres.

I comfort my fragile ego by telling myself that they probably don't know how to really please a woman.

Ahhh, yes, just the ego boost I need in the morning...