Trump is sueing his partners/cofounders at truth social attempting to steal their stock. Is anyone surprised? Trump screws over everyone who gets in bed with him, badly, usually by not paying them or bankrupting the venture.
(Edit: the judge who presided over the merger is “gobsmacked” that he lied about having any claims so he could judge shop his lawsuit and has said he’s considering sanctions.)

It’s exactly what he’s doing to the Republican Party. Fundraising is flat across the board since he installed his family into leadership rolls so they could rob it blind.

Major donors don’t want to fund don’s legal bills (isn’t he a billionaire? Why can’t he pay for his own lawyers?) but they can’t donate to the RNC without at least half going directly to Habba, and the rest going to pay don’s family exorbitant salaries for tanking the party…it’s still paying millions a year for Melania who hasn’t been seen this year! Not a single election rally scheduled. The RNC isn’t paying for down ballot campaigns. They have no ground game (armies of volunteers who canvas) in swing states and no money to organize any. The ONLY thing the RNC has is election workers willing to break the law and falsify the vote for Don, again, and maggots willing to vote multiple times, again.

Don’s support with millennials has dropped below 35% and is still shrinking fast. They really don’t like losing abortion rights, or birth control, and have heard the leadership saying the goal is to end “recreational sex” in America.
He’s still polling below 15% with the black community and never received over 12%. Biden lost a few percent, but they did not switch to Trump.
Women are outraged at the attempts to reverse the sexual revolution and get them barefoot and pregnant back in the kitchen with no rights and no voice and are voting against Republicans in droves even in deep red states.
There is no group he’s gaining with and many he’s losing, expect even evangelical support to evaporate as his porn star payoff/business fraud case is in the news all next month, sordid details and all.

It’s just hilarious that you still think someone with all that baggage, who is a well known rapist, business failure, convicted fraud, charity thief, repeatedly bankrupt trust fund baby, narcissist, constant liar, racist, misogynist, gullible idiot, and who clearly has full blown dementia is the best the right has to offer. 😂

Turns out China has been setting up thousands of MAGA social media accounts and are 100% in the Trump camp, posting ridiculous conspiracy theories about Biden (that get picked up by righty media) and pro trump propaganda (also repeated by righty media). Normal people see our enemies like Russia and China backing the same candidate (who utterly failed to stand up to either when he was in power) and understand that candidate is on our enemies side, not America’s.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/01/business/media/china-online-disinformation-us-election.html#:~:text=Some%20of%20the%20Chinese%20accounts,Satanist%2
0pedophile%20while%20promoting%20Mr.

What on earth are you talking about?
Do you believe the government dictates your vows? What "rules"? You just cannot grasp the concept of no fault divorce or prenuptial, can you?

I guess you never planned on kids or shared assets. If you do, not having a marriage means you almost certainly will pay for them for 18+ years but won't have many rights to be in their lives, and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first. Uncle Sam is in your relationship, married or not....without a marriage contract, he makes ALL the rules and you have no say.

My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas that in my state would have cost under $10K and you congratulate him? You are one strange person.

Again, your perception, not based in fact since the 60's. You assume women take off time to raise the kids and take care of parents and assume fathers don't take paternity leave or have obligations outside work. How 50's. You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. It certainly hasn't been my experience, I've seen women in the workplace working harder and longer for less pay, sacrificing just like their male counterparts if not more, putting off having families until it's too late while men can have kids long after normal retirement age, putting themselves in dangerous situations where those with power over them have opportunities to abuse that power and abuse those women in ways that rarely happen to men. These aren't exceptions, they're the norm.

Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that, meaning soon women in most catagories will out earn men and have more to lose, you admit you're wrong in your position now, right? Of course not, I expect you will still start from a point that hasn't been correct since the era and sexual revolution, early 70's at latest.

No, many of the studies I've seen compared people in the same exact positions in the same industries, even same companies, and women consistently get paid less for the exact same job and hours, and women rarely work less today, and just as often out work their male counterparts knowing they are often token hires not valued by the bosses so have less job security. If I recall correctly, 80% of job losses due to Covid were women, and the men are getting rehired faster. I think you are thinking of some studies from the 80's that made those assumptions and accusations. Comparing apples to apples, women still get shortchanged and as often as not overworked.

Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk
Tends to have short relationships? Too much risk
Likes attention? Too much risk
Single mother (non-widow)? Too much risk
Any mental issues (depression, bipolar, narcissist, anxiety, etc)? Too much risk
Older (why you still single...)? Too much risk
Likes to party? Too much risk
Drinks? Too much risk"

And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are? Specify what you expect and agree, and you walk with exactly what you agreed to, no government rules or split involved. Geez. You speak as if you had never heard of them.

Most divorces may be initiated by the woman (if that's true, I expect it's just another assumption) because their husbands are more likely to break their vows first, but are not willing to pay to end the marriage, including penalties for breaking the marriage contract, and we're too dumb to get a prenuptial (or got one that spells out harsh penalties for cheating). Yes, I am assuming men cheat on their spouses more often than the reverse, because men are wired that way.

You are not more likely than not to face a divorce, because it's unlikely any woman meeting your criteria would give you a second thought, and you need to get married to get divorced.

I bet if you show your significant other this thread your 20 year relationship will be in big trouble, or at best enter a long dry dark spell. Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches that take more than they deserve or even could give back and destroy you whenever they think it serves them. It's probably a good thing you aren't married.

Laws and family court aren't as you describe. Maybe when you enter the 21st century you'll recognize that. The rules of your marriage can be whatever you agree to, including the specifics of the split if it ends.

It's a sad thing you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks.....almost always unless one or both of you are total douchebags.

What your analysis is missing is any kind of cultural context. These things don't just happen in a vacuum, and nor are all ideas created equal. In many cases you are just trading one type of chain for another. Yes, mass media certainly has the ability to create and shape the prevailing social norms, and this can inspire counter cultural movements within a society. That's what happened in the 1960s with the sexual revolution, which is a root cause for the sexual immorality we see in society today. But it didn't just happen because people 'gained more knowledge', it happened because there was already a fundamental shift in the cultural ethos. An idea does not begin to grow unless its seed lands on fertile ground. The social mores of this nation were always decidedly Christian, but were steadily eroding by the beginning of the 20th century (for various reasons). The deeper truth is that people rejected traditional morality because they wanted to be free to indulge their carnal desires without restriction. Transcendent moral values were being replaced with moral relativism, fueled by the notion that man was a higher primate and had no moral responsibilities to a creator, leaving people free to invent whatever style of living pleased them. It was only the world wars that temporarily reversed this trend and brought the nation back together under the banner of an American moral imperative. But the foundation, weakened as it was by radical liberal ideology, was thoroughly rotten. America snapped back like a rubber band, bursting open the flood gates during the 60's, and changing the cultural landscape forever. Now traditional values are viewed as archaic, a throwback to a bygone era, and it is the "new" thing which is touted as "enlightenment".

Yet, this new thing is simply what is old in different packaging. The behavior of human beings today isn't noticeably different from anything that hasn't been tried in countless failed civilizations in the past. The song remains the same, despite the shiny new backdrops. Bible prophecy predicts that knowledge will increase in the last times, but it mentions nothing about wisdom. The human condition hasn't changed; men are ruled by their passions, and no matter how much knowledge they gain, the same mistakes are repeated endlessly. Look at the world today and tell me that isn't true. If humans are learning anything it is something they've always known and loved; rebellion. This is certainly the age of self-glorification, but history will tell you that is nothing new either. You're right in that "the church", ie, the catholic religion, tried to impose (a caricature of) Christian morality on the masses, with horrific results. That is a nightmare any decent person should be awoken from. However, as it pertains to describing the essential human condition, it was entirely correct. Sin is increasing in the world, not decreasing. Human nature is inherently sinful.

Everyone has a different way of describing the problem. Most look to place the blame and hand wave everything on to a particular condition. They say it's because of overpopulation. They say it's because of religion (an atheist favorite). They say it's because of ignorance. They say it's because (insert your favorite reason here). The reality is, it's because human beings are corrupt sinners, and always will be corrupt sinners until the end of time; that's why Jesus Christ came. He came to restore us to right relationship with our Creator. Don't place your faith and trust in man, because man cannot save himself, and all men are headed for a day of judgment. As scripture predicts, there will be a one world government headed by the antichrist, a seven year tribulation where all the world will become deluded and follow after the beast. Those who refuse to love the truth will believe the lie that the antichrist will be selling. At the end of the tribulation, Jesus Christ will return as the Lord and judge of all the earth. No amount of knowledge will prepare for you that day; only a saving faith in Jesus Christ.

>> ^Sagemind:

In the past era, we hit a communications Boom.

Your arrogance and presumption don't make me retch (I'm not given to hysterical hyperbole on the internet), but it says nothing good about you as a person...

You give the whole game away when you use the term 'prostituting'. Oh, you can respect her okay just as long as everyone knows that she's a whore... Very tolerant of you. /eyeroll

And your utopian world view? Well I don't know if you've heard about the whole women's suffrage movement, or the sexual revolution, but your archaic ideas of morality (and your hauty superiority) are remnants of a bygone era. I wonder how you deal with nudity in art, such as http://www.artenuda.com/paintings1.php.

You're not a creature of principle, you're a creature of prejudice. You're just too self righteous to admit it.

ps. Anytime you'd like to submit your 'body' of work for critical appraisal, we can make determinations on whether we think you're job has any dignity... Wonder if any commercial jingles will appear... X D

>> ^Gallowflak:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/MarineGunrock" title="member since July 13th, 2007" class="profilelink"><strong style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);">MarineGunrock
The idea that you think dignity is a false concept makes me retch.
If a woman is comfortable exposing her body to untold masses for the sake of giving them boners and getting money in return, then I wish her all the best. I didn't say she wasn't worthy of respect, I said that prostituting oneself requires a greater resignation of one's dignity than a more typical job. You are agreeing to your body being used for the sexual satisfaction of others, so that you can get currency.
My original comment stands. A society in which women cannot be consumed as products, and men are not willing to do so, would be just that little bit closer to utopia. Humankind's approach and reaction to sexuality is enormously dysfunctional.
I'm a creature of principle. I believe that there are human traits, values, virtues and ideals that are worthy of exaltation, in spite of the lack of any objective authority. Our unique position as intelligent agents is one of great dignity and responsibility, and we must require the most exacting standards of ourselves. I think that having a market for human beings as products for arousal is disgusting and must be done away with, as well as people as products in general.

>> ^thepinky:
You've got a good point there, but I still think that any type of porn is ojectification. (I'm going to talk about men and porn designed to please men, although I know it goes both ways.) Women have to work harder and harder these days to please their partners because men jack off to porn so much that sex is becoming less and less an act of love and intimacy. When discussing porn, I have had two of my guyfriends tell me that porn made them look at women differently. The more porn they watched, the less they cared about the minds and opinions of the women they were interested in and the more they cared about their bodies and how good they were in bed. I've seen porn tear marriages apart because it can be seen as a type of infidelity. A girlfriend of mine told me that her husband "had sex" more often and "made love" less often the more addicted he got to porn. But many men argue that porn ISN'T infidelity because women in porn mean nothing to them emotionally. In other words, they are just OBJECTS. Thus, objectification. Yes, the women are exploiting something they shouldn't be exploiting.
To say "enjoy your bodies while you can" is a hedonistic principle, in my opinion. We ought to be very careful with our bodies lest we allow our appetites to get out of hand and we do something immoral (molestation, rape, infidelity, etc.). I know you agree with that. We're really just arguing about the degree to which we control our bodies.
I'm neither sexually repressed nor frustrated. I'm extremely happy with my sex life.


If you think this is porn, I think you really have issues.

The reason we don't have men with sliver ding dongs attached to their penises dancing around is because the male body is ugly.

The female body on the other hand looks like it was designed by Italians, all curves and smooth lines. While the male body looks like it was stamp pressed in some oppressive Eastern European nation trying desperately to join the EU. Both men and women enjoy seeing female form more then the male form, because the female form represents beauty in the arts, and in very essence it is beautiful.

A celebration of that form is not pornographic.

Burlesque is about fantasy, its art, its about the exploration of carnal desires not their fulfillment. Pornography on the other hand is not, its literally about the physical act of sex, its the act more then the fantasy itself.

This feeds into the way carnal desires work on a psychological level.

We enjoy watching erotic films, romantic novels, romantic movies or stuff like this because there is a framework of fantasy at work, we create an emotional resonance that leads into the sexual act. Most of the people in that audience watch a show like this and go home and fuck like rabbits. Because it feeds that fantasy, we look at our partner and want to do all kinds of kinky things to them.

That's why Victoria Secret sales are so strong.

People get bored of making 'love' and intimacy, because it doesn't work like Disney in the real world. You need to create spice in your sex life, love and intimacy is about the first year or so of being in love, after that you need to work to have a good sex life, sexual fulfillment is just as much a issue of a relationship as communication.

Psychologically when we are with our partners we often have a very different view of them then the reality of them, in essence we desire them for a fantasy perspective we possess of them linked to created concept we have based on time spent together, desire, interests and that unquantifiable aspect of love. Psychologists assume this is necessary for monotony and the actual act of sex.

Others enjoy pornography because its the fulfillment of that fantasy being fast forward devoid of emotion to the act of sex itself. However without a level of fantasy the act of sex degrades to one of physical perversion. How many times have you seen porn or been fucking and had a Epiphany of oh my god this looks horrid. Because it does. Its a very animalistic base act of fulfillment. We dress it up alot with all kinds of concepts but at the end of the day it's as raw as watching two dogs humping. This is why porn has to create some basic level of fantasy, even if its crude and stupid, the girl next door, the frisky teacher, the plumber and so on and so forth. You will find that the best porn actually is more erotica then porn.

With regards to your idea that porn tears apart marriages.

Its a ridiculous concept. I personally believe in our modern, fast paced, everything at your finger tips, your needs met by company X world both men and women have unrealistic expectations of their partners.

Women desire heroic characters with a soft inner shell that can make chicken soup for you. Men desire a slave worker cook whose a harlot in the bedroom.

Pornography is not infidelity, its the release of sexual desire that is persistent in the man nature, by nature we are built to fuck as many things as possible to seed our DNA code. That's nature and God designed. I seen alot of couples deal with this in the long term by fantasizing or spicing up their sex lives, they love one another but that initial spark and heat is gone, something they need to work at to get back. Going to burlesque shows or strip clubs together or watching soft core or filming themselves or dressing up or kinky things and eventually exploring their own sexuality. There is reason swingers clubs and the such exist, because people sometimes love to be together but seek to explore themselves sexually or other people with their partners.

At the same time I have seen many people being paralyzed by sex, being utterly frighted of it, because of some silly indoctrination they received when they were younger. Unable to satisfy themselves and eventually their partners because they were essentially sexually suppressed.

I could go on and on but I really think your concepts of what is porn and sexuality is based around misjudged postulations of a religious framework. We lived in several cycles of religious control of sexuality all of them showed it is a facade that tried to suppress what is essentially our nature. While sex and or booze isn't so much an issue now, its more about homosexuality which is basically love.

Remember Alfred Kinsey's research and work changed the way we looked at sexuality in the 1930s enabling the 60s sexual revolution, which was connected with free love, female empowerment, and the coming of the pill.

In 1935, Kinsey delivered a lecture to a faculty discussion group at Indiana University, his first public discussion of the topic, wherein he attacked the "widespread ignorance of sexual structure and physiology" and promoted his view that "delayed marriage" (that is, delayed sexual experience) was psychologically harmful.

Methinks it would be a great idea to have a mass cage match elimination-pitting all fundamentalists of every race, c, or c, Shiites against petecostals, Scientologists vs. Christian Scientists, the winner's are all dosed heavily, then reprogrammed....nah too much trouble, kill em' all!

In reply to your comment:
“Religion in the 00's is no different than the sexual revolution/drug culture of the 60's.
In fact, they live by the same credo: "if it feels good, do it".
The baby boomers have just found themselves a new indulgence, a new "high".

The sooner that generation of narcissists are locked away in retirement homes, the better. Complete wastes.”

Religion in the 00's is no different than the sexual revolution/drug culture of the 60's.
In fact, they live by the same credo: "if it feels good, do it".
The baby boomers have just found themselves a new indulgence, a new "high".

The sooner that generation of narcissists are locked away in retirement homes, the better. Complete wastes.

A funny British documentary interviewing various cannabis users (hilarious to see grandmas talking about being arrested for growing etc!) From the Google Video description: "Stoned In Suburbia is a social history film, examining the change in people's opinions to cannabis over the past 50 years. Discussing the impact of the 60's sexual revolution, the Hippie movement, the emergence of the Punks right up until the modern day."