I cannot read the OP without thinking its heralding reinforces their hatred of us all.
"See Republicans, you are old, bald, dickless scum".
I'm not sure this sort of "conversation" leads where you think it leads.
Really? You're going there?this isnt really news to me, but, as always, its sure nice to see an official report supporting it.
I don't think he was joking. You are the petulant man child of P&N.Speaking of jokes...
Yes, I do seem to know a lot about my neighbors (and friends). That's because I've lived in a small town in a small county for decades. Some I know through my wife's friends, others I go to their homes to service their computers/networks.
Yes, I know them and you seems a lot like them.
Wow, You are really good at this speculation stuff...![]()
First, point to where I expressed any hatred towards people...
I cannot read the OP without thinking its heralding reinforces Republican's hatred of us all.
Really? You're going there?
That is not what I said. I'll rephrase it to provide better clarity.
Second part, that is plainly how the WaPo article reads and how your OP is intended to be taken.
As far others saying that this article and its premise is stupid, it's as stupid as the caricatures of the left by conservatives (tofu eating, tree hugging, etc.).
Well, two wrongs don't make a right, and, er , so on.
Reading the article properly, I actually think it's more valid than I first thought. They looked at more search terms than just the cheap headline-grabbing one, and the correlation seems to apply across the whole country. However, while social science and epidemiological studies often claim to have controlled for confounding factors, doing that is in reality very difficult, because you might not even know what they are or have good data for them or have a large-enough sample to control for all of them. It's a pet-peeve of mine about a lot of 'findings' in those fields. They themselves admit they've only shown a correlation, and their argument for a causal connection just doesn't stand up (dammit!).
Definitely, though, there seems to be global trend towards looking for strong manly male politicians to 'save' the people, or at least the less-well educated males, from, er, something. It's happening in country-after-country. I believe the linked article is absolutely right about the wider issue, regardless of how convincing their data is.
What I don't understand (and it's something that keeps coming up on this forum) is how the economic issues interact with the gender ones.
Well technically a pedophile is someone has strong sexual desires toward prepubescent children. So a person who really like underaged teenagers wouldn't be a pedophile.
Well I'm not going to defend either one of them as both of them should be ashamed of themselves.Well technically I didn't say anything about who he was attracted to, but have fun arguing that point in defense of people like Turmp and Roy Moore.
Well technically I didn't say anything about who he was attracted to, but have fun arguing that point in defense of people like Turmp and Roy Moore.
...
If we assume that the methodology described in the article is at best incomplete, then what hypothesis would we advance to explain the observed voting behavior? It's easy to understand the lower support among women, but why the higher male support?
That means they have to ignore all the shit right in front of their eyes. So the follow-up question what are they smoking??I think wolfie is saying that he's a hebephile, not a pedo. A hebe is a someone who likes their fresh meat with a few pubes.
The conservative men I know around here (and the conservative husbands of my wife and daughter's friends) pretty much glom on to the idea that Kim Jong Orange is a wealthy successful businessman surrounded by beautiful women and that he loves his country and honors our military and veterans. They see him as someone who hears them, understands their anger and believes that he would change things for the better if only Democrats and RINOs would leave him alone. The most important thing to every single one if them is that they perceive that he is a real fighter for what he believes in and since they believe that he believes in them, they believe in him. They are largely ignorant of anything but local issues, hate liberals with a passion and treat their women (at least the ones who haven't divorced them yet) like crap. I can't tell you how many times my wife has come home from visiting a friend of hers, kissed me and thanked me for being who I am. When it first happened to me, I asked her what prompted her to say that and she told me about the asshole her friend has for a husband. I've since learned of a few other friends of hers that are in similar situations.
I'll leave out the details but suffice it to say that if I ever treated my wife like they do theirs, she would have kicked me to the curb a long time ago.
While all republicans do better with male voters than female, why is it that the male/female divide in voting is stronger with Trump than with other GOP candidates? And it isn't just fewer women voting for him, it's also more men. That means millions of men are voting for him who either voted for a democrat - like Obama - or didn't vote until Trump came along.
If we assume that the methodology described in the article is at best incomplete, then what hypothesis would we advance to explain the observed voting behavior? It's easy to understand the lower support among women, but why the higher male support?
Hey I used to own multiple firearms and I didn't vote for Trump.Real Manly Man list:
Voted in white misogynist for Prez
Own multiple firearms
Drive gas guzzling pick-up truck with full bed and crew cab.
Male friends of mine who still support him generally are suburban whites, well off, semi-closeted bigots, ignorant of history and our government (other than they hate Hillary and love liberal tears) and suddenly found politics when the orange clown descended the escalator.
Others I know are simply younger, like my son, but share most of the same characteristics as above.
Well I'm not going to defend either one of them as both of them should be ashamed of themselves.
I think wolfie is saying that he's a hebephile, not a pedo. A hebe is a someone who likes their fresh meat with a few pubes.
The conservative men I know around here (and the conservative husbands of my wife and daughter's friends) pretty much glom on to the idea that Kim Jong Orange is a wealthy successful businessman surrounded by beautiful women and that he loves his country and honors our military and veterans. They see him as someone who hears them, understands their anger and believes that he would change things for the better if only Democrats and RINOs would leave him alone. The most important thing to every single one if them is that they perceive that he is a real fighter for what he believes in and since they believe that he believes in them, they believe in him. They are largely ignorant of anything but local issues, hate liberals with a passion and treat their women (at least the ones who haven't divorced them yet) like crap. I can't tell you how many times my wife has come home from visiting a friend of hers, kissed me and thanked me for being who I am. When it first happened to me, I asked her what prompted her to say that and she told me about the asshole her friend has for a husband. I've since learned of a few other friends of hers that are in similar situations.
I'll leave out the details but suffice it to say that if I ever treated my wife like they do theirs, she would have kicked me to the curb a long time ago.
That means they have to ignore all the shit right in front of their eyes. So the follow-up question what are they smoking??
Try telling them you think Obama is white and wait for the response. Immediately point back to them
I get your point I just don't really agree with it, and personally I'm not that interested in arguing semantics over sexual predators that seem to like to prey on young females.
No, I understand he was just trying to correct what he perceived to be a misuse of terms. I'm disagreeing that it is a misuse as I believe Turmp has been accused of improper conduct with prepubescent girls too. Maybe I'm mistaken, though. His general demeanor and other accusations paints someone who acts a lot like a many child predators (where its not even about the sexual aspect, its about him exerting his power over them).
Yeah there's lots of shitty guys out there, which is why I don't care when I get called as being "too sensitive" for calling out shitty behavior. I'm certainly not perfect and I used to be typical guy, making light of sexual assault, objectifying women to an excessive degree, but a lot of that helps enable the worse behavior (guys acting on it). I've had people complain about me calling out their behavior on here, and I'm fine with it, because even if I'm wrong, it is making them think. And that's what is needed. Take the thing about the radio station banning "Baby Its Cold Outside", as even if you think that's excessive (to ban it over some iffy lyrics) it is making people actually actively fucking think about that stuff. There's lots of movies and music and other things that make me uncomfortable now. Like Bill Murray's character in Ghostbusters.
