(March 28, 2018 at 7:40 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(March 28, 2018 at 7:35 pm)johan Wrote: Like it or not, he's doing a 2nd term. The sooner you wrap your head around that, the better off you'll be.

No way dude. Only reason he won was bc he was up against Hilary.

He got elected for the same reason every president in recent memory has gotten elected. He figured out how to appeal to a larger group of fringe voters and those who otherwise would not typically vote at all. In his case, the uneducated conservatives because they hate all politicians and 'he's an outsider, he's one of us' and of course, the racist rednecks because he said all the right things to get them good and wound up.

And here's the thing. Nearly all of those people still absolutely love him. He could raise their taxes and they would still love them. He take away their guns and they'd still love him. He could show up at their house, shoot their favorite dog in the head then skull fuck the bullet hole right in front of them and they'd still love him. In each and every case they'd find a way place the blame on Hilary or Obama or some other democrat. But they wouldn't blame their boy because he's their boy. And those mother fuckers are going to elect him again unless the democrats can figure out how to pull off some sort of absolute miracle which I honestly doubt they can do.

Because despite having lots of well paid highly educated people at their upper levels, political parties tend to not learn from the past very well. So even though they were wrong to believe all the poles and assume they had the election in the bag last time, they'll do the exact same thing next time. 'Oh everyone hates trump, we've got this in the bag, we pick any candidate we want and we'll walk away with it'. That's exactly what they'll say. Then the racists and rednecks will show up again in force and we'll have 4 more years of the fat man. Get used to it.

(March 29, 2018 at 1:42 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote: Yeah, she's a good looking woman and looks great for her age especially. I don't get anyone saying otherwise.

If she smiled her jaw would fall off.

Psshh, there are pics of her smiling, you just chose to post the most unflattering one you could find.

Good grief, you men are difficult to please with our looks, no wonder we are all so insecure lol.

Anyway, he shouldn't have cheated on her, even if y'all think she's ugly.

---

(March 29, 2018 at 6:12 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(March 28, 2018 at 11:41 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

---

Um, what?

Women are not honest to researchers/pollsters regarding their infidelities.  You need to read your sources critically, as a scientist would!

---

(March 28, 2018 at 11:00 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Or an unmarried partner in the mix, who would not have been included in the study.  That line of reasoning is certainly valid for some studies, like those where men have six times more sexual partners than women, but perhaps not as suspect in this case. The study I’m talking about is here, by the way:
http://www.academia.edu/5408999/Changes_...h_policies
The six to one ratio is roughly the number of reported sexual partners between men and women in France in 1970. It’s narrowed, but it’s still questionably high, unless there was an official “village bicycle” in parts of France in 1970 that’s in the process of being phased out.

Typically, though, there are direct crossovers -- individuals who are once-divorced will marry once-divorced individuals, twice-divorced, etc.  But, even so, people who cheat typically do so with other married individuals; it is just that men are more forthright about their shenanigans than are women when speaking to pollsters and other researchers.  I do not know how anyone can realistically expect to correct for such biases in their datasets, and so, I am more inclined to believe the adhoc judgments of professional researchers in this area than the summarized statistical data.

This is what differentiates the hard sciences from the soft ones.

I'm not sure what you mean by "it take a 2 to tangle." If a married person has sex with a single person who is not their spouse, only one of them is cheating, not 2.

Also, pretty shitty that you're calling women liars.

---

(March 29, 2018 at 7:10 am)johan Wrote:

(March 28, 2018 at 7:40 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: No way dude. Only reason he won was bc he was up against Hilary.

He got elected for the same reason every president in recent memory has gotten elected. He figured out how to appeal to a larger group of fringe voters and those who otherwise would not typically vote at all. In his case, the uneducated conservatives because they hate all politicians and 'he's an outsider, he's one of us' and of course, the racist rednecks because he said all the right things to get them good and wound up.

And here's the thing. Nearly all of those people still absolutely love him. He could raise their taxes and they would still love them. He take away their guns and they'd still love him. He could show up at their house, shoot their favorite dog in the head then skull fuck the bullet hole right in front of them and they'd still love him. In each and every case they'd find a way place the blame on Hilary or Obama or some other democrat. But they wouldn't blame their boy because he's their boy. And those mother fuckers are going to elect him again unless the democrats can figure out how to pull off some sort of absolute miracle which I honestly doubt they can do.

Because despite having lots of well paid highly educated people at their upper levels, political parties tend to not learn from the past very well. So even though they were wrong to believe all the poles and assume they had the election in the bag last time, they'll do the exact same thing next time. 'Oh everyone hates trump, we've got this in the bag, we pick any candidate we want and we'll walk away with it'. That's exactly what they'll say. Then the racists and rednecks will show up again in force and we'll have 4 more years of the fat man. Get used to it.

But those ppl you refer to are still a minority of people. If the Dem candidate had been just a little bit less unlikeable, they would have won. I assume the candidate this year will be better than Hilary, since you really can't get much worse.

(March 29, 2018 at 7:10 am)johan Wrote:

(March 28, 2018 at 7:40 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: No way dude. Only reason he won was bc he was up against Hilary.

He got elected for the same reason every president in recent memory has gotten elected. He figured out how to appeal to a larger group of fringe voters and those who otherwise would not typically vote at all. In his case, the uneducated conservatives because they hate all politicians and 'he's an outsider, he's one of us' and of course, the racist rednecks because he said all the right things to get them good and wound up.

And here's the thing. Nearly all of those people still absolutely love him. He could raise their taxes and they would still love them. He take away their guns and they'd still love him. He could show up at their house, shoot their favorite dog in the head then skull fuck the bullet hole right in front of them and they'd still love him. In each and every case they'd find a way place the blame on Hilary or Obama or some other democrat. But they wouldn't blame their boy because he's their boy. And those mother fuckers are going to elect him again unless the democrats can figure out how to pull off some sort of absolute miracle which I honestly doubt they can do.

Because despite having lots of well paid highly educated people at their upper levels, political parties tend to not learn from the past very well. So even though they were wrong to believe all the poles and assume they had the election in the bag last time, they'll do the exact same thing next time. 'Oh everyone hates trump, we've got this in the bag, we pick any candidate we want and we'll walk away with it'. That's exactly what they'll say. Then the racists and rednecks will show up again in force and we'll have 4 more years of the fat man. Get used to it.

300,000 Michigan voters voted for Barack Obama, but not Hillary.  500,000 Ohio voters voted for Obama and not Hillary.  Trump won Wisconsin with less votes than Romney got, and Romney lost by 7 points.  

The idea that all these people were coming out of the woodwork to vote for Trump only applied in Pennsylvania.  Everywhere else, Trump got about what Romney got.

And even then, is the theory that Racists came out to vote against Hillary, but were fine with Obama?

All of this is rooted in a mistaken idea.  A bunch of self-centered mostly white folks think they speak on behalf of 50%+ of the population.  But they really probably only represent 15%.  And they have no idea what the other 35%+ who tend to vote the same way they do are thinking.  

Susan Sarandon should be an easy sell.  Rosanne Barr shouldn't be tough to get on board.  Khemikal, from these boards, is part of the group you need to win elections.  The election wasn't about why Trump won.  He got mostly standard GOP voting totals.  The question is why Hillary lost.  She lost because people didn't want to vote for her.  And they didn't vote for her for a whole litany of reasons the 15% has no interest in acknowledging.

Khem, did you not vote for Hillary because you were tricked by a russian meme on facebook with Jesus armwresting Satan?  Do you get the impression the vocal left has any real understanding of why you'd rather not vote than vote for Hillary?

But what the vocal left does do well, is vote in primaries.  And they're oblivious enough that they could easily pick another loser.

(March 28, 2018 at 9:21 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't understand why men cheat on their perfectly beautiful wives... Melania is gorgeous

Their priorities are out of whack.

(March 28, 2018 at 9:21 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't understand why men cheat on their perfectly beautiful wives... Melania is gorgeous

I don't condone cheating but I can understand reasons (not meaning it's ok) It's not about looks there is an emotional side to it. The person can be a drop dead gorgeous model and be a total bitch. You think the Trumps got married because they loved each other? I doubt it. She was a trophy wife and he had lots of money and power.

(March 28, 2018 at 9:36 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(March 28, 2018 at 9:34 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Then you're seeing something I'm not. All I get is smarmy plastic arm candy. 

But I think that's what he wanted, at least in the beginning.

Dude, you're not being honest if you say Melania isn't a good looking woman. I'd love to look like that when I'm her age... most of us will have deteriorated by then lol.

I don't think it's fair to say he isn't being honest about his own preferences. I agree with him in that she isn't pretty. Sure she has a nice body and pretty hair but I've never thought she as a whole was pretty or good looking.

(March 28, 2018 at 11:00 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Or an unmarried partner in the mix, who would not have been included in the study.  That line of reasoning is certainly valid for some studies, like those where men have six times more sexual partners than women, but perhaps not as suspect in this case. The study I’m talking about is here, by the way:
http://www.academia.edu/5408999/Changes_...h_policies
The six to one ratio is roughly the number of reported sexual partners between men and women in France in 1970. It’s narrowed, but it’s still questionably high, unless there was an official “village bicycle” in parts of France in 1970 that’s in the process of being phased out.

We also have to take into consideration that women have been shamed to no end, even these days, that sleeping around with multiple guys makes them a slut. Guys are celebrated while girls are shamed. Of course the gap is going to be there. If that idea was taken from women and they were free to do what they wanted or were also celebrated I can bet that ratio would be more even.

(March 28, 2018 at 7:35 pm)johan Wrote: Like it or not, he's doing a 2nd term. The sooner you wrap your head around that, the better off you'll be.

It would be an even more historic upset than 2016 if he did, going by today's numbers that is. He has a historically low approval rating, the economy isn't doing that well, his entire Presidency has been shrouded in scandals. The Democrats will probably take back the House in November, and they might even take back the Senate. Even if they only take back the House, Trump will be forced to compromise on policy for the next two years, or he won't be able to sign any bills.

Trump will also suffer from political fatigue in 2020. In 2016, he was new, fresh, nobody knew exactly how he would govern, whereas Clinton had a history. The problem is, Trump in 2020 will have been President for 4 years. He won't be new, he won't be fresh, his inability to govern will be held against him.

Even dead cats will bounce if dropped from lofty enough height.

CL,

Facts are facts, and the fact is that some demographics are more honest with pollsters than others. This goes back to the classic surveys on how many sexual partners a person has had throughout his/her lifetime.

I approve of him continuing to eat McDonalds so he has a heartache sooner rather than later.

(March 28, 2018 at 11:41 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(March 28, 2018 at 10:51 pm)Minimalist Wrote: You think so?



She usually looks as if she just swallowed a dozen lemons.

Maybe its from being married to that shitwit but she knew what she was getting herself into.

Yeah, she's a good looking woman and looks great for her age especially. I don't get anyone saying otherwise.

---

(March 28, 2018 at 10:49 pm)Jehanne Wrote: It takes "2" to tangle, which means that one group must be lying.  (Guess who?)

Um, what?

To each, her own.   To me she looks like Helga the SS bitch commandant of woman’s concentration camp seeking to avoid justice by undergoing cosmetic surgery to look like a cat.


For us men, it is the conquest, not the occupation, that compensated for our nagging fear of inadequacy.   Even tiny Portugal can keep Goa and Macau under occupation for 400 years.   But it takes a genghis Khan to conquer over half the known world and so many women that a full 1% of all men alive on earth today lineal descendant.