Reasons I cannot vote for Trump

[scaredyclassic]

if most men could have sex with any woman at any time, they likely would have sex several times per day with different women.

if this is our nature, why is his expression of it so repugnant?

[millennial]

[quote=scaredyclassic]if most men could have sex with any woman at any time, they likely would have sex several times per day with different women.

if this is our nature, why is his expression of it so repugnant?[/quote]

Just because it is our nature doesn’t make it right. Most civilized men with a conscience would not have sex with multiple women on a daily basis. If Trump is attacking Hillary for tolerating Bill’s behavior. It doesn’t really make Trump much better when he’s associating himself with locker room behavior.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=scaredyclassic]if most men could have sex with any woman at any time, they likely would have sex several times per day with different women.

if this is our nature, why is his expression of it so repugnant?[/quote]

Women have emasculated men. They want masculine men, but nice men, not wimpy. So complicated.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea][quote=no_such_reality]
I suggest you tape and take a good long look at all three hours of “Today”.

Seriously, that last hour with Hoda and Kathy Lee, not as vulgar, but just as crass, IMO.

It’s like watching a couple 50 year old high school girls talking smack.[/quote]

People confusing TV shows with reality. That is why Trump is doing so well.[/quote]

Says the guys taking the Access Hollywood tape as bible. ROFLMAO.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=yamashi][quote=scaredyclassic]if most men could have sex with any woman at any time, they likely would have sex several times per day with different women.

if this is our nature, why is his expression of it so repugnant?[/quote]

Just because it is our nature doesn’t make it right. Most civilized men with a conscience would not have sex with multiple women on a daily basis. If Trump is attacking Hillary for tolerating Bill’s behavior. It doesn’t really make Trump much better when he’s associating himself with locker room behavior.[/quote]

absolutely they would, if no repercussions, if they were king like, and if they did not, they would be lame genetically.

there would be a few uxorious lads, but in general, the king would have his way. by civilized, i think what you mean, is that society restrains them, and or nature, such that they cannot.

1 of 200 men are descendants of ghenghis khan, i read somewhere. insensitive brute.

wall street and the banks dont play by the rules the rest of civilized working society men with “consciences” do. this is the same issue transplanted sexually. if they can take they will take. the strong ones, anyway…

[millennial]

[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=yamashi][quote=scaredyclassic]if most men could have sex with any woman at any time, they likely would have sex several times per day with different women.

if this is our nature, why is his expression of it so repugnant?[/quote]

Just because it is our nature doesn’t make it right. Most civilized men with a conscience would not have sex with multiple women on a daily basis. If Trump is attacking Hillary for tolerating Bill’s behavior. It doesn’t really make Trump much better when he’s associating himself with locker room behavior.[/quote]

absolutely they would, if no repercussions, if they were king like, and if they did not, they would be lame genetically.

there would be a few uxorious lads, but in general, the king would have his way. by civilized, i think what you mean, is that society restrains them, and or nature, such that they cannot.

1 of 200 men are descendants of ghenghis khan, i read somewhere. insensitive brute.[/quote]

By civilized, I mean the definition, as in morally developed. I don’t think we can point to the times of Genghis Khan and Feudalism to determine our current and most civilized social mores.

[scaredyclassic]

morally developped? you mean like dropping bombs via drones on families instead of pillaging by horseback…. frankly, ghenghis sounds way more…. human.

our individual natures havent changed in the last 1000 years, just the setting, the rules we play by, its always a continuous struggle for power respurces and the best mates.

all seems a bizarre morality charade, unrelated to real representive democracy, in which we get to pick between abillionaire who is only out for himself, and a relatively less wealthy bank and wall street representative. ill take…vermin supreme…

[millennial]

[quote=scaredyclassic]morally developped? you mean like dropping bombs via drones on families instead of pillaging by horseback…. frankly, ghenghis sounds way more…. human.

all seems a bizarre morality charade, unrelated to real representive democracy, in which we get to pick between abillionaire who is only out for himself, and a relatively less wealthy bank and wall street representative. ill take…vermin supreme…[/quote]

Yes we are a lot more morally developed. Just because they didn’t have the technology at the time doesn’t mean they wouldn’t do it in a heartbeat. Not only that but they would rape, pillage and kill people with no moral repercussions. I don’t really think you’re making a logical argument. Regarding our options for president, they suck but could be worse…albeit not much.

[scaredyclassic]

if morality is continually developping, growing, getting better, enlarging like the supply of dollars, then it shall not be long before society looks back on us as absurd crazed barbarians, right?

perhaps we are just a bunch of barbarians, right now, a few millimeters off from ghenghis…

or have we reached the near apex of moral development? how coincidental and lucky for us.

what makes a society more “moral”?

[millennial]

[quote=scaredyclassic]

what makes a society more “moral”?[/quote]

Well it seems there is a lot going on here with no correct answers considering the question is personal and philosophical in nature. My answer was regarding the term “civilized”, which by definition involves advanced and a humane culture. Personally, I don’t think most people would agree that having multiple sex partners throughout the day would be considered a “civilized” way to act. In addition, I think that most people would agree that civilization has gone a long way from the feudal age and ghengis khan.

Regarding tomorrow being more civilized than today. The answer is probably yes, unless we move back to the dark ages where people and technology are suppressed. Of course with Moore’s Law playing out, advancement in new technologies will bring about new and more advanced moral questions such as the rights of AI and our rights as humans to claim other planets and species.

[njtosd]

[quote=scaredyclassic]if most men could have sex with any woman at any time, they likely would have sex several times per day with different women.

if this is our nature, why is his expression of it so repugnant?[/quote]

Also, if people could steal the money of others without repercussions, many would do it. If people could hit or otherwise harm people they didn’t like without repercussions, they would also do it. The only way we get our children to stop acting like chimps is . . . doling out repercussions. I would find repugnant someone who said – “that person is so stupid I can steal their money and they don’t even try to stop me.” I would find someone who never learned to close their mouth while chewing, chose to bathe only when it suited them and god knows what all repugnant.

Morals are like (among other things) the room mate agreement in The Big Bang Theory. An attempt to avoid problems before they start. BTW – son went to look at a college on Saturday and lo and behold, they make them sign room mate agreements. Overall it was depressing – it was a big school and it was as if someone set off a neutron bomb – no (well, actually, very few) people anywhere. Nothing like my college experience – not sure if it’s the difference between the midwest and here. It’s like they’ve sapped all the fun out of it.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=scaredyclassic]morally developped? you mean like dropping bombs via drones on families instead of pillaging by horseback…. frankly, ghenghis sounds way more…. human.

our individual natures havent changed in the last 1000 years, just the setting, the rules we play by, its always a continuous struggle for power respurces and the best mates.

all seems a bizarre morality charade, unrelated to real representive democracy, in which we get to pick between abillionaire who is only out for himself, and a relatively less wealthy bank and wall street representative. ill take…vermin supreme…[/quote]

Not fair to say Hillary is a Wall Street representative. Look at her work such as healthcare.

The Wall Street thing is just working within the capitalist system to earn a living. you have to play by the rules within the power structure.

Globalization is not evil; it can be channeled for the good of mankind.

[scaredyclassic]

isnt acting civilized just what people do to get what they need or want? we call ourselves civilized, but we play by the rules of the day, just like every other poor slob for 1000s of years. our nature is no different or better. society may be more or less efficient, or violent, but we, we are the same, playing the game to live and breed.

i can imagine a distant relative of mine from a.d. 700, living in some shitty town g-d knows where, just trying to make it in society, same as me.

im no better or worse than he is, in my nature.

so, if the rules allowed a particlar man many sex partners, i would say his nature would likely be in accord with that. now, in ad 700, and forever into the past and future

[all]

[quote=scaredyclassic]
1 of 200 men are descendants of ghenghis khan, i read somewhere. insensitive brute.
[/quote]

Please do not call our common grand-grand-grand-grand-daddy a brute.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=njtosd][quote=scaredyclassic]if most men could have sex with any woman at any time, they likely would have sex several times per day with different women.

if this is our nature, why is his expression of it so repugnant?[/quote]

Also, if people could steal the money of others without repercussions, many would do it. If people could hit or otherwise harm people they didn’t like without repercussions, they would also do it. The only way we get our children to stop acting like chimps is . . . doling out repercussions. I would find repugnant someone who said – “that person is so stupid I can steal their money and they don’t even try to stop me.” I would find someone who never learned to close their mouth while chewing, chose to bathe only when it suited them and god knows what all repugnant.

Morals are like (among other things) the room mate agreement in The Big Bang Theory. An attempt to avoid problems before they start. BTW – son went to look at a college on Saturday and lo and behold, they make them sign room mate agreements. Overall it was depressing – it was a big school and it was as if someone set off a neutron bomb – no (well, actually, very few) people anywhere. Nothing like my college experience – not sure if it’s the difference between the midwest and here. It’s like they’ve sapped all the fun out of it.[/quote]

stealing and hitting are nonconsensual. assume consent with all of the rich powerful guys partners..like say for instance loads of women will fuck trump just to get close to power, and he only grabs the pussies of those powerseekers. why is that morally wrong of him to do?

is ot “unnatural”?

[Author]

Posts