Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 8409 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 2/15/2019 11:26:18 AM
Trump declares the border wall a national emergency... and immediately admits it’s not an emergency:

“I want to do it faster. I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/430215-trump-says-he-didnt-need-to-declare-emergency-but-wanted-faster

He’s finally gone full retard. He was warned not to do, but did it anyway. But apparently this is no act and he can’t help himself.

Nevertheless, I imagine the Supreme Court that he’s packed with cultists will look at these words and say: “Whatever, he still has the power to declare this emergency because of the way the law is written” – like they did with the travel ban. Fortunately, it could take the rest of his administration (Mueller or not) for the case to make it there – and I’m sure most Republicans don’t want them to rule that way, because it sets up the possibility of the next Democratic president doing the same thing and getting away with it, too. You reap what you sew, gentlemen.

“I’ve said this before and will so again – there is very little difference between either party on economic and foreign policy issues. The largest differences are social issues.”

That’s only recently become true, or at least appear to be true. Trump is so absurd on economic and foreign policy issues, it makes the traditional Republican and “mainstream” Democratic views look almost identical – 7 years ago, Romney and Obama seemed nothing alike, despite Romney being fairly moderate by Republican standards. Now I swear Romney and Obama are in the same party. We’ve gone from Tweedledum and Tweedledee to Tweedledum, Tweedledee and Tweedlesuperdum (Trump). You know, the key word in “progressive” is “progress.” This is the United States – the government was designed for incremental change, not radical change. We got Medicare, then Medicaid, then Obamacare, and probably pay-in-Medicare or early-join-Medicare or some other intermediate step before we get to true universal health care. That’s just the way it is. I hate to see those without good health insurance suffer as much as the next guy, but AOC and Bernie making a bunch of noise just ain’t gonna get it done in this system.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 263 (view)
 
Any expectations of who would be attracted to you?
Posted: 2/15/2019 5:43:30 AM
“To the beautiful blond with the black shirt (didn't catch her name) I feel you sister!”

There’s a world of difference between any profile pics I’ve ever seen from MyTrueCompanion in our LONG history of coexisting on POF together and SOME of your profile pics. Cleavage isn’t really the problem. Both of you are too pretty and voluptuous not to attract a gigantic brood of men no matter what you’re wearing. The big issue is your couple of pictures in which you’re lying on a bed in borderline lingerie with a come hither look – and even then, the issue is not the men you’re attracting with that look, but the men you’re *turning off* with that look. You’re basically saying you want a better quality of man to contact you, but many “better quality” men who have no issue whatsoever with you wearing nice cleavage-baring tops and shorter skirts in public will look at those pictures and, rightly or wrongly, decide you are not the type of girl for them – I mean, the third word in your “About Me” (moral) many would consider a bit of a contradiction to your pictures, unfortunately.

Now *I* am not one of those guys. But I still might not contact you, because I might not believe you are real. You gotta understand, there’s a lot of that going on with this site: scams, fake profiles, etc. And the sexier a woman dresses (or not dresses) in her pics, the more likely she is fake. In your case, I’d probably lean toward “real,” because you have multiple pictures and a fairly complete profile, but I also have 12 years of experience on this site spotting fakes – some “great guy” that’s been on here a couple of weeks and been scammed/attempted scammed several times might not realize the telltale signs of a fake profile beyond “sexy pics” and skip right on by yours just based on the main telltale sign, “sexy pics.”

You’re probably going to ignore me because you think I’m just “slut-shaming” you, but if you knew me better, you’d know I’m the last guy on earth to do that to a woman – hell, I have actually lost interest in women because they never dressed sexy around/with me. I’m just trying to be helpful by giving you a male point-of-view that you haven’t considered, because for the most part I feel like you’re just getting a bunch of judgment from a bunch of Victorians. (BTW, your profile wording in general is now very positive and enchanting for pretty much any guy -- I'm pretty sure it was different with quite a bit of negativity when I read it before and a couple of posts in this thread suggests that.)
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 244 (view)
 
Any expectations of who would be attracted to you?
Posted: 2/14/2019 12:18:47 PM
“I actually feel bad for you but you'll learn.”

If she were 13 or 23, I’d say, maybe, probably, but she’s middle aged. I mean, she looks AMAZING for her age and those quickly zipping through her profile might not even realize how old she is but still, she’s not a naïve adolescent – she’s probably the parent of a naïve adolescent or 2.

And with that in mind, she’s so pretty and young-looking for her age that she has a significant advantage over her direct competition. My fellow forties brethren that spend most of their time pursuing 20-somethings likely find her confusing. Similar to how women my age find me confusing because I look as young as their sons.

There is validity to every argument made here including hers. I agree with her in that if I were some guy who hated having my significant other dress that sexily all the time (I’ve been assured there are such men in this world though I don’t understand them at all), then I’d probably feel betrayed if I started dating her based on some misleading bland pictures on her profile and had to ask her to change or wear a coat before every date, or trip to the store. If that’s who she is, then it’s best to know that upfront. But at the same time, she has to be acutely aware at this point in her life (20+ years into online dating and social media histories) what sort of reaction and interest such pictures will get, and complaining about it will get her nowhere: men are going to be men, Me Too be damned. She’s just going to have to filter through a bunch of “pervs” to get to the right guys, just like nearly all other women, to perhaps a lesser degree. True “pervs” harass and assault little children and the elderly in addition to her – what she wears and otherwise looks like matters not much to them.

As for some real advice beyond “suck it up,” as someone else pointed out, best way to avoid such harassment on POF while still being somewhat true to yourself is to hide your profile, do your own searching and contact the men you would want to contact you. That, of course, requires a thick skin, and I hate to say it, but man-like courage – I mean, I’ve been rejected tens of thousands of times on POF, so it just mostly rolls off my back at this point, but most women don’t initiate and a single rejection from that “perfect guy” becomes very damaging to those types and makes them not want to do it again, and I’m afraid you just can’t be like that. Another bit of advice I would also offer for POF is while a little cleavage/tightness and leg are probably more helpful than harmful to your cause, black lacey nylon stockings and a come-hither look on the bed is likely to turn a lot of the right (for you) guys off, because that goes from being public sexy to bedroom sex in public – really, do you wear that anywhere in public besides a Halloween party or some alternative night club? Is that really the “public you” the guy would get to know first? Unless, of course, you’re an Instagram model, in which case, proceed. Gotta keep those followers up to pay the bills!

But the best advice I could give you is screw POF and head over to Bumble and/or Tinder, because unlike POF, “pervs” can’t send you messages on those apps unless you approve them to do so by matching with them. That won’t fix all your problems, but it will fix most of them, no matter what you wear in your profile pics. You may still swipe right on what you consider an attractive looking guy who says all the right things in his profile but turns out to be a perv or a jerk or ahole, but at least he’s the only guy being a problem instead of you getting 100 messages a day from guys that make your hair curl, most of them saying things that make your skin crawl.

So if it’s really not all about the attention in the forums or the ego stroke of getting 100 messages a day from guys even if you don’t like any of them, then do those things, and your OLD life will greatly improve while still being true to yourself.

Happy Valentine's Day! 11 in a row and 22 out of 24 of me not having a date. That used to bother me but now I guess it just rolls off my back...
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 8406 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 2/13/2019 4:43:36 AM
"Maybe you should trust what see at Trump's rallies."

You're referring to Trump working up his supporters into such an anti-media frenzy that they beat up reporters? Yes, I trust my eyesight on that, indeed.

"#Fakepolls didn't work out for you so well last time."

"Last time" was the midterms -- the polls (and special election results) consistently predicted about 40 House seats flipping and the Democrats taking over, which is exactly what happened. The 3 states that put Trump over the top (Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin) plus Iowa and Kansas flipped HARD to the Democrats in the midterms. Furthermore, let's not forget, Trump lost the popular vote by either 3 million or 10 million, depending on how you look at it -- and there is no question even by his own biggest supporters that he has grown less popular since then and has picked up very few fans. Utah is the only state I see him actually picking up support compared to 2016 -- there are some Mormons who absolutely couldn't stomach him the first time around and thought he would betray religious conservatives that probably still can't stand him but are more willing to pull the lever for him, given whatever the alternative is, especially if there's no 3rd party Mormon running against him this time. All other states, he will lose support, which he absolutely cannot do in PennMichWisc (70,000 total vote victory) and win the electoral college.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 8404 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 2/12/2019 2:36:28 PM
This has to scare Trump at least a little -- and certainly if he's too insane to be scared of anything, then the GOP as a whole:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/heres-how-trumps-approval-ratings-have-changed-in-each-state-in-the-2-years-hes-been-president/ar-BBTsSs3?ocid=ientp

Just look at all that red in the second map (2019 net approval rating) vs. the first map (Jan 2017). The dude is upside down in some of the reddest states in the union, and lost 10+ points in all of those he's not upside down in (like Wyoming and West Virginia). And less you think these polls are fake news, don't forget how the midterms we just had went.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 85 (view)
 
What are things you see in dating profiles that will make you sadly skip past them?
Posted: 2/12/2019 1:33:06 PM
I actually just mentioned this in my last post in an unrelated thread, but:

Just like I will SADLY skip by any otherwise awesome profile that includes preferences that eliminate me from consideration, I will also SADLY skip by profiles that include any physical preferences that I meet. Because there's no normal, sane woman on earth looking for a man who looks like me. I am the complete antithesis of the prototypical physically attractive man.

Muscles excluded. But I have to tell you, I'm having trouble remembering any woman ever saying in her profile "I like/prefer muscular men" -- rather I've seen quite a few profiles in which the woman said she was not interested in dating obese/overweight men. Those I've sent messages to, so long as they were polite about it -- that's completely different from race and height and eye color and whatnot because being muscular and being obese/overweight are largely (not completely and always but largely) controllable and part of one's personality, not some completely uncontrollable physical trait. In fact, quite a few women in these forums have said that muscles on a man are indicative of what they consider a NEGATIVE personality trait, and it's not really about the appearance they have issue with.

Anyway, on the rare occasion I do come across a profile in which a woman indicates a preference for some physical trait I have, I immediately start wondering about her psychological makeup, because that's just not normal to have a preference for any of my uncontrollable physical characteristics. (You may ask, who do I expect to date me if not someone who is attracted to my physical characteristics? That is the million dollar question, isn't it? As far as I can tell, the women who did date me, long long ago, did so DESPITE my physical characteristics. For example, my ex-girlfriend knew me for a year before deciding she was attracted to me -- she definitely didn't look at me at first sight and say "This is the hot hunk I've been looking for all my life." And I'm not just reading her mind -- she actually said something like to me when I finally asked her, more than a year into our relationship, why she decided to date me. I got a similar impression from others I've dated.)
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 232 (view)
 
Women Don't Know What They Want
Posted: 2/12/2019 1:13:09 PM
“A profile is NOT seeking to sell services.”

I agree with Norwegian: you are selling yourself with your profile. Legally, you’re certainly in a better position to discriminate with an OLD profile than you are with a store, but aesthetically and morally, both APPEAR to be about equally as repugnant, which is just not something a smart person does with either a business or a profile in modern times.

But your concern really isn’t from the seller’s point-of-view (after all, you call it allowable idiocy) – it’s the buyer’s. If you don’t understand why I would find “NO BLACKS!!!!!” on a profile (or store front) to be offensive, then I don’t even know what to tell you. I suppose you would have told me to just “slide right on by” those Klan members burning the cross in my uncle’s yard when I was a kid. Or my classmates that threatened me with lynching if I didn’t stop talking to white girls. Hell, they’re just words, right? Surely if we ignore these kinds of people, they’ll just go away. Or elect Trump. One or the other.

But do pray tell me why you can take offense to me labeling somebody we both agree is crude, crass and stupid as a “raging b*tch” if I can’t take offense to the same person screaming “NO BLACKS!!!!!!” in her profile?

“I’ve a friend on here who was/is very clear on her profile about who she is and what she wants… One thing guys are surprised about when they meet her is how truthful her profile is.”

One of the best things about being a woman is that you can be a “raging b*tch” right off the bat and still keep the interest of many men, which is, as we men readily admit, our own fault. I mean, to be perfectly honest, although I can’t recall off the top of my head sending a message to a woman I considered a “raging b*tch” in her profile, I’ve definitely dated and would continue to date women I discovered had really “bad” personalities, so long as they were attractive enough and I was desperate enough (which is, pretty much, always). However, I’ve never sent a message to even a polite-sounding woman who said something along the lines of “I prefer black men,” partially because I assume we would have very little in common but also just because that feels REALLY sketchy to me. And I’ve only come across this about 3 or 4 times out of the many hundreds of thousands of profiles I’ve browsed through in 2+ decades of OLD, but every very rare time I saw “I prefer short men,” I immediately knew I was dealing with a woman with serious psychological problems and quickly moved on to the next profile, regardless of what she looked like, because that’s just serious deviancy.

I remember telling this to my best friend once, and she said “And this is why you’re alone. That would be like me rejecting guys who are attracted to short voluptuous Hispanic women.” To which I responded: “Just how many guys have you gone out with that the first words out of their mouth were: ‘I’m attracted to short voluptuous Hispanic women’?” Which is one of the biggest differences between OLD (which she’s never been on since she’s been married more-or-less continuously since the 90s) and real life. This is just a very seriously artificial way to start a relationship -- not a WRONG way, just an artificial one, and writing your personal preferences for a significant other in a profile just makes it that much more artificial.

“Some of the posters above claim to be those things but their comments from their forum history are the exact opposite of what they claim to be.”

If there’s one thing I’ve never claimed to be in these forums, it’s “nice.” Indeed, I’m a deeply disturbed jerk. But you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t put that in my profile. I don’t want to come off as a raging b*tch.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 5390 (view)
 
What good things has Trump accomplished?
Posted: 2/12/2019 12:07:03 PM
“Exposed the biased media”

What the hell are you talking about? Fox News was created to counter the “biased media” all the way back in 1996. George W. Bush and his allies spent half of his administration complaining about the treatment of the “liberal media” and the rise of the “radical left.” How can you cult members believe Trump’s bluster – you seriously believe he invented or is responsible for everything he claims he is?

The good thing about so many progressive Democratic candidates is that they’ll undoubtedly split that vote, leading to the one or two supposed “moderates” like Biden rising to the top – like Trump rose to the top by his opponents splitting the sane vote in the Republican Party. Nevertheless, most of the progressives, especially a minority progressive, would likely easily beat Trump, because he’s gotten almost to that point of no return, whereas polls are in the 60% area of “anybody but Trump” – and that’s BEFORE Mueller recommends impeachment.

“Anyone want to explain how these racists ended up in the Democrat party?”

Northam and Herring can wear all the blackface they want so long as they have pro-black policies. Ed Gillespie may never have touched a drop of blackface, but his policies as governor would have set black people back by decades. Republican Senate Majority Leader Tommy Norment edited tons of blackface into his high school yearbook AND has been pursuing anti-black policies for years in the state – I think Virginia blacks are far more concerned about him than Northam or Herring. After all, isn’t it Trump cultists claiming they don’t care how many porn stars he sleeps with and pays off, so long as he’s installing conservatives on the Supreme Court? Then why do you think blacks in Virginia care what Northam wore dozens of years ago so long as he’s enacting pro-black policies right now? Robert Byrd was actually a leader in the Klan as a young man, for God’s sake, but largely voted for pro-black policies in his later years, despite really having no need to do so since he was elected by lily white West Virginia. Worry more about the right thing right now rather than the wrong thing back then.

(On a personal note: my best friend, an Italian-Cuban woman, was once married to a white guy whose favorite Halloween costume as recently as the early 2000s was Aunt Jemima, complete with black face. Having met him numerous times, I don’t think he’s much of a racist. Just like most black face-wearing white guys, largely ignorant of history and rather tone deaf. Anybody besides me see Spike Lee’s “Bamboozled”? That was one of his more underrated movies in my opinion, more interesting than but not necessarily better than “Black KKKlansman.”)

Purplerider: I actually agree with you – not necessarily about you being a racist, but that Trump didn’t “separate our country along racial, economical, religious, and gender identified lines” – he just exploited the separation that was already there along those lines. I personally tend to doubt your hatred toward Obama had much if anything to do with race, but unfortunately many of your brethren decided they could hate him for both his politics AND his race. I was never all that surprised that Republican acquaintances would say something racist about Obama in my presence, but once the “Obama monkey” memes started popping up in my Facebook feed, I knew we were in new territory (by which I mean, OLD territory again, as in 1920s), where it was now okay to be publicly racist, with your name attached to it, IN WRITING. This was before Trump became the birther-in-chief, though he didn’t even come up with that one himself.

Here’s my thing: you can express displeasure with Obama’s policies and not be racist, but if you don’t also object to the racist things said about Obama at the same time, or for that matter the racist things that Trump says, then don’t be surprised if you get accused of being a racist despite not being one. Many people assume, correctly or not, that silence on such matters is Complicity (the new Ivanka fragrance).
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 5386 (view)
 
What good things has Trump accomplished?
Posted: 2/11/2019 1:53:22 PM
Technically, the opposite of “conservative” is “liberal,” but “liberal” has become so negatively connotative (and easy to disparage, such as “libs,” “libbies” and “libtards”) that I prefer “progressive,” even though “liberal” and “progressive” aren’t perfect synonyms. “Progressive” and “reactionary” are perfect antonyms, though, and reactionary is definitely an apt label for what Trump is attempting to do.

An addendum on what I just wrote about the effect Trump’s had on a number of institutions and also what Doremi said: I took several political science classes in college, almost enough to get a concentration, and am obviously quite well self-taught since then, often overloading myself on political sites, publications and broadcasts. Yet, until Trump took office, even I didn’t realize the extent of presidential power in regards to the overall executive branch. There were many career employees at departments such as Justice, EPA, Interior, etc. who had been there 20, 30, 40 years, serving Democrats and Republicans alike completely without controversy who suddenly lost their jobs or felt compelled to commit subordination due to the extreme and highly unusual actions of Trump-appointed heads.

Even more unexpected: the limits of Congressional oversight on the executive branch. Theoretically if we elect a new president and quickly discover we made a serious mistake, we should be able to at least essentially cut his administration short 2 years later with the election of a Congress to counter his nefarious efforts. It felt like that happened to Clinton in 1994, Bush in 2006 and Obama in 2010. Yet because of many of the legally questionable ways Trump is using his cabinet and their departments, they’re largely just continuing to function as they were before the election. Because Trump’s party still controls the Senate, he can still do whatever he wants to do with his appointments that eventually pull the department strings, and there’s nothing the overwhelmingly Democratic House can do about it, short of killing the funding, and we saw how well that worked in the shutdown. They can hold all the hearings they want, but in the end, if they want the government to continue functioning properly (however low of a bar that is), they have no choice but to approve funding for Trump’s minions to do what the Democrats don’t want them to do.

I don’t very often say I was wrong about something, because it’s not often that I am, but one of my main philosophies in the run-up to the 2016 election was that the president is not particularly powerful beyond the appointments of judges, so the most important reason to vote for a president was for judges – I had based that philosophy on the behavior of nearly ALL previous presidents in regards to their cabinets and departments. You’ll have to excuse me for not anticipating we could elect a president as unethical and as brazen as Trump. Treating the Justice department like his own personal law firm, threatening (and possibly following through) on declaring national emergencies when he can’t get his way in Congress, destroying decades and centuries old alliances in favor of authoritarian countries... and technically having the power to do all these things that no president before him would have given an inkling of a thought to. I’m sure his cult will say “YAAAAAAY!” to that, but the Founding Fathers would weep.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 11 (view)
 
I'm Getting Hammered by Spambots
Posted: 2/11/2019 12:08:56 PM
"The last couple of months I'm getting hammered by spambots - sending messages, favoriting me, viewing my profile. It's taking up too much of my time."

I'm not leaving over this, but this has also been my recent experience. I've been on here for 12 years and almost never experienced a scam profile prior to last year. The past few months, I've received more first contact emails than all previous years combined: every single one of them beautiful women (sometimes fully clothed, sometimes not) with a single picture, an age that usually doesn't match their appearance, a single line profile description that is as generic as it gets and the generic "Hey there" message women can use that men can't. Most of the onslaught happens when I first log in during the mornings. And a couple hours later, all the views, messages and profiles have disappeared. I suspect with POF's declining popularity, the site's monitors (the dating site -- not the forums, which haven't had real monitors in years) have been reduced by Match Corp and the policing has declined, plus if those people are based in Vancouver as they used to be, it makes sense that it would be least-policed overnight and in the mornings for Eastern Standard Time users, because the majority of the monitors probably don't come to work until 10 or 11A our time.

I remember in the distant past when guys would complain about scams while I never got any such emails, and I'd be like, am I really so undesirable that even scams and spam don't think I'm worth contacting? Which seemed counterintuitive, as it's the most undesirable that are the most desperate. But we're not stupid -- you really think we're going to believe a topless model half our age wants to start a relationship with us? But they were getting pretty smart on Tinder and I almost got fooled by a couple of those -- they built full profiles with 5-6 pictures of the same cute but not supermodelesque girl, dressed completely normally with completely normal description, and the first message I got from such matches was just a pretty standard "Hey, thanks for matching! How's it going?" But after I enthusiastically responded, the next message seemed equally stiff and generic and not exactly responding to what I said... and then the next message even less so. At that point, I knew I was dealing with a bot, but decided to keep going to see what the payoff was. And it was, after 5 or 6 messages: "Hey, I don't feel comfortable talking on this weird app. Why don't you contact me at SCAM USER NAME at SCAM SITE?" Good job, fellas -- you almost had me! If only you had used a real person to respond to me instead of a bot (later I got other matches that sent me the exact same responses I'd gotten from the first one no matter what response I sent, so I knew for sure it was a bot, and I started messing with them, sending them absurd details about my life and fourth wall comments).
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 5384 (view)
 
What good things has Trump accomplished?
Posted: 2/11/2019 11:49:23 AM
“With this thought in mind, the man has managed to get a LOT of people off their butts and get involved in OUR system of governance.”

On a similar note, the GREATEST thing Trump has accomplished so far is ending 8 years of Republicans controlling the House of Representatives, which just 2 years ago seemed like school boy fantasy due to extreme gerrymandering. Because of him, some districts that had been blood red for decades flipped blue. Because of him, blood red Kansas elected a Democratic governor, Deep South Georgia and Florida nearly elected black progressive governors and the vast majority of famer-oriented Iowans voted for Democratic representatives, nearly flipping Steve King’s district in the process. Because of him, as he himself pointed out during the SOTU, a huge wave of women flooded the House. And because of him, it seems unlikely he is going to be re-elected.

Still, though this is indeed approaching the “burn it all down so we can start over” attitude of Bernie supporters that helped will Trump into office, none of this makes up for the nearly irreversible effect he’s already had on and will continue to have on the environment, the climate, foreign relations, civil rights, civil liberties and the courts. The country still would have been better off with Clinton elected, even if it cemented a conservative Congress – she could have done more good from that disadvantage than the good that has come from Trump being president (from a progressive point-of-view).
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 210 (view)
 
Women Don't Know What They Want
Posted: 2/8/2019 7:47:10 AM
“I don’t get it. Same profile except of POF she’s a raging **** BECAUSE she adds her preferences but in the next paragraph you say this could make the experience more efficient for men?”

It is a contradiction, isn’t it? Let’s face it: every strategy, every format will lead to some frustration. Is it better to have my time wasted or to feel insulted? Would I rather be shot or poisoned?

At this point in my 12 year POF “career,” I don’t really mind having my time wasted. Why? Because there are so few options left – profiles of women I’d seriously be interested in dating are now far and few between, because there are so few single women left in my area whose age parameters I fall into, and most of those that are left have something seriously wrong with them. I’m rarely ever first contacting more than 10 women a week these days – how much time and effort does that take? But 10 years ago, even 5 years ago, when there were many times more women in this area whose age parameters I fell into, I was sending out dozens of first contact messages a week – it was like a part time job. That was taking up tons of my time and required a lot of effort, so back then, messaging a woman I had absolutely no chance with (but didn’t know it from her profile) was an annoying, frustrating experience, because I could have better spent that time and effort on some other woman that I did have a chance with, as there were just so many options I never could contact them all. So although seeing “NO BLACKS!!!!” plastered all over a profile might feel insulting, I didn’t really have time to dwell on it. Now I have TONS of time to dwell on it, and in fact these same women keep coming up in my searches over and over again, because there are so few women in general left, and when they change their main profile pic, I oftentimes don’t realize I already clicked on them and have to experience the “insults” yet again.

“That’s a pretty low bar for ‘raging ****’”

Is it now? I mean, you seem like a fairly progressive white woman. If you walked up to a store in current times and saw a sign on the door that said “NO BLACKS!!!!!” or even “Sorry, white people only,” you wouldn’t be PO’ed? Heck, you’d probably call the federal DA or the media and report it. Hey, it’s just the store’s preference! You think it feels any different for someone of color to see that “sign” on a person’s profile?

Again, I’d like to think there was some tactful, non-insulting way to express such a preference in a description area... but really, there isn’t. Outside of hardcoded preference filters created by the site.

And again, any reasonably astute person would realize what stating such preferences looks like and also realize how unnecessary it is to do so. Which is why I immediately question the motives of such people. Most especially with race/ethnicity, but even height, income, religion, body type have a lot of grey areas. And I say that as someone who some women probably think SHOULD be putting my body type preference in my profile so they won't waste their time contacting me, as I'm definitely not going to date any morbidly obese women. But something tells me I'd probably get some hate mail with "No fatties!" or even just "I prefer women who aren't obese" in my profile. Or worse, scare away some slightly overweight woman not sure if she qualifies as "obese" or an attractive athletic woman who thinks what I wrote shows that I'm "shallow" or something. Just not worth it -- I can always just ignore the emails from women I don't find attractive.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 206 (view)
 
Women Don't Know What They Want
Posted: 2/7/2019 3:18:51 PM
“I've also seen some profiles where the woman wants to date black men only. So it works both/all ways.”

Well, I did say in that very paragraph you quoted: “I obviously agree with most of the others here: no matter how politely you put such filters, even if it doesn’t disqualify me (like I’ve seen a couple of ‘BLACK GUYS ONLY!!!’), it’s a complete and total turnoff”

It’s actually pretty difficult to say what “preferences” couldn’t be interpreted negatively in open-ended form, even by those that they don’t affect. It has to be something super-generic to the point that it’s meaningless: “I prefer to date cute, intelligent, honest, kind men” – okay, that’s not going to offend anybody, because all those terms are up for interpretation – EVERY guy probably thinks he is or could pass as one of those, except maybe the dishonest ones, who don’t care and will claim they’re honest anyway. You start getting specific, you start treading dangerously: “I prefer to date college-educated men who look like Zach Effron and have never lied to any women and broken any hearts” – right off the bat, you’re gonna get the “Hey, what’s wrong with guys that don’t have a fancy piece-of-paper – that don’t mean we’re not smart!!!” people up in arms and it just goes downhill from there. That’s why it’s best just to describe yourself and what you like to do, which should be enough to strike up the interest of the right man/woman without offending those you could never be interested in dating along the way: just ignore their emails.

Of course, I’m talking about POF’s open-ended type format. Match’s hard-coded multiple choice filters are completely different. For one thing, Match is a pay site and there aren’t as many Neanderthals and bottom feeders hanging out there that like to cause trouble. But more than that, it’s just more difficult to get offended by hard-coded selections than open-ended wording. I remember coming across the same woman’s profiles on both POF and Match, the latter first. On Match she had a couple of completely unobjectionable description information paragraphs, mostly describing herself and a little on her ideal mate, all personality traits. But I was disqualified from messaging her because her minimum height selected was 5’10” (even though she was only 5’2” herself, shorter than me) and she had only selected “White” for ethnicity options. I just shrugged and moved on to the next one. But when I got to her POF profile, since there aren’t any hard-coded places to choose such filters/preferences, she decided to tack them into her open-ended description area (which was otherwise the same as it was on Match) – something like “Sorry, but I only date WHITE men. And 5’10 and up, please – just my preference! I like ‘em tall!”

So in her Match profile, she was just another woman who wasn’t interested in dating somebody like me. In her POF profile, she was a RAGING B*TCH.

I’ve also had the reverse experience with Match and POF. That is, I’ll see a woman’s POF profile and she’ll mention nothing about her preferences, leading me to message her because we seem like a good match and she didn’t disqualify me. But then I’ll later stumble across her Match profile, and she’ll have a 6 foot minimum selected or race or religious requirements I don’t meet, and I’ll be like “Damn, wasted a message on that woman and didn’t even know it until now – no wonder she never responded.” So, yeah, sure, women putting their preferences in their POF profile might very well make the experience more efficient for men, but I don’t think it’s worth it, for women or men, just because there’s almost no tactful way you can state many preferences in an open-ended format, but dating site-created filters are by their very definition tactful and convey the same helpful information in a much less offensive manner.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 204 (view)
 
Women Don't Know What They Want
Posted: 2/7/2019 5:59:40 AM
“PS If fielding her E-mails was burdensome here is a clue hide your photo and log out!!! I'd rather show my heterosexual male friend all those who desire me!! And complain I am so wanted Wooah is me>> To funny like telling everybody every time a stranger whistles or hoots -LOL telling the story in the guise of offense when you don't belong to a social change movement!”

To be fair, that came about when I stumbled across her profile during my own regular browsing and sent her a message as a joke, but she never responded to it. The next time I saw her in a social situation, I joked with her about not responding to my message, and her reply was that she never saw my message because she gets so many messages that she can’t read them all (and was honestly getting a little annoyed with the site – she deleted her profile shortly thereafter). Which I compared to my one legitimate first contact message received every 3 months situation at the time (oh, for those days – eventually I would go a year from one first contact message to the next), which I guess led to her attempting to prove that was actually happening to her, though I believed her before she showed me because I’d been in the forums trenches long enough at that point to know that does happen to women like her (heck, good ol’ Markus used to actually mention it every now and then when he was active on the message boards) and figured that’s why she never responded – I was just messing with her. Nevertheless, it was pretty cool to actually check out the site from an attractive woman's point-of-view -- witnessing such things first hand is more fascinating than just reading or hearing about them.

BTW, I’m pretty sure this is the reason why Bumble is taking off like few other dating apps/sites in history, even having a Super Bowl ad featuring Serena Williams (not entirely sure I understand that one – fairly sure Serena didn’t meet her husband on Bumble). On Bumble, women only get messages from men those women have expressed interest in – and men can only message women that message them first, so that cuts down greatly on the massive inefficiency of POF for both men and women. That said, the majority of my rare matches on Bumble are apparently “swipe right accidents” by the women, because the majority of my matches delete our match or let our match expire before messaging me, so that’s a little annoying. But overall, a much better experience than sending out thousands of articulate but unanswered messages on POF, and if a woman does send me a message on Bumble but later ghosts me, I know it’s because I said something stupid, not because I’m physically repulsive to her (which is undoubtedly the case with most of my POF rejections), so that makes me feel a LITTLE better. Just got to stop saying stupid things! (Of course, one woman’s stupid thing is another woman’s Shakespeare… dating is a very inexact science.)
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 201 (view)
 
Women Don't Know What They Want
Posted: 2/6/2019 4:04:01 PM
I’ve never really understood so many people’s need to filter out certain other people with your profile *on this site* (Match, eH, etc. are a completely different story). Considering there is no rule you must reply back to the sender (or for that matter, even read the message), the desire to filter would suggest the person attempting to do so is getting so many messages that he/she can’t handle the volume. Very members of this site are having that issue outside of some women 18-29-ish, and even then, only those in major population areas. I’d like to meet the man getting dozens of first contact emails a day, and even most fairly attractive women over 30 are getting a controllable amount of messages.

Occasionally I will come across a woman’s profile that contains an apology about not answering all messages because she gets so many, and such women are always young and VERY attractive. Years ago during POF’s heyday, one of my female friends in my major metro was on here: very pretty, modelesque, blonde, white, average height, early 20s at the time. SHE needed as many filters as she could get – she logged on for me and showed me what she was dealing with – over 100 emails already that day, and more just kept popping into her box every minute she stayed logged in. It was just absurd. No doubt it didn’t matter what she wrote on her profile, the activity was going to be like that – what she needed was more hard coded filters, like the age filter that doesn’t allow contact at all outside of the limits set.

But the vast majority of us can easily deal with (or ignore) the amount of messages we get from “undesirables.” Writing your preferences in your profile seems mostly like a misguided act of frustration, or sometimes just an outright maliciousness toward certain people. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen some variety of “I’m not a racist but I only date white men.” (No good ever began with “I’m not a racist but…”) My favorites are the ones that have “NO BLACKS!!!!” in the freakin’ header. Really, getting a few messages from some black guys you could just ignore is so disturbing to you that you have to scream it at the top of your lungs – and you actually think that’s going to accomplish what you want it to accomplish??? I obviously agree with most of the others here: no matter how politely you put such filters, even if it doesn’t disqualify me (like I’ve seen a couple of “BLACK GUYS ONLY!!!”), it’s a complete and total turnoff, not the least of which is because it suggests the woman is pretty stupid to think it’s a good idea to put such things in her profile – which I don’t have a problem with dating such women, unless it’s MEAN stupid.

As for the original subject: as I’ve said before, I’m sure a great deal of my 12 year dateless streak can be attributed to aging out of my demographic. Many younger women do not seem to know what they want, and nearly all of my dates who were in their teens and early 20s just seemed completely experimental – dating all kinds of guys, even freaks, just to see what they liked and didn’t like. Older women have accumulated a lifetime of dating/relationship experiences and have a very good idea of, if not so much exactly what they want, certainly what they don’t want. And I’m definitely not what women with experience want. Plus, it eventually just becomes a vicious cycle, feeding on itself: the handful of women who are single at this age tend to be the most selective women, or else they probably wouldn’t be single. I have no idea how old the OP was before he was deleted nor any of the women he dated, but if they were young, then his assessment seems accurate, but if they were older, then I suppose you have to start factoring in maturity.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 8389 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 2/5/2019 5:30:08 AM
“I will make this simple for you. Mormons are not like other Christians in many, many ways. The fact that Mormons are ‘disgusted’ by Trump...reinforces my belief that Trump is the perfect man for the job...for such a time as this.”

Yeah, I don’t know what that means. Point is, ALL conservative Christians have bellyached for years about how candidates’ character matters, but when the presidential candidate with the unquestionably worst character in major party election history just happened to be a Republican, only the Mormons stuck to their guns, while the other so-called Christians shouted “Hallelujah!” and sacrificed themselves to their new god without batting an eyelash.

“And Biden? No skeletons? None....except he likes to grope children.”

The phrase “skeletons in the closet” means behavior that is unknown to the public. Although you greatly exaggerate his actual behavior, Biden’s creepiness is widely known to the general public, yet his approval rating is still far above Trump’s and he wins almost every head-to-head matchup in polling. Point is, Biden’s been thoroughly vetted over the course of a 50 year political career including 8 years in the second highest profile job in the country, if not the world. It’s difficult to imagine what could possibly come to light at this point that would decrease his popularity. Maybe if there are actual pictures of him molesting puppies, though that’s more likely to come up with Trump than Biden, though in Trump’s case it wouldn’t matter: his conservative Christian cult would STILL vote for him.

“Oh and Fairfax seemes to have a #Metoo problem. #BelieveAllWomen! Or aren't we doing that this week?”

Well, certainly we do need some consistency. As soon as Trump resigns from the presidency and Kavanaugh resigns from the Supreme Court, then Fairfax should resign from the (presumed) governorship.

“All the people in VA were Duped by ‘Coonman’s’ Virtue Signaling. Yes, That Guy duped people! All those Simps in the Democratic Party.”

We’ve all been fooled a time or 2 by slick talking conmen with excellent cover skills – in fact, I believe Northam’s Republican opponent somehow completely missed those yearbook photos over the course of a 6 month campaign despite spending many millions investigating him. They must have been seriously fooled by him. But at least those fooled by Northam readily admit the man’s got some skills. Trump “fooled” 63 million people into believing he had the skills and temperament to be President despite the fact that he made no attempt whatsoever to hide the fact that he didn’t. Now you have to be REALLY stupid to fall for that.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 8385 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 2/4/2019 8:39:40 AM
Actually gonna start with Ralph Northam first, because that is the newest thing to have occurred: I don’t see ANY Democrats defending him and there is a nearly universal demand that he resign (and be, ironically, replaced by a black Lt. Governor, who would just be the nation’s fourth black governor since Reconstruction). This is quite different from Republican racists – Steve King still has the support of many of his constituents and many in his party, despite CURRENTLY being publicly racist, vs. Northam’s “youthful” indiscretions. Interestingly, my high school yearbook (I graduated many years after Northam but in a much more racist place) has numerous blatantly racist pics, but fortunately my backwoods redneck former classmates are so hillbilly dumb that none of them will ever be running for office... as a Democrat. As a Republican, they should have no problem getting elected from that area, even with an outright racist platform.

*

“Not before it came to light that she was being fed the questions to the democratic primary debates in advance...........not to mention the shennanigans her and Wasserman shultz were engaged in (such that Sanders demanded an apology prior to giving his endorsement).”

That, I will give you, although it’s difficult to say how much a debate affected voting patterns. I mean, by any sane person’s analysis, Trump got killed in ALL of his debates (primary and general), and yet kept winning. But, yes, that was arguably cheating by the DNC, and Clinton should have known better than to participate in it.

“and if the same number of minorities had come out in states like PA, MI............maybe she would not have lost those states..........after all, Trump won out by small margins.”

This is true – there have been numerous studies done about it. Although Clinton was much more popular with minorities than Trump, she was not as popular as Obama, and had they supported her to the extent they supported Obama, she would have won those states (I’m not saying they voted for Trump instead – rather large amounts just didn’t bother to vote). One could argue VA was close enough that she might not have won it without Kaine on the ticket, but most likely having a minority or Sanders on her ticket would have put her over the top in the close states she lost, so I consider the Kaine selection a very big mistake.

“You don't know f*k all about the Mormons!”

Republican candidate % by year:

2004: 72%
2008: 63%
2012: 73%
2016: 45%

Mormon percentage of Utah: 62%
Mormon percentage of the rest of the country: 2%

You tell me why Trump performed so badly vs. other candidates if it’s not that Mormons are disgusted by Trump in a way that other Christians are not?

“that is, if you're suggesting racism is one reason these whites went to Trump from Sanders.”

I was suggesting no such thing. In fact, you all have it pretty much backwards: blacks and Hispanics had much more to fear from a Trump presidency than whites, hence they were much more likely to stick with the party in the general election than whites were, regardless of their opinions on how Sanders was treated in the primary. Now why blacks and Hispanics were much less likely to support Sanders during the primary is another question entirely and not an easy one to answer (undoubtedly Clinton had a lot of goodwill with minorities from her husband’s presidency [despite the sentencing issues] whereas Sanders from lily white Vermont was unknown to them, plus I’m sure many blacks and Hispanics and quite a few whites supported Clinton just because they thought she had a much better chance to win). But also one that doesn’t matter for the discussion we were having: why some Sanders primary voters voted for Trump in the general election. That said, although there were definitely enough of them to swing the election, most studies show there weren’t THAT many more of them than normal and they were almost certainly offset by the never Trumpers in the GOP who voted for Clinton.

I don’t disagree with anything else you said, or any of the other people who said similar things. Certainly a lot of Sanders voters just wanted to see the world burn, and I had a few of those friends. And most of them are expressing serious regret (mostly for voting for Stein or sitting at home, not for voting for Trump).

“most never cared for politics until someone came along addressing our concerns”

And has he come through? Well, I guess if you’re getting farmers’ welfare that became necessary because of the tariff war, then maybe you’re fine with how he’s been addressing your concerns. But the worst possible sign for Trump from the last election was Iowa voting overwhelmingly for Democrats – in fact, Steve King was the only GOP Congressman who won, and he did so by a couple of points in an overwhelmingly red district. Iowa voted so overwhelmingly for Trump that everyone had decided it was no longer a swing state, but then Trump started the trade war...

“Are you saying that there's no such thing as Christian liberals who feel that adultery is a sin and yet still voted for Bill Clinton?”

The obvious, legal proof of Clinton being an adulterer didn’t become known to the public until after his second election. Yeah, sure, there were rumors and accusations and even lawsuits before then, but up until the blue dress, it was as easy for a Christian liberal to shrug off such things as the acts of political enemies as it is for Trump supporters to do now... despite overwhelming legal, audio and video evidence to the contrary. Because most of them just don’t care. The main difference, though, is that Democrats have not in years claimed to be some sort of “Christian family values” party whereas that is literally one of the Republican Party planks. As soon as Democrats start trying to legislate morality and turning the country into a theocracy, THEN you can accuse them of hypocrisy for supporting a Bill Clinton. Currently, that can only be a Republican thing (although we are talking about the parties as a whole here, not individuals – certainly there are some Republicans who aren’t part of the Christian Taliban).

“The way I see it..............the only hope for the Democrats is if they push through a centrist (like Biden"/ “Interestingly, Bill Maher opined this weekend we need a progressive not a centrist, a progressive with clear ideas of what the party stands for.”

So long as the Trump administration continues down this path, I highly doubt it matters what candidate the Democrats run. They could run a dog and claim it’s 35 in dog years, and still win. Again, I return to Iowa, where a hardcore liberal somehow won a red district in the last election -- I remember telling all the Trump cultists here that the special elections were a bellwether for things to come, despite the Democrats not winning very many of them, and nobody believed me, but I knew the 20 point swings extrapolated across the entire country would crush the GOP in the midterms, and that's exactly what happened. Support of Trump is currently a heavy albatross in the vast majority of the country, including many places where he was once a god. Beto, Kamala, Warren – whatever. That said, Biden (especially with a minority VP) is probably the best bet, not so much because he’s “centrist,” but because the people who trusted Obama trust him, and Obama is still quite popular and undoubtedly would have beat Trump in 2016. Furthermore, Biden has no skeletons left in his closet. It’s really difficult to imagine what would derail him. People look at him and automatically think: MANA (Make America Normal Again).
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 8364 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 2/1/2019 1:42:44 PM
“Liberals are trying to make an issue out of Trump going on a date with a porn star, ten years ago, where consensual sex happened between adults.”

As many have said before, the issue isn’t Trump having sex with a porn star AND carrying on a year-long affair with a Playmate shortly after his wife gave birth (unless you’re a conservative Christian and believe that to be a disgusting sin that you consider disqualifying from office... in which case, your support of Trump makes you a lowlife hypocrite – say what you want about Mormons and their strange cultish religion, but they’re a lot more true to their faith when it comes to Republican politicians than all the Protestants and Catholics who voted for Trump, as he couldn’t even get a majority of the vote in Utah, otherwise one of the reddest states in the union).

The issue is that he illegally paid them to be quiet about it in the middle of a campaign, knew it was illegal when he was doing it, then knowingly illegally attempted to cover it up and lied to the American people about the original act, the payoff AND the cover-up (otherwise we’d just talking about a campaign finance law violation that’s an FEC fine – instead he started piling on the felonies, mostly because he figured he had the power to get away with it). Even now he’s refusing to man up about the situation by avoiding discussing it with prosecutors or a Congressional committee, because he knows he’d tack on perjury to all the other laws he’s violated. Which is, of course, what got Clinton. If Trump was an actual honest man, worthy of being a role model to American youth, he wouldn’t be in this situation.

“I didn’t support Republicans on this.”

Really, now. Did you vote against any of them for engaging in that “witch hunt”?

“HRC did have a personal server to get around the system, destroyed evidence after a subpoena, completely cheated Bernie out of the Democrat Presidential Primary, and her campaign financed the Trump-Russia dossier used against Trump for a FISA warrant.”

That first thing is the one thing I cannot defend her against. Any excuses to the contrary ring hollow. But it’s interesting I can admit that, and no Trump worshipper can admit that any of the excuses for all of his obvious lies ring hollow. That said, Hillary’s server is, legally, at most a “process error.” You know, sorta like Ivanka using personal email for government business.

And I’m tired of hearing a bunch of whining about how Sanders was “cheated out of the Democratic nomination” – at least by Clinton. Clinton beat him by 4 million votes in the primaries. Just as Clinton beating Trump by 3 million votes in the general election is not insignificant, neither is that 4 million vote margin in the primary. Unless she’s perfected population mind control or you’re claiming 50 state governments engaged in some kind of Cuban-type election rigging, she would have been the winner under almost any circumstances. Sanders unquestionably had a lot of issues with minority voters, and the Democratic Party is a minority-powered party – that’s how the much more well-known Clinton was beaten by Obama in 2008. I don’t ever see anybody accusing Obama of cheating to beat her, and the rules were essentially the same. Now there is not much question the party leaders wanted Clinton to win, and the Superdelegate concept (which ultimately played not part in choosing the winner) is a bunk of anti-democracy junk. But in the end, Clinton had the support of blacks and Hispanics, while Sanders had the support of the type of wishy-washy white people that turned around and voted for the most anti-Sanders type person they could find in the general election.

This “dossier” crap originally funded by Republicans is nothing but a bunch of overblown hoopla. In the end, it had no effect on the election (as almost no one knew it existed until afterwards) and the legal proceedings it sparked were backed up by a lot of corroborating evidence that led to even more illegal and questionable Trump behavior that wasn’t even in it. Getting PO’ed that the dossier led to legal problems for Trump is like getting upset that a traffic stop for “weaving” led to the destruction of a drug cartel.

“https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-09-17/colleges-have-way-too-many-liberal-professors”

Yeah, that did not answer my question, because it was written by somebody else besides you – I asked what *you* would have felt in that *high school* class I was in.

"I don't necessarily agree the most dangerous but definitely the most mindless. "

The cults that were more dangerous by deeds and theories had FAR smaller numbers than Trump's cult -- after all, we never even came close to having a President Wallace, and his was probably the biggest cult in American history prior to Trump (close second: KKK in the 1920s).

*

I love how Trump is now saying that his intelligence leaders he said were "naïve" and needed to go back to school were "misquoted" by the press. I imagine they outright lied to him to save their necks after obviously contradicting them in their public testimony. Even if they really were misquoted by the press (which they weren't), then Trump has admitted that he didn't watch their testimony, read their reports or taking any briefings from them at the time he went crazy on Twitter -- he was just reacting to the "fake news" he was watching. What kind of president is that? It really is not farfetched that he could get us into a war (Venezuela?) based on what some manipulative media people were telling him (you know, like the ones that manipulated him into a shutdown) instead of what his intelligence and military people are telling him. Jesus, please just 2 more years (or less) of this -- if we can just make it that far, the planet might survive. Hopefully there are enough wife abusers on his staff to prevent him from signing off on World War III over an insult.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 3 (view)
 
Almost 40. No Relationships: Is it normal?
Posted: 1/30/2019 1:28:20 PM
It's okay to tell them you've never been married (which if you meet them from most dating sites, they'll already know) but there is absolutely no reason for anyone to bring up their relationship history during a date or while attempting to get someone to go on a date, unless you were originally "just friends" and evolved into dating interests... which is a very tricky thing to handle.

Admittedly, this is the one site I'm aware of that works against you in that philosophy, because there is actually a stupid question about your relationship history directly on your profile, and I do wonder if honestly answering that question has hurt my chances on this site, as it's most definitely true that women our age do not look favorably upon men with no relationship history. Since I hit my mid-30s, I've rarely ever come across a woman's profile with less than 5 years of relationship history and most have 10+ now (and have usually checked off "divorced"). But if you don't want to be a liar, nothing you can do about that -- it's the site's stupid rules. That's why you might be better off using almost any other site to date with.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 8355 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 1/30/2019 1:21:55 PM
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-calls-his-intelligence-people-naive/ar-BBSWGkF?ocid=ientp

The only thing I have to say about that is: you appointed all of them, so does that make you naïve for having done so instead of appointing people that would only espouse your views?

The Trump Cult is the most dangerous creation this country's ever seen. I imagine they're looking at this episode and saying "Trump taking his boys (and one girl) to the woodshed!" whereas any normal person would look at this episode and think "MY GOD... this egotistical moron really does think he knows more than his generals and intelligence officers -- and he's belittling them publicly! He needs psychological testing!" The only thing that can disembowel (but probably not kill) this cult is a complete and total shellacking in the next election.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 43 (view)
 
Why Are People Obsessed With Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?
Posted: 1/29/2019 4:15:10 PM
“ya, ya, I know, but Trump, but Trump, but Trump”

I’m just saying, your concern about civil discourse seems very hollow when you support someone incapable of civil discourse, and you shouldn’t be surprised if accused of hypocrisy.

“Hawking I agree with you on some of the name calling in here, who they look like etc. And both republicans and democrats are guilty so don't just be one sided here. I also have no problem with people calling hillary crooked because she is. If i am to describe what she looks like in a negative way, that would not be right, same with obama or any other republican or democrat.”

So you’re saying “My nice fat little Rosie” was wrong?

Most people who complain about the lack of civil discourse and name-calling but wholeheartedly support Trump defend him by claiming all he’s doing is punching back. Although it’s true most of those people were criticizing him or “accusing” him of something (aka, pointing out his actual behavior), almost none of them were calling him names. Basically he has an inability to respond to criticism in a civilized, adult, dignified, presidential manner. Which is something his biggest supporters love about him – he’s “one of them,” a street brawler, a bully-American. I’m fine with that, but those that complain about that type of behavior, but not about TRUMP’s behavior are far more disgusting than Trump’s fellow bully-Americans, and I have no idea how they’re able to live with themselves. Especially if they have children. Children that are probably turning into Covington boys. Or Joni Ernsts.

*****

As for the original topic, whatever. I’d certainly date her in a New York minute, but I definitely don’t want her to be president (unless the only alternative is Trump or anyone like him). She’s just way over the top. She’s like the kinder, liberal Trump (or I suppose, 1990s Trump – I’ll never let you Trump cult members forget he used to be a liberal Democrat!). But, yeah, socialism has been demonized beyond recognition. I am no supporter of absolute socialism and am quite a capitalist, but every country almost by definition has a little bit of socialism, and many countries with a lot of socialism are democratic and prosperous. In fact, for the most part socialism-haters are conflating democratic socialism with communist dictatorships and borderline calls like Venezuela. I’m actually surprised Trump is treating Maduro the way he is: he usually likes brutal strongmen that are attempting to impede democracy. There’s a fine line between Maduro and Kim.

"I am hoping Schultz run as an independent"

Of course you are. Pretty much guarantees Trump Term 2. Moderates and centrists and 2 party haters need to understand (and that last election should have been lesson #1) that the American election system was not designed to handle more than 2 parties, and almost inevitably the result of 3 strong candidates will be the least desirable candidate to the other 2 will rise to the top. If the United States required a majority of the popular vote, then a runoff would fix that problem. There's no fixing the electoral college. You just have to play the game with the rules you're given, and the rules say, no third party candidates.

"And Harris on freebies? Something like costing us 3 TRIILION dollars a year?? She speaks well but really listen to what she is saying on health care. "

Health insurance already costs us over 3 trillion dollars a year. We're already paying that. This is one of the very few cases in which capitalism is highly inefficient at accomplishing something. One insurance company paid for by the same fees, premiums and taxes people are already paying for insurance would be a much better system -- companies (besides maybe insurance companies) would be much happier if they didn't have to shoulder the insurance and management costs they currently deal with. I'm not sure "Medicaid or Medicare for All" is what will work, but certainly there is no way to make a pure capitalist system work. The incentives are all backwards and efficiencies all wrong. Health insurance being an employer thing in this country is nothing but an accident of history anyway that we shouldn't keep trying to force to work long after it was proven a bad idea. 100 years from now, our health insurance system will seem laughable -- or today, it is laughable, in all other countries.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 8349 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 1/29/2019 3:43:17 PM
“I generally don’t believe a narrative peddled by MSM because I’m aware of the bias trash that comes along with it.”

What “narrative” are you talking about? They put his Tweets on the screen, word-for-word with no editing. They play his speeches and on-camera ramblings on the air, word-for-word. You don’t have to listen to any commentary to realize the man sounds like a highly contradictory uneducated adolescent bigot – your writing is too good for you not to realize this (unlike, say, John), therefore you are being purposefully obtuse, or worse yet, do realize this but are covering for/defending the man just because you agree with his policies. So many of his own supporters and staff have reluctantly gone on the record admitting he is a liar, bully, foolhardy and likely a lawbreaker that it seems impossible that you don’t recognize this yourself, but like Orrin Hatch, you’re probably of the philosophy “Well, so what if he did break the law by paying off a bunch of porn stars? I like the way he’s running the country so I don’t care!” But but but Hillary’s emails!

“If Obama campaign officials were charged with the same Process Crimes as those from the Trump Campaign, I would think that it was a corrupt and tyrannical government.”

I highly doubt that, considering I’m sure you had no problem with Republicans endlessly “investigating” Hillary’s use of a private email server – what is that but a “process crime” if it is a crime at all? You’d be whooping and hollering until your throat cracked if more than a half dozen Obama campaign officials were charged with lying to the FBI and Congress, and be talking about “What, you think all these Obama guys could be lying about this stuff and Obama not be part of it?” “I knew what the Special Counsel was about when Democrats were setting this up” – you mean when Trump was setting this up by admitting on national TV to firing the FBI director to put an end to the FBI investigating him, forcing his own lifelong Republican appointee to start Mueller Time. And if you interpreted what Trump clearly stated as anything other than what I just said and what Rosenstein thought, then you’re too deep into the cult for salvation. Many of Trump’s nonsensical ramblings are so obfuscated that they’re up for interpretation; some of them are just plainly stated facts. Well, alternative facts. (Hey, your woman said it – not the MSM.)

“It warms my heart that you were able to survive this incident.”

Quit being obtuse. I know you know the purpose of that story was to point out that YOUR SIDE is just as guilty if not more guilty of *attempting* to indoctrinate instead of educate. Everything you said after that is either pointless or rubbish. Conservative = racist was a mere tangent of that story, but leave it to you to feel victimized by that aspect and run with it.

Just out of curiosity, if you’d been in that same class I was in, how would you felt about what my teacher was saying? I’m not talking about your views on the Civil War or what have you – I mean, how would you felt about what the teacher was trying to do? Would you have been all right with it because you agreed with him?
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 8 (view)
 
Message style and consequences of being impetuous!
Posted: 1/28/2019 3:09:25 PM
“What I meant...what I was actually saying... is that a 'Mutual View' would be the ideal and it would minimise the 'Non- replies' that are the cause of so much angst on here.”

You’re basically describing the Hot-Or-Not/Tinder/Bumble model in which both parties have to agree to communicate (swipe right) before communication can happen. I’ve long been an advocate, but after many years on all those platforms, I can tell you that although they are arguably much more efficient than POF/Match/eH/etc., especially for men (I have probably written close to 20,000 mostly well-thought-out first contact messages on POF in my 12 years [who knows how many hundreds of hours that took] with less than 5% return rate), I’m not sure if there’s all that much less angst. There’s a whole lot of inexplicable ghosting and false positives, plus I’m not sure how much better it’s been on my psyche’ to swipe right 100 times in a session and get zero matches than to send out 100 messages and get zero responses.

I would think it would have to be a great improvement on women’s side, though, because they wouldn’t have to waste time with messages from men they have no interest in. I don’t really know how it feels from a woman’s point-of-view to swipe right on a man and not get match out of it – from what I understand, women swipe right so rarely that when they do, it’s much more meaningful to them than when men swipe right (I never even remember I swiped right to a woman until I discover I have a match with her). Nevertheless, that’s still got to be less “devastating” than sending a man a thoughtful message and not getting a response, as happens on POF.

Obviously POF does have “Meet Me,” but because it’s not seen as being “free,” it isn’t used very often. Technically it is “free,” because it tells you who you double match with, just not who said “Yes” to you but you apparently didn’t say “Yes” to (or maybe never came up in your Meet Me adventures). But for some reason most people don't see it that way -- I bet 10% of the women's profiles I come across say something along the lines of "I don't have Meet Me access so don't bother using it with me."
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Why Are People Obsessed With Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?
Posted: 1/28/2019 12:37:48 PM
"Insulting women does not make you the 'Big Man' (HUGE) you want to be"

But he's insulting a Democrat -- isn't that acceptable by modern Republican standards? Pocahontas? Crooked Hillary? My nice fat little Rosie? Most of the Republicans think the guy who said those things is a "Big Man."
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 40 (view)
 
Do muscles make it easier to attract women (srs question)
Posted: 1/28/2019 8:40:39 AM
“No, actually in but very few cases it doesn't. Most people that I have observed tend to go with their equals. Poor women tend to end up with poor men, middle class women tend to end up with middle class men.”

Well, yes, of course, that’s what most people end up with: their equals. Just like attractive men end up with attractive women, whites end up with whites, Catholics end up with Catholics and drug addicts end up with drug addicts. (Obvious exception as I’ve stated many, many, many times before: short women do not end up with short men.) We’re talking about what people want, not what they get. A single woman of any status who does not want a rich man, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, would have to be exceedingly rare. Sure, most women currently in a relationship with a non-rich guy are going to say “I don’t want a rich guy – I want THIS guy.” And most of them probably mean it. But give any single woman two men who are exactly identical, except one is rich and one is a janitor – which one are you going to take? I’m not even saying that’s wrong or shallow.

Of course, in the “real world” there is no such scenario: no two men (not even identical twins) are alike in every way but one, so maybe a man of average means and appearance with a great personality is better than a rich modelesque guy with a terrible personality to many women. Yet, something tells me most women with a rich, moderately flawed man are not trading him in for a poor, flawless man.

“From some of the things I read on this board, I get the impression that NO women in the United States work.”

That seems like a gigantic leap. I can assure you the vast majority of American women work, and most enjoy work and the independence it gives them. Yet nearly all of them were fed Disney fairy tales about handsome princes – when one shows up, it seems difficult not to go all-in for the fairy tale if that’s what he’s bringing with him. The current Duchess of Sussex grew up middle class, is extremely well-educated (double major from Northwestern, studied in Madrid, internship in Argentina) and had a very successful career going, but, hey, a prince showed up and she threw it all away in a royal heartbeat. Should womanhood look down on her for that?

“You cant blame PEOPLE for taking what you are offering.”

I’m not blaming anybody for anything. I’m actually glad the world works the way it does with money. Because money is not something you have to be born with to get and have. There’s nothing (within the average person’s budget) I can do about my height or the way women look upon it. There’s nothing I can do about my ethnic background or the way women look upon it. My personality will never be a “life of the party” type that most women love being around. But there always was the possibility and still is the possibility that I could become rich. So I am happy that women (on average) prefer rich men, because at least that’s something that I can theoretically change about myself to make myself more attractive to women. I have failed to this point by all normal routes, but you never know when I might buy the right lottery ticket!

“point is, it’s the closest thing to personal experience on the matter”

I forgot about one particular episode in my life that fits more into this narrative than any other. Many years ago, I struck up a conversation with a very beautiful young woman (some have said the most attractive woman I’ve ever been with, and body-wise, that was definitely true) and she eventually agreed to go on a date with me; it’s very important to note it took me weeks to get her to do so, so she knew me fairly well by the time we went on that date. Or so she thought. At some point on that very long first date, she actually admitted to me she only went out with me because she thought, based on my job title and where I worked, that I was rich, but during the date she realized I was not. I just shrugged it off, mainly because I figured that meant it was just yet another one-and-done date and I’d better enjoy her while she was with me.

We actually ended up dating on-and-off for another year and half and remained friends for years after the “break up.” I guess she decided I was interesting enough to make up for my lack of richness, which was pretty surprising, because she turned out to be a major golddigger. But that never really showed up in her "real" dating habits – almost every guy I saw her seriously date afterwards and the couple I knew about before me were pretty far from rich (most besides me grew up in a very similar working class background as her). But in between “serious” dating, she was always getting rich older guys to buy her stuff. But the point is, she never would have gone out with me to begin with if she hadn’t thought I was rich. Being rich opens up doors for men that would never open up if they were poor – in just additional opportunities to meet women alone.

"Your problem is, you are the typical nice guy - you have a poor attitude and know nothing about women."

I'm assuming "typical nice guy" was sarcasm. I won't argue with the "poor attitude" part (100,000+ rejections and counting eventually brings you down), but my 2 best friends (20+ years and 16 years) are women, and they seem to think I know something about women. That said, they argue with me about some of my theories and sometimes even with scientific data, but money is definitely not one of those they argue with -- they both strongly prefer men with more money and keep telling me making a lot of it will make my current women troubles go away. And probably create completely new ones, but, hey, at this point, I'll take the variety -- the old troubles are getting old after 30+ years.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 35 (view)
 
Do muscles make it easier to attract women (srs question)
Posted: 1/28/2019 5:08:08 AM
“OH MY, all of the intelligent, well thought out posts that have come from you. Suddenly you make a comment that would give the bitter bro on the last page a run for his money.”

Why is “But, yeah, getting rich works even better. Or so I've observed” bitter? Does money not make men more popular with women? I’m not talking about YOU specifically. I mean, again, just as with my last statement on muscles: do rich men not have more women interested in them than poor men? I’m not saying it’s for good reasons – I’m just saying it’s a statistical fact. The obvious reason I tacked on “Or so I’ve observed” is because I’ve never been even close to rich, so unlike with muscles, it’s not a difference I can say I’ve personally experienced, only observed with other men and in scientific studies. But that said, I’ve never been more popular among women in real life situations than when I’m throwing money around – credit card money, temporary windfall money, money I should be using for something else, but point is, it’s the closest thing to personal experience on the matter, and it is also arguably (weak) validation.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 50 (view)
 
Men with no friends
Posted: 1/28/2019 4:53:44 AM
“The Rams enhanced their villain status when the refs turned a blind eye to obvious interference, preventing the Saints from running out the clock and winning.”

The other concerns I will let you have, not because I agree with them, but rather they’re your own personal peeves, none of which I care about. But I consider this one highly unfair to the Rams. What were they supposed to do, stop the game and tell the refs they made a big mistake in their favor? Ask for a (not allowed) booth review because they were sure they committed a penalty? They really did all they could do to rectify the situation, which was admit afterwards that they committed a penalty that wasn’t called – heck, the defensive back who committed even went so far as to admit he was purposely trying to get a pass interference call, because he felt that was better than the receiver catching the ball and possibly scoring.

(On a distantly related note, on my last play as a defensive back in high school, I attempted to intercept a ball but was too short and the very tall receiver [coincidentally my cousin] snagged it and scored the game winning touchdown. I was heavily criticized afterwards by many for not just hitting him before the ball got there and drawing a pass interference call, as in high school/college, it’s a 15 yard penalty instead of a spot foul and the ball would have been placed at the 50 yard line in that case. That was probably the last time I was ever over-confident in what I could accomplish as a short man.)

“One thing that prevents me from being/staying friends is when they have kids. A single man without kids, his circle of friends shrinks as they start families.”

This be 1000% true. Yet I’ve noticed that older childless women still seem to hold onto their friends, or in some cases, regain their friends after the children are old enough to largely fend for themselves. My best friend (who has 2 children) says in the beginning, you might want to hang out mostly with other mothers because you have something significant in common and they’re good for advice, but eventually you just want to get away from your kids for a while and talk about anything else, and childless friends are the best for that. Whereas men are often not the primary caregivers, so they have less need for this escape, as they’re frequently away from their kids to begin with. Those that are also the primary breadwinners might be working long hours away from their family and so choose to spend as much free time with them as possible, causing old friends in general but especially childless old friends to drop by the wayside, as the childless ones can’t really be part of a “gettogether with the kids.” After my former closest male friend (I was in his wedding party) had his first kid, he began spending ALL of his time either working or with his family, both nuclear and extended – the latter suddenly began preoccupying a ton of his time they didn’t before, what with grandparents taking every opportunity to see the grandkids and brothers and sisters bringing their kids over to hang out with his kids. I finally just gave up bothering trying to get together with him.

To be honest, I doubt my friendship with my best friend would be anywhere near this close if we didn’t also work together. I saw her more often during her children’s formative years than she saw her parents or any of her siblings. Had either of us left our jobs when her kids were little, she’d probably just be a distant blip on my vast friend radar instead of the most important person in my life. Her children are grown now, so hopefully when we stop being co-workers in a few weeks, she’ll still have time for me. But she has a million friends and family members, so I really don’t think it’s looking good.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 8281 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 1/26/2019 5:49:40 PM
“Hawk….I give Democrats credit because they did a masterful job (well, really just repetitive... finding faux racism and Putin behind every little sprout 24/7 for 2 years whenever you turned on MSM/Hollywood/Etc.)”

You keep ignoring the fact that the Democrats are just quoting Trump and the “MSM” is just covering his own words and behavior. If they were completely fabricating what he says and does, then you’d have a point. But at least 95% of “negative coverage” about Trump has been proven true. You may have an argument that he doesn’t get enough coverage of the “positive” things he’s done, but one man’s positive is another man’s children in cages. Let me just ask you something: if a half dozen Obama campaign officials and presidential advisors had been arrested on the same charges Trump’s associates were arrested on, what would you think?

And as for the economy – if Trump is somehow re-elected on it (assuming it’s still largely good in 18 months), then the greatest trick he and his supporters will have pulled is convincing America that he’s responsible for GDP, stock market and unemployment improvements that are clearly the tail end of a trajectory that started early in the Obama administration. And all of you with any economic expertise and understanding of statistics know this. Not only do you know this, but you even somehow managed to turn the Obama economy trajectory (aka, the first 8 years of the Trump economy trajectory) against the Democrats in 2016. Simply brilliant. The only economic factors I’ll give credit to Trump for are trade war fallout (you know, like paying farmers billions in welfare to keep them afloat with the loss of their markets), ballooning the deficit even further with his tax cuts that have not even come close to paying for themselves and whatever drag on the GDP the Trump Shutdown results in.

“Education instead of Indoctrination”

My white history teacher in rural Alabama would spend the majority of our class time telling us how evolution was junk (odd, I don’t remember him having a science degree), the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery and was about states’ rights and we would all have been better off had the South won and that we should all vote Republican because the Democratic party had “changed” (this was the late 80s/early 90s) and was full of liberals.

You’re also going to have to explain to me how the leader of MAGA is particularly helpful for your ancient family values yearn. He publicly carried on an affair with his eventual second wife while still married to the first (and got her pregnant), there are many recorded instances of his “locker room” philosophies about bedding women and other lurid behavior and he paid hush money during a campaign to a porn star and a Playmate he had affairs with shortly after his third wife gave birth. His current lawyer has almost an identical portfolio and a member of his campaign paid his affair to have an abortion. These are the role models you think are going to bring back the nuclear family?

A funny thing about MAGA: if we could actually go back to whatever era you think is “great,” Twitter (and the internet and this website we’re arguing on) wouldn’t exist... and therefore, MAGA couldn’t exist. Let’s wipe from existence all those non-Americans that contributed to the technology that led to the rise of MAGA. Let’s see how that paradox works out for you.

“It's ok for liberals to confront and protest but if a conservative does, ‘they are looking for trouble’....that's funny.”

Stop being obtuse. It’s okay for anybody to confront and protest and wear their politics on their head... so long as they’re willing to accept the consequences for doing so. But in the case of the Covington boys, there’s also the matter that they were essentially unchaperoned minors and representing an organization that did not approve of the message they perhaps inadvertently delivered.

“And the liberals are using the hat as a racist symbol.....of course they are, they have nothing else to do so they cry ‘racist’.”

Just like with the Confederate Flag: if you didn’t want MAGA to become a racist symbol, you probably should have stopped racists from using it. Though one has to wonder why racists chose to use it – I mean, if they’re going to just pick any random saying to chant, why not “Yes We Can”?

*****

Throughout Trump’s “concession” speech yesterday, I kept hearing Nelson Muntz in the background saying “HA-ha.” I would have strongly preferred someone else be elected Speaker of the House, but, Jesus, Nancy took Donnie to the woodshed. I mean, we’re going to be right back where we were yesterday in the middle of February, but still – at that point, no doubt Trump’ll go 100% authoritarian and declare a national emergency (the only one was the one he created), which will be the end of the wall, as it will get tied up in court until he’s out of office. The wall at this point is just symbolism, even more symbolism than Pink Floyd’s wall, considering most areas along the border that need a wall already have one, plus why isn’t Trump clamoring for a Canadian border wall? Does he not think drugs and terrorists are slipping in from that direction, too? Of course, he might realize that they are, but no Mexicans are, so he undoubtedly just does not care enough to bother.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 28 (view)
 
Do muscles make it easier to attract women (srs question)
Posted: 1/26/2019 4:55:21 PM
“Some women would rather have you give that attention to THEM, rather than your own body.”

I’d stop working out in a heartbeat if an attractive woman told me she’d date me but only if I stopped working out. The only reason I do *anything* in my life, including working out, is to make myself more attractive to women and increase the likelihood that I’ll get a date. I most definitely do not work out for myself. I don’t really care about it at all – after all, I didn’t do it for more than a decade. You may look at working out 20 hours a week and say “sounds like an obsession to me,” which it most certainly is: an obsession to get a date.

Of course, what I described in the first sentence of that last paragraph is nothing short of a paradox. If a woman was attracted to my physique but didn’t want to me to put the effort into maintaining that physique, then what the hell to do? It’s difficult to imagine that could even be a real world scenario.

I think we need to get back to the OP’s original question, which almost no one else is answering: “Do muscles make it easier to attract women?” He didn’t ask, “Do muscles make it easier to attract YOU” or any specific woman. Restated, this question could be: “Do muscles on a man increase the amount of women that find him attractive?” Most definitely the answer to that is “Yes.”

Looking at the overwhelming results of my human “experiment” (in which I got hundreds times more views on POF with a muscular main pic than with a non-muscular main pic) is not even necessary – it’s just common sense statistics. If that wasn’t true, you’d basically be claiming that more women would date a man who didn’t have muscles than would date a man who did have muscles (all other things being equal). Really? Even just looking at the responses in this thread, we have one woman who hates muscles, one woman who strongly prefers them, a couple women with mild muscle preferences, and the rest wouldn’t throw a muscular man out of bed. (Hah.) Conversely, only one woman had anything positive to say about the complete opposite of the muscular man. Overall: muscles > average > thin > obese. To maximize your possibilities among women, get muscles – you will maintain nearly all your current opportunities while only turning off a few, which will more than be cancelled out by adding a bunch more.

Get ripped. Just not freakishly ripped. (Am I freakish yet? Of course – I was freakish before I ever even touched a weight.)

But, yeah, getting rich works even better. Or so I've observed.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 46 (view)
 
Men with no friends
Posted: 1/26/2019 4:23:49 PM
“I will say that of the above, sports is a biggie for men. Women may roll their eyes, but sports is a very critical aspect of male bonding, to use a cliche.”

I actually strongly dislike watching sports with other men. Which, you will likely say, explains a lot. This despite the fact that I actually watch a LOT of sports... by myself. Although, no one would accuse me of being sports-obsessed. I cannot watch sports unless I’m strongly emotionally involved – otherwise, they will bore me to death. “strongly emotionally involved” usually amounts to either it involves a team whose college I attended (UF & USF), or there is an underdog-villain storyline.

For example, I actually once went an entire decade without watching a Super Bowl, because I hated both participants in every game, which made it impossible for me to pull for anyone. Most true sports fanatics in the U.S. live the entire year for the Super Bowl, regardless of the teams in it. This year, I will be watching it, because there is no greater villain than New England, and you can’t get much more underdoggy than the Rams. If Kansas City had won instead of New England, I’d probably still watch it but with great disinterest as I wouldn’t care who won. If New England was playing the 49ers, I’d spend the evening in a movie theater (probably completely by myself).

But anyway, every time I tried watching sports with other men, I just found it seriously annoying. I actually don’t even care too much for PLAYING sports with other men, but obviously as an athlete in organized sports for 18 years, I found it a necessary evil because I liked playing the sports themselves, but I could really do without all the adolescent behavior and boring banter by my teammates and opponents that persisted even beyond college. I enjoyed playing on co-ed teams and coaching women’s teams a lot more. But, watching women’s sports on TV? God, no. That’s worse than trying to watch Brady vs. Montana.

My two closest friends for many years have been women that aren’t really into sports at all, and I’m fine with that -- I much prefer the conversations we have about relationships, art, movies, food, travel, etc. to who's leading the NBA in scoring (which are the kinds of things my brother and my former closest male friend bore me to death with). My very long gone ex-girlfriend pretty much hated sports, but would watch with me anyway, even once threw a Super Bowl party while we were dating – she dumped me right after we finished watching Florida win its second consecutive basketball championship; maybe she thought it would hurt a lot less that way.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 8256 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 1/25/2019 2:17:19 PM
“Hawk…I’m going to agree with you on this one. We have had two years of Democrats Demonizing Trump and ‘Deplorables’ so that voters would save America from ‘White Supremacy’ (Bogeyman) during the next election and it had an impact.”

My position has been mostly about safety and modifying one’s behavior to avoid confrontation if one does not want to have confrontation – rightly or wrongly, certain phrases or items pick up connotations and become symbols of movements, sometimes not the movement the founder intended, or sometimes the movement the founder intended but was hoping to keep hidden. Regardless, not recognizing or attempting to ignore the symbols these things have become suggests such a person is either ignorant or a confrontationist. To think you can “educate” the controversial item back to its “original meaning” is the highest of arrogance.

But on the different question of whether “MAGA” has rightly or wrongly become a symbol of white supremacy... why don’t you just tell me when you think it was that America was “great” and I’ll tell you my father’s or my grandfather’s or great-grandfather’s opinion on that era. It was probably a little different than your father’s or grandfather’s or great-grandfather’s opinion. If you try to claim that “great” is entirely referring to the economics of whatever paradise era you’re talking about, then you can’t get much greater than America under Clinton. But that’s probably not far enough back for you. Regardless, the world has changed and America had no choice but to change with it, and it will keep having to change with it. Why don’t we ask North Korea how isolation has worked out for them?

I think your bigger problem in trying to claim that Democrats (and probably the MSM) “demonized” MAGA is that so many of its founders and most ardent supporters are so racist/white nationalist/white supremacist/ethnocentrist that even other MAGA followers are trying to sweep them under the rug. And we’re not just talking about the David Dukes of the world. Steve King and Dorrie O’Brien have great respect within the Republican Party, or at least until they said one too many racist things, after many years of saying many racist things. Yet despite the slaps on the hands, King’s still representing the party and O’Brien got a significant amount of MAGA people to vote against Shahid Shafi. You can’t keep sweeping these MAGA people under the rug – there’s only so much room under there. If you can’t see the racist undercurrent in MAGA, then it is because you don’t want to see it.

https://news.yahoo.com/patriotic-racist-trump-apos-america-022810904.html
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 20 (view)
 
Do muscles make it easier to attract women (srs question)
Posted: 1/24/2019 4:18:04 PM
"Body builder type muscles probably snag more attention from other male body builders than from the women."

There is truth to that. Back when I actually worked out at popular gyms, I don't remember a single woman (outside of employees) saying a thing to me about the mind-blowing weight I was lifting (300 pound bench press in 125 pound weight class -- and I never actually weighed 125, usually not even close), or for that matter, saying anything to me at all, but guys wouldn't shut up about it, especially those far larger than me that couldn't do as much because they weren't in as good of shape (my senior year in high school, I was the strongest guy on the football team by bench press despite being also the smallest guy).

That said, understand that I was not nor am I now a "bodybuilder." I was a competitive powerlifter, which normally leads to a different physique from a body builder, especially since I've never been out there weighing my food or anything crazy like that that body builders do. Most competitive powerlifters are actually pretty burly, stocky even if they are tall and don't look anywhere near as cut as bodybuilders -- you rarely ever see a professional powerlifter with a six pack. I'm obviously very different from most other powerlifters (most of my weight class competitors were shorter than me but wide as houses), mostly I think just because I eat so little. I make the most out of very little muscle tissue instead of packing on tons of muscle tissue, and honestly I'm not even sure that's a learned condition -- I appear to be just naturally built that way, a powerlifting prodigy. Despite this... I've never had a six pack. That, it would seem, is genetic -- I was down to 5% or less body fat in my peak competitive days in high school and college, and still had no six pack because all 5% apparently went to my gut, which again, is just genetics. If I gain a few pounds these days, it all goes to my waist -- no fat whatsoever on my arms, legs and neck and very little on my buttocks. Just really annoying, so I'm always having to get myself down into the 110s just to prevent a belly from forming.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 8235 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 1/24/2019 11:10:47 AM
“Sorry Hawk. It takes more than being black to be perceived as a thug...it takes overall appearance, the clothes you wear, the style of your hair, the way you walk. Not sure how you are defining ‘many’, but few white peoe will consider a well dressed normal black guy as a thug simply based on race.”

There is SOME truth to that. In fact, it was kind of what I was alluding to in the follow-up on that statement you quoted. My father (a very educated man who grew up highly mistreated in the Jim Crowe South) actually told me when I was young to always dress nicely or white people would think I was a thug. He wore suits and ties to almost everything he attended outside of his farm. Now, so do I. In fact, it became something of a (positive) running joke in my circle of friends – we’d go to a party or bar or club and most of the guys would be dressed all right, even nicely, but I’d be the only one in a suit, and everybody started calling me “The Business.” But nobody ever called me a thug. The n-word, sure, but no doubt Kanye and Jay-Z are more responsible for most of those cases than racism.

Yet, even dressed like that, I’ve still seen white women “clutch their purses” or otherwise avoid me or eye contact, which in some cases can possibly be ascribed to those women trying to avoid interaction with ANY men regardless of color, but in other cases I’ve seen them interact with white men afterwards with smiles on their faces, so...

The point is, in relation to the discussion in this thread, because of my choices of attire, no one ever looks at me and thinks “thug” (“pimp,” sometimes maybe, especially when I’ve got a suit on and am surrounded by a bunch of white women... which is quite often, since my 2 best friends are white women). So if you’re a white teenager and don’t want people to think you’re a racist, maybe you should choose some attire besides a MAGA hat. Again, is that fair? Maybe not, but it is what it is.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 16 (view)
 
Do muscles make it easier to attract women (srs question)
Posted: 1/24/2019 10:51:00 AM
I was a competitive powerlifter throughout high school and college, until I seriously injured my left arm and permanently disabled it during my last contest (still won it by a mile, ending my 8 year career undefeated in bench press). Although I didn’t have as puffy of a chest as I would have liked, it was very obvious how muscular I was even fully clothed. Yet, not one date throughout high school and college, hundreds of rejections, and no real interest from any girl/woman I ever met during that period that I can recall. This was obvious evidence that muscles did not help ME attract women.

The only period of my life when women were showing any interest in me was when I was several years beyond any weightlifting at all and fairly out of shape, but to be fair, I was not fat and my biceps have NEVER shrunken. Yet it was pretty obvious almost none of the women I dated during that period cared much or any about their romantic interest’s muscles (some of them dated men before/after me that were borderline obese or skinny as rails) and if they had any idea that I was muscular and not just “average,” that didn’t factor much into their decisions to date me.

(It should be noted that I have never gotten a woman who works out or is any way athletic to date me -- most of my dates have been with women who have never touched a weight in their lives. Which is not to say all of them were overweight -- some were, but most were just "average" and a couple freakishly skinny, plus a couple more that were "modelsque" but just naturally that way.)

So, for the most part, it would seem I’m answering “No” to your question, at least in my own experience.

But...

Fast forward to a few years ago when I suddenly took up running (I was never a runner even in high school or college), then bought some dumbbells and started working out again (one-armed) for the first time in decades. Combined with an absurd high protein diet, next thing you know, I look like I do in my profile pic.

Actually, the profile pic: that’s where things get interesting. I had been on this site for 11 years before I started using that pic and was lucky if I got 1-2 unsolicited views a month – as recently as 2015, I went 6 consecutive months without any unsolicited women clicking on my profile while using otherwise good pics that didn’t show any muscular build. Within the first 30 days of using the current pic, I had about 60 unsolicited views – arguably more than the previous 10 years combined! I ended up with about 500 for the year.

So... although it is true that every woman is an individual, I would say my 12 year experiment on POF is proof that a significant percentage of women are more likely to click on a pic of a muscular guy than an “average” guy, as my pictures over the years have had both, despite it being the exact same guy statistically and facially, and the muscular pic profile views beat the non-muscular pic profile views about 50 to 1. That, my friends, is how you conduct a true scientific experiment.

That said, despite all the views, I still very rarely get unsolicited emails, have attracted no additional attention whatsoever in real life and have now been dateless all 4 years of my current muscular phase. Undoubtedly that’s because of another “truism” about muscles: they will not compensate for height. The type of women who think muscles are attractive are also the same women who think tall height is attractive (or more like, think short height is unattractive). These women click on my profile because of the muscular pic, having no idea how tall I am when they do, and when they finally see my height, they lose interest.

So, the muscles should work out better for you than for me – just, as some of the ladies suggested, don’t get carried away because for the “average woman”: Channing Tatum and Zach Effron muscles = attractive, Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime, not so much. As for me, getting into this shape was a complete and total waste of time and effort, leading only to major injuries, arthritis and severe disappointment. I suspect I’m probably even a joke to most women – “look at the little man overcompensating.” So, yeah, I would not recommend muscles for short men. Only making lots of money. That fixes EVERYTHING for men.

P.S. I got my BMI down to 19 last summer (it's definitely over 20 right now thanks to the holidays). The last time my BMI was 19 was middle school. I should post a pic I have from that 19 BMI state, back when I was working out 20 hours a week, burning 4000 calories a day on weekends while taking in only 2000 but nearly all protein. I looked like a damn gymnast or Olympic swimmer. It was quite ridiculous. My profile pic is from when I probably looked the best ever, according to my female friends anyway -- the absolute peak was a few weeks later during that Badlands shot on top of a mountain.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 37 (view)
 
Men with no friends
Posted: 1/24/2019 6:35:13 AM
Huh. My best friend and I were just having a discussion about this last night. She and I are about to become “separated” for the first time in the 2 decades of our friendship due to me leaving the job that we met at it, and it’s definitely causing me a lot of anxiety – a lot more than her (though it is making her so sad that she’s been crying about it).

Will the friendship live on in the post-co-worker world is our individual issue. But as far as the topic of this thread, she has dozens if not hundreds of friends, though only a handful as close as we are; my friends have slowly trickled away to the point that it’s really just her and another female friend left, and I pretty much consider anybody else to be acquaintances or business associates. So she told me I needed to start making new friends. I pointed out to her that study after study shows that older men have great difficulty making new friends, which is something she may not realize since that’s far from true for the typical woman. She makes new close friends at a ridiculous rate – within a few months of meeting one of our new female co-workers, they were planning weekend adventures together, just like she does with her friends she’s had for 30 years.

I’m quite sure I haven’t made a new real friend since my 20s, and yet because of my jobs and hobbies, I’ve met many thousands of people since that time. Just no “clicking.” Most men at this age are content to hang out with their childhood/college friends and/or concentrate on their current romantic interest and/or family. I, of course, have no childhood or college friends (as in, I had no friends when I was that age, for a lot of race-related and geographic reasons), so building up a social circle of friends or bulldozing my way into an established social circle at an older age has been very difficult for me. But again, that’s just true for older men in general, so once your childhood and college age friends start falling away because of moves, their own families and death, they aren’t easily replaceable and many do end up friendless, whether they claim it’s by design or not.

One could argue (and in fact, my best friend DOES argue) that the lack of friends and social circles has been detrimental to my desire to date. And it is certainly true that my last date 12 years ago coincided with the implosion of the social circle I had back then. Social circles are still the number 1 way most people meet their eventual significant others. I probably wouldn’t put so much emphasis on OLD if I still had a social circle. And my physical characteristics put me at the bottom 1% for OLD so I’ve been just foundering. Interestingly, romantic relationships (especially marriage and family) usually create future social circles: your spouses’ friends’ spouses and your children’s friends’ parents often become your friends. I’ve had none of that for 12 years (well, never had the children’s friends’ parents thing, but during my 2 years of having a girlfriend, her friends and sometimes her friends’ significant others became my friends, until we broke up, of course).

So the whole situation kind of feeds on itself and eventually snowballs. I wouldn’t be surprised if some women found the fact that I have so few friends to be a turnoff (my 2 best friends being extremely attractive women might be a bigger turnoff), but at this stage of my life, what are you going to do? It is what it is. It’s not like most women my own age don’t have their own peculiar baggage I’ll have to deal with. If you’re single in your 40s, you most likely have some flaws. Often one of those flaws is not having a whole bunch of friends.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 8229 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 1/24/2019 5:52:29 AM
“You read into the comment (at least mine) incorrectly.”

My apologies – I now see that is the case. I posted yesterday in haste (despite the length of the post – I made the mistake of spending 90% of my time writing the post and 10% of my time reading the preceding posts when it probably should have been the other way around).

“Oh Hawking!!!!!!!! You must have been kidding when you wrote the above right?? So if you are at a protest, if someone disagrees with you they have the right to have ‘trouble come your way’???”

It is not a question of “rights.” The gist of what I was saying is that if you knowingly put yourself in a dangerous situation, then you should not be surprised when bad things happen to you. I’m quite sure you agree and told your children that on numerous occasions when they were growing up. You just don’t see wearing a MAGA hat in a diverse environment as dangerous, because you refuse to believe that MAGA has racist connotations. That’s akin to your teen daughter refusing to believe a really short skirt and deep cleavage-baring blouse has sexual connotations. You do not control the connotations something has to a population. You can believe MAGA is non-racist because the phrase’s inventor says that is not what it means, but the inventor of something cannot control that invention’s perception once it’s released to the public.

Just like the teen girl has to learn that her outfit will be viewed by many as “slutty” no matter what her intentions were when she put it together and accept the consequences if she decides to wear it anyway with that knowledge, the MAGA hat wearer will have to learn that his outfit will be viewed by many as racist no matter what his intentions were when he chose it and accept the consequences if he decides to wear it anyway with that knowledge. Is that fair? Maybe not, but who said life was fair? Because of my skin color, I know many white people will automatically assume I am a thug upon seeing me – I don’t think that’s fair, but I live my life with that knowledge in mind and do things to try to reduce the likelihood that tensions will rise while interacting with unfamiliar whites. Again, doesn’t seem fair that their false perception should control my life like that, but the alternative to adapting my behavior could be the kind of chaos I’d prefer not to deal with. THAT is what MAGA hat wearers have to think about: is it more important for me to publicly celebrate my beliefs than it is for me to be safe?

Again, it’s just COMMON SENSE that if you wear something with racist connotations and approach a group of people who are espousing anti-racist rhetoric, no good can come from that. Children, of course, don’t have a lot of common sense or experience, which is why in my opinion the onus was on their chaperones to keep them from getting into trouble. It’s difficult to imagine a rational adult chaperone telling those boys “Oh, sure, feel free to wear your MAGA hats out there where a group of black people protesting racial inequality – I’m 100% sure that won’t lead to any confrontations.”

********
As for this record-breaking shutdown (which has taken down one of my close friends in the Coast Guard -- and I can promise you she does NOT support what Trump is doing to her), at this point, I don't really see any way out except for Trump to take some sort of executive action (including possibly but not necessarily the authoritarian emergency declaration he was batting around a couple weeks ago) -- he will take nothing less than wall funding because of the zealots controlling his agenda, the Democrats will not fund the wall because America told them they didn't want the wall in the last election and many of the new Democratic House members that gave them the majority were elected with "no wall" as part of their policy agenda. That is an impasse. Like a wall. So Trump pretty much has to attempt to do something of questionable legality that will get tied up in courts until after he's thrown out of office, and after he makes that move, THEN Congress will, probably nearly unanimously, vote on bills to reopen government that he will sign despite no wall funding because he will claim "I'm getting the wall anyway, as soon as the courts rule in my favor." The only other possible way out is for Republicans in Congress to grow a spine and agree to override a Trump veto. It's difficult to imagine that happening.

Meanwhile, despite Mueller's team issuing a rare statement claiming Buzzfeed's ONE report was not entirely "accurate," we're getting pretty close to the point where they are going to release a report so damning against Trump that even Nixon would be like "Yeah, that guy needs impeaching." And then it's just going to sit in the Senate until after the next election, because Trump cultism has spread to Congress. So, yeah, Trump will last the full 4 years, although since it is highly questionable that he can pardon himself, he might want to strongly consider resigning shortly before the end of the term to allow Pence to pardon him before prosecutors can indict him upon leaving office, because I guarantee you President O'Rourke/Harris/Biden won't be pardoning him, not even for "the good of the country."
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 8216 (view)
 
all this heat and energy, when the Trump admin lies serveral times a week
Posted: 1/23/2019 1:55:47 PM
There you go again – coming after my verbosity and ignoring that of those you agree with.

My only post in 3 months is 530 words long. Vlad has 8 posts in the past 2 days that are over 400 words long. Guess you guys were too busy dealing with the effects of the Trump shutdown to complain about those?
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 8212 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 1/23/2019 11:10:39 AM
I’ve been ignoring this place for months, first because of being overwhelmed by work on my annual event, then after returning realizing that the political discourse around these parts had grown pretty worthless due to the massive number of profile deletions of both antagonists and allies.

But, hey, look: John is back! Let’s get this party started!

As for the MAGA hat fiasco, I look upon this situation as I would some guy walking through the ghetto at night wearing flashy diamond earrings and gold chains: he shouldn’t be surprised if trouble comes his way. Similarly, if you approach anti-racism protestors while wearing a MAGA hat: you shouldn’t be surprised if trouble comes your way.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say the MAGA hat is the new KKK hood... actually, the MAGA hat is more like the new Confederate flag (and interestingly, you quite often see people sporting both). The KKK hood is just outright unquestionably a tool and symbol of racism, whereas the connotations of both the MAGA hat and the Confederate flag are somewhat disputed. But when you’ve got one of the architects of MAGA saying “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?” and another talking about “good people on both sides” in a white nationalist gathering/counter protest and the former Grand Wizard of the KKK claiming to be the original MAGA man... you know, you’re going to have to come to expect a significant portion of the population to associate MAGA with white nationalism and supremacy, just like a significant portion of the population associates the Confederate flag with white nationalism and supremacy since, you know, the flag was created to represent a rebellious organization founded for the sole purpose of keeping black people enslaved. Oh, wait, I mean “states’ rights”... to keep black people enslaved.

Even Catholic priests are saying these Catholic school kids were wrong to wear the MAGA hats at this event. They were officially representing their school at the March for Life. This they were approved to do. Abortion is one of the very few political philosophies in which Catholic doctrine and Trump administration policy align – by wearing the MAGA hats while representing their school and church, they were suggesting that their school and church agreed with almost everything Trump stood for, when that is very far from true. The question keeps coming up again and again: who were the chaperones for these minors and where were they during these events and did they approve this large block of their students wearing MAGA shirts and hats like some sort of Trump brown shirt squadron and if so, what the hell were they thinking? Freedom of speech? At a parochial school? You think they’d let a kid wear a “God is Dead” shirt to a school event? You think they wouldn’t have the right to stop the kid from doing so? Forget the freedom of speech factor – this is about safety. This is akin to letting a kid wear a honey suit in a bear lair. Were the black protestors that called them names and cursed them out in the wrong? Undoubtedly. Would those black protestors have said a word to them (beyond what they were already saying to everyone within earshot before the kids arrived) if none of them had been wearing a MAGA hat? Almost certainly not.

Stop acting like freedom of speech doesn’t have consequences and symbols don’t have connotations, rightly or wrongly deserved. Wear your goddamn seat belt when you go for a drive and you won’t fly through the windshield when you have to slam the brakes for protestors – don’t come crying to me about your broken neck when you hit the pavement. MAGA that, cultists.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 72 (view)
 
DEMOCRATS TAKE THE HOUSE. THE END OF TRUMP?
Posted: 11/9/2018 3:31:56 PM
“FYI. DEMOCRATS SPENT 100 million, repeat..ONE HUNDRED MILLION repeat again (just in case) O N E -H U N D R ED -M I L L I O N - PROMOTING his campaign.
Does that still seems to you like A ‘miracle’?”

The notion that spending a ton of money will have anywhere near the effect it had on the Texas Senate race is absurd. Let the first person in this thread raise his/her hand that watched a political ad and said “Goddamn, NOW I’m voting for that SOB!” I mean, weren’t you guys just saying how Russians buying Facebook ads had nothing to do with Trump winning? Political ads only affect the extremely rare wishy-washy person, and that’s assuming that person isn’t completely turned off by politics altogether after watching 5 zillion ads.

Let me put what Beto did in perspective: in 2012, Ted Cruz got 4.4 million votes to the Democrat’s 3.2 million. In 2018, Cruz got LESS votes, 4.2 million, to Beto’s 4 million – seems unlikely he took any of Cruz’s votes (the 200k missing probably just died, because GOP voters are old), so basically Beto brought 800k new voters to the table! That’s ROCK STAR – he energized progressives and children of immigrants in the state of Texas like no one ever did before. He’s basically the progressive Donald Trump, who also brought out tons of new or long given up voters. If he can nearly tilt Texas blue, imagine what he could do in more progressive Trump-voting states like Georgia and Florida, where BLACK governor candidates lost by only 1 or 2 points this time around (although, all of those races have gone into recount mode and new votes keep showing up).

Florida, on the other hand, is probably more proof than ever of Trump’s power over his cult. Rick Scott didn’t reach 3 million in either of his governor elections that he won by a couple hundred thousand votes. But riding Trump’s back, he got 4 million in this election – and yet STILL nearly lost, because Gillum got 4 million, too, which is more than a million more any Democratic candidate has ever received – if Scott’s opponent had gotten 4 million in 2014, he would have been completely destroyed. The turnout in Florida was absurd for a midterm election, and that was pretty much all about Trump. He’s powerful as hell in that sense. Though it’s interesting his “magic” had no effect, and if anything, negative effect in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and even KANSAS where his handpicked governor candidate lost – KANSAS for God’s sake! KANSAS! He may yet win Florida (and certainly Ohio) in 2020 but he’s in serious trouble elsewhere.

Meme’s been going around: Florida could have to choose between ice cream and a kick in the balls, and the vote would still be 50-50 (with the balls winning). I just don’t understand how Florida is so 50-50, or really 51-49 Red. But honestly you get outside the city limits and you’re basically in Alabama.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 21 (view)
 
DEMOCRATS TAKE THE HOUSE. THE END OF TRUMP?
Posted: 11/7/2018 11:37:13 AM
“Trump won because the democrats picked a worn out neoliberal shill nobody wanted over a progressive that was actually offering them the things they do want.”

That’s just about the only true thing you’ve said over the past several weeks.

Trump must know he is in serious jeopardy, not merely because the Democrats won the overall House race by millions of votes and overcame some hellacious gerrymandering to take back the chamber, but winning the governorships (and some Senate seats) of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania strongly suggests they realized they made a mistake in 2016, and that’s all the Democratic candidate (Beto?) would need to flip to beat Trump. Ohio’s pretty much gone red while Florida is highly untrustworthy (though those 1 million new felon voters might put the Dems over the top here!), but the “Blue Wall” is looking mighty blue again. Unfortunately, it might be too late by then for the courts (the Senate will now rubber stamp everybody Trump sends to them) and the environment.

BTW, everybody talks about how much better the Senate prospects are for Democrats in 2020: I don’t see that at all. They will be Collins and Gardner for sure, but they just lost 4 seats and need to make up 2 or 3 more seats, and all the other GOP Senators up for re-election in 2020 are from DEEP red states. I’ve said this before and will say it again: I think the Senate remains Republican for generations to come, simply because there are more Red States than Blue States, even though there are a lot more Blue State People than Red State People (see: the House of Representatives). So when the Democrat (Beto?) wins in 2020, he/she will have a Republican Senate to contend with and may never get any judges or cabinet members approved.

I keep saying “Beto” because though I was not a believer before, what he did in Texas is downright miraculous. The man is a true Rock Star – him almost winning the biggest red state of all (even though Abbot won re-election as governor by millions of points) shows me something about his popularity – even more impressive than what Abrams did in Georgia and Gillum did in Florida.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 7808 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 11/7/2018 11:20:02 AM
"NOT UNDER BHUSSEIN OBAMA who was in power for 8 YEARS and did nothing to fix this for them!"

You really need to look up some facts every now and then. Disenfranchisement of felons was state law -- Obama could do nothing about that (nor Trump, for that matter). Furthermore, as governor throughout the past 8 years, Rick Scott had the personal power to re-enfranchise them, and not only didn't, but bragged about doing so and was opposed to the amendment that just passed that re-enfranchised them. You really think the majority of these new voters are going to support a party that publicly and gleefully kept them disenfranchised? You always sound ignorant but in this case you sound brainless.

It is certainly understandable why Scott would be opposed to this happening -- he won all 3 of his races by a few ten thousand votes -- if even 10% of those he refused to re-enfranchise vote in the next election, he will be toast (and probably so will Trump, who won Florida by 100,000 votes).
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 7798 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 11/7/2018 4:45:51 AM
I don't have time to get deep in the weeds of yesterday at the moment, but just had to deal with this on LGL:

"Sorry no blue wave."

BLUE WAVE, MF! Democrats retake House easily, direct rebuke to Trump. "Oh, this was supposed to happen in a midyear," you guys now claim? Not really -- the House is overwhelmingly gerrymandered in Republicans favor and they had record midterm turnout, and still got TURNED OUT.

But the direct answer to the question in the title of this thread is: Yes, apparently, he will, since although the House may be heading toward impeachment, the Senate is now so pro-Trump due to midterm geographical advantages that Trump truly could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and they'd never vote to convict him. So doesn't matter what Mueller finds -- Trump is safe until 2020. After which last night's results suggest he is in serious trouble, considering the Republicans lost in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania -- the states that gave Trump the electoral college in 2016. As for my state... Florida is Florid-duh! What else can I say?
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 7675 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 10/26/2018 10:34:20 AM
Just stop, Irish. You know Trump worshippers can’t be obligated to concern themselves with actual facts – all they need is alternative facts.

As for the Democratic Bomber, previously I had a completely open mind about this guy but now that he’s been captured, the whole thing seems a little suspicious... as much as I hate to sound like Trump or some other loony conspiracy theorist. Only a man consumed and insane with the hatred of liberals and Democrats would send such people a bunch of bombs, yet somehow out of 12 (that we know of), not a single one of them went off? It’s not all that hard to make a bomb go off – ask McVeigh, the Unabomber, the Boston bombers or the kid bomber in Texas.

So either Sayoc is the most incompetent hate-fueled bomber in history, or he isn’t THAT consumed by hate and just wanted to scare the hell out of some people and/or make a name for himself. Certainly it’s not impossible that an unstable Trump-worshipping freak could have a van shrine to his god, but most bombers with a real agenda tried to stay off the grid while planning and doing their dirty work... which still comes back to Sayoc being highly incompetent, or not exactly serious about killing people.

In the end, we may yet find the absurd conservative conspiracy theory was real (and Trump’s pathetic concerned tweet about the effect the bomber is having on the election is genuine) and this guy was just doing an acting job for counter political sake, ala “Iron Man 3.” Don’t get me wrong – he’s obviously a mentally unstable career criminal. But a lot of things about him and his actions just don’t add up, including the fact that his apparent motive 100% meets a primary Democratic talking point. He can’t be that perfect of a villain – because he’s too incompetent of a villain, despite having such a far-reaching mastermind plan.

Like I said... none of this adds up.

What really sucks is that it will give Trump yet another excuse and more ability to deflect blame when there is a "blue wave" election in a couple of weeks. "We had it won until this bombing idiot showed up -- damn fake news bomber!" No, Donald. Bomber or no bomber... the majority of the American people hate you and have since you rode down that escalator, as reflected by the fact that 10 million more people voted against you than for you. You made the midterms a proxy on yourself, so be it.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 7612 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 10/16/2018 2:50:29 PM
“I don't think anyone 'feels' Trump is a saint.”

Although I can promise you there are some that do believe he’s a “saint,” for the most part the Trump Cult is about him either being infallible or his transgressions being cancelled out by the “good” he’s doing.

The former group not only protects and supports him no matter what he says and does but twists their logic to the point that all of his contradictions become logical to them, with many of them claiming that Trump is not stupid or insensitive but just “trolling” to get a rise out of his enemies... which to be fair, he is in fact an internet troll. But to believe the idiotic things he does and says (“Whose boat is this boat?”) is the sign of any sort of brilliant strategy of a "stable genius" is itself a sign of outright delusion. And now he’s somehow convinced once-sympathetic Melania she needs to do this, too (“I don’t care about him paying women hush money and I wore that jacket to mess with the media” – that interview was a secret cry to be rescued).

The latter group are arguably more despicable, because they know he’s a despicable idiot, but a useful despicable idiot, that’s getting them conservative judges, letting them poison the environment, cutting their taxes and keeping the brown man down, so the fact that he’s far more immoral, moronic and embarrassing than they would prefer is something they can live with, especially since they have been assured by Trump’s shadow government that his worst, war-starting impulses are under control.

Then of course there are a handful of cult members who are basically poorer versions of Donald Trump and always have been that and are just SO happy one of their own was elected, a bully-American that’s profane and nasty and treats women and minorities like crap. Cultists, yes, but more of a pure strand than most Trump cultists, as the suffering and misery of their “enemies” is their only real concern. For these select “few,” Trump actually is a saint.

I have yet to come across a current Trump supporter that does not fall into one of those 3 categories. I know some people that voted for Trump and now greatly regret it who don’t fall in those 3 categories, but not any that still support him.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 7603 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 10/16/2018 7:19:38 AM
**Keep being delusional and avoiding responding to my factual arguments**
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 7598 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 10/15/2018 2:09:21 PM
“It is called HISTORY not ‘info’.,, whatever site you go must find the same thing because
HISTORY cannot be changed.”

Really, now? So you are the same person you were 40 years ago? Did you know Trump was a registered Democrat until 1987? So that means, according to your twisted logic, he is still a Democrat? The United States was founded as a slave nation. So, according to your twisted logic, it is still a slave nation? Funny, I don’t seem to be walking around in chains. Do the Nazis still rule Germany and Fascists Italy and is Japan still a militaristic empire – should we be bombing the heck out of them right now because, once an Axis power, always an Axis power?

I’m sure you realize what you’re saying is completely absurd – you’re just being a contrarian as usual. Obviously both the Democratic and Republican parties evolved a dozen times over in the 150 years since the Klan was founded – that’s just what happens with the passage of time: evolution. Which I know you don’t believe in – if you can’t comprehend history, you sure don’t care about science. What black people – and I am (mostly) one of them so I should know – care about is what each party espouses TODAY, not back during Reconstruction or Jim Crowe or even the Civil Rights Era. And clearly the GOP has become the party of white nationalism while the Democrats are highly inclusive. Don’t let a clearly brain-damaged Kanye West confuse you.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 7495 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 10/5/2018 12:11:48 PM
“Given that Maryland has no statute of limitations ... it would just fine with me if they go ahead and seat this **stard.”

Unfortunately, the most easily proven of the accusations, Ramirez’s penis incident, occurred in Connecticut, whose statute of limitations might be different (I really don’t feel like looking it up – sick to my stomach). But even if like Maryland it has no statute of limitations on felonies, the penis incident is likely a misdemeanor, since it certainly doesn’t reach the level of sexual assault since he didn’t touch her (she touched him to get him out of the way), and the exposure occurred in a private resident among adults. Among the 3 women’s accusations, this is the only one with corroboration – corroboration, btw, the White House apparently told the FBI not to pursue, as multiple people have stated publicly that they were there when it happened, if not in the room then nearby and heard about it immediately. The FBI apparently didn’t talk to any of those people, making this a sham investigation.

It’s difficult to imagine any corroboration or evidence coming up on Ford’s accusation, as Judge is truly the only person that can corroborate it, and it would be self-incriminating to detail what happened – and I actually truly believe he does “not recollect” if it happened because his brain cells are probably fried from alcoholism and probably had no idea what was going on when it happened. The third accusation, which also took place in Maryland, sounded so outlandish even *I* thought it sounded like something out of one of Stormy’s movies, and that should have been EASY to corroborate with that many witnesses, victims and perpetrators, yet almost nobody did.

So I think this great dream of Kavanaugh being led away in handcuffs while on the Supreme Court bench is probably dead. I do think when the Democrats retake the House, they will almost certainly revisit this episode in a hearing and get Ramirez witnesses that were ignored by the FBI on the record, but even if that leads to the impeaching Kavanaugh, he will not be convicted because that requires 67 Senate votes and the best the Democrats will do in November is 52, so why would 15 Republicans that voted to confirm him while ignoring evidence of his bad behavior change their minds and convict him a year later just because a Democratic House impeached him? Let’s face it – unless Collins changes her mind tomorrow (Manchin will go with her because he said he doesn’t want to be the deciding vote), Kavanaugh will be on the Supreme Court overturning everything from Roe vs. Wade to same sex marriage for the next 30 years – well into my old age. And he will be doing it with a gigantic chip on his shoulder. And don’t be surprised if he singlehandedly saves Trump’s presidency. That Wall Street Journal op-ed isn’t fooling anybody: he’s highly partisan, just like he said at the hearing. And much beholden to Trump for his station in life.

The only thing that can save the progressive movement at this point is “court packing.” Because even if the Democrats are in control of the House, Senate and the Presidency after 2020, Trump’s court will continue to harass them for decades to come – at least until Thomas gets too old (he just turned 70 and seems in decent shape, so he’ll probably be around for another 10-12 years). So the Democrats will have to consider FDR’s brilliant idea of adding a couple of extra seats to the Supreme Court that President Kamala Harris will appoint in order to give the country a Supreme Court majority consistent with the beliefs of the electorate majority. Of course, FDR never followed through on this idea because at the last second, several Supreme Court justices suddenly did an about face and started voting in favor of his administration (“switch in time that saved 9”). Difficult to imagine any of the current conservatives doing any such thing, but it’s tough to tell with Roberts – he might be pragmatic enough to consider that. After all, does he really want every administration switch to add justices to the Supreme Court to get it to tilt the president’s way? Soon, we’d all be justices!

I’m still pretty sure, despite the polls claiming the election getting closer, that Democrats will retake the House. There’s no way Kavanaugh alone would reverse 2 years of special election results that have swung 20 points in the Democrats’ favor – furthermore, Kavanaugh is galvanizing non-conservatives as much as his plight is firing up conservatives. But I’m pretty sure Kavanaugh just lost the Democrats the Senate – Heidi was always in trouble, and her vote here against Kavanaugh in a state STRONGLY supportive of him will doom her. After picking up Arizona and Nevada, the Democrats would need to win one more with Heidi’s loss (without losing Missouri, which is razor thin for McCaskill right now), and while Tennessee still seems a good possibility, that race is really tightening up, and Texas is a Beto pipe dream, unfortunately – no way the GOP governor wins by 20 points but Beto beats Cruz, no matter how hated Cruz is even by Republicans. They know what’s at stake here is greater than their hatred for Cruz (ask Trump), which is something I still don’t know if Democrats have learned, despite 2016.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 7476 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 10/3/2018 11:17:56 AM
I see Kellyanne "Alternative Facts" Conway is now denying that Trump mocked Ford last night -- said he's still treating her like a Faberge egg. We're not hearing what we're hearing, people! There's no way what he said is open for interpretation. His supporters laughed and cheered -- that should tell you all you need to know.

“I feel sorry for her because she doesn't seem normal, and second because maybe something happened to her, she was also drinking. I believe she is confusing de person...”

She stated multiple times she was not drunk and only had *A* beer. If you believe Kavanaugh when he claims he’s never been “blackout drunk” or so drunk he didn’t know what he had done when he sobered up, then why won’t you believe her when she says she only had one beer? No one’s disputing the amount of beer she said she drank that night – numerous people (including a police report) are refuting Kavanaugh’s description of his behavior when he was drunk.

“Ahhh She did lie even about Flying!!”

Her spokesperson claimed that, not her. And God knows you can hate flying and still do it anyway – I hate flying, but in August I took 7 different flights in 1 week covering about 10,000 miles. What, you calling me a liar?

“he will lose in a landslide if he does. I think republicans will field a lot of challengers in the 2020 primaries.”

I agree with the former. I don’t agree or disagree with the latter, but if that does happen, he will be the Republican nominee again, because that’s exactly how he became the nominee last time: 17 other challengers fractured the sane GOP vote while he continuously captured the insane GOP vote, which was just enough to win the nomination. The best thing that could happen for the GOP is for there to be ONE sane challenger, but that said, I don’t even know if that would work anymore, because the man has an 80%+ GOP approval rating. Admittedly, a lot of them approve of his policies and not him, but would that be enough to get them to vote for someone else with the same policies that is sane? I imagine a lot of them would be scared the other candidate would end up with the same fate as McCain and Romney. Trump DID get more general election votes than either of them or for that matter any GOP candidate ever, mainly by appealing to crazy racist nationalists who had stopped voting altogether or never voted, while maintaining the majority of traditional GOP voters, despite many of them holding their noses while pulling the lever for him. And for some of them, that was because they thought he might be fooling them due to his past political stances – now those particular Trump voters are probably rock solid Trump supporters because he vastly exceeded their hopes by being the most right wing president in history. The question is, did the GOP lose more support over the past 2 years because of Trump than it gained because of Trump? I’m quite sure it’s the former, but who knows, maybe ALL the polls are wrong.

“May I have the name of the Liberal person running for president who is the one will win?”

Just like the reaction to Obama’s left-of-center presidency resulted in a far-to-the-right Trump being viable, the reaction to Trump’s presidency is resulting in a far left candidate being viable. No better proof than that are the 3 states I’ve lived in: Far left Andrew Gillum has been leading the Florida governor polls over Trump’s handpicked candidate since Day 1 of the general election campaign in this right-of-center state; far left Stacey Abrams has been in a governor election tossup with Trump’s handpicked candidate in far right Georgia; and let’s not forget Doug Jones beating Trump’s man Roy Moore last year in FAR FAR FAR right Alabama last year. I mean, Beto has a chance of beating Cruz in Texas – that’s just crazy! The antidote to going to far in one direction is almost always swinging all the way back in the other direction. That said, I’d think a moderate Democrat (like Jones) probably would have a better chance of winning most of those elections, but that’s tough to say – no doubt Abrams in particular is being helped just by being black in a Southern state with a lot of black people more so than being the liberal antidote to Trump.

And you are most definitely a Trump cult member.
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 7466 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 10/3/2018 3:54:30 AM
I have to give Trump credit: every time I think he hits rock bottom in his un-presidential behavior, he somehow keeps digging and continues to amaze me -- not surprise me so much, but just amaze me, at how absolutely STUPID and TONEDEAF he is:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-mocks-christine-blasey-ford-mississippi-rally-012158576.html

>>>At a Tuesday rally in Southaven, Miss., Trump attacked the credibility of Ford, one of three women to accuse his Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault. “How did you get home? I don’t remember,” Trump said, mocking Ford’s answers before the Senate Judiciary Committee. “How did you get there? I don’t remember. Where is the place? I don’t remember. How many years ago was it? I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. What neighborhood was it in? I don’t know. Where’s the house? I don’t know. Upstairs, downstairs, where was it? I don’t know. But I had one beer, that’s the only thing I remember.” With the crowd laughing and cheering his impression of Ford, Trump then turned serious...<<<

WTF is wrong with this "man"?

The first Trump cult member that defends what he did last night needs to burn in hell. And so should the second, and the third, and the fourth...
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 7462 (view)
 
Will President Elect Donald Trump Last The Full 4 Years?
Posted: 10/2/2018 11:55:25 AM
Donald Trump to reporters today: “It is a very scary time for young men in America, where you can be guilty of something you may not be guilty of. This is a very, very -- this is a very difficult time. What's happening here has much more to do than even the appointment of a Supreme Court justice. You could be somebody that was perfect your entire life and somebody could accuse you of something. That's one of the very, very bad things that's taking place right now.”

Reporter: “What about young women?”

Trump: “Women are doing great!” (Jumps on Marine One and flies into the sunrise.)

HawkingJr waits around in this thread for the men’s rights nuts to come out of the woodwork and say “MAGA!” and ask about abolishing the 19th amendment if it’s okay for Kanye to say the 13th amendment should be abolished.

*

https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-transcript-edits-trump-074130808.html

"The White House used its official transcript to refashion President Donald Trump’s dismissive and insulting comment to a female reporter on Monday. When Trump called on journalist Cecilia Vega of ABC News during the Rose Garden press conference, he also denigrated her intelligence: 'I know you weren't thinking, you never do.' But the official White House transcript dismissed the video evidence and claimed that he said: 'I know you’re not thanking; you never do.'"

OUR GOVERNMENT IS LYING TO US, PEOPLE. DOES THAT NOT BOTHER YOU? Sure did when you claimed Obama's administration was doing it. 1984? More like 1984 squared.

*

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/text-messages-suggest-kavanaugh-wanted-to-refute-accusers-claim-before-it-became-public/ar-BBNOioj?ocid=ientp

The title of that article, if it pans out, is Kavanaugh’s biggest problem yet. Because he said at the hearing that the first he heard about Ramirez’s accusation was when the New Yorker article about it came out. Yet these text messages in which he’s trying to talk former classmates into refuting the allegations predate the New Yorker article. In fact, Kavanaugh’s attempts appear to date back to July... months before the New Yorker article. First of all, that’s perjury plain-and-simple if this pans out – so many other possible perjury situations involving him are in a grey area, because him “mischaracterizing” his drinking is to some extent personal opinion, but him outright stating he didn’t know anything about Ramirez’s claims prior to the New Yorker publication despite attempting to kill the accusation prior to its release is just black-and-white. That would just be the end of not just his nomination but his career and maybe even his criminal-free history if that’s proven true. You also have a judge personally attempting to get people to do his bidding for his nomination – not necessarily illegal but “highly improper” as several experts in the article say. And also... this would also just about prove he did what Ramirez said he did, and prove that he REMEMBERED doing it or at least being told by other people that he did it. So you know, this, if true, is THE END. Told you Ramirez was more dangerous than Ford.

I don’t think the bar fight that just popped up is helpful to his cause either, because although he was not arrested, it’s further proof that he was an out of control drunk. There is absolutely no way he wouldn’t have remembered being part of this mess, since his friend Chris Dudley WAS arrested, and it’s interesting that Kavanaugh has made no mention of this incident despite being accused of participating in the melee’. Interestingly, the Yale-area police department claims that the FBI never even asked them if Kavanaugh had been involved in any incidents while there despite 6 prior FBI background checks.

“His demeanor and character in how he handled pressure ‘now’ is questionable....to say the least.”

I have no idea how any reasonable human being could watch his behavior during that hearing and not conclude that he doesn’t have the temperament, honesty or impartiality to be on the Supreme Court (which just goes to prove there are almost 50 GOP Senators who are not reasonable human beings). I don’t care how upset he was about the accusations (which, it should be pointed out, he was quite calm about during his Fox News interview before Trump told him to get all Trumpy – in other words, following orders of the White House, which is another strike for such a position). He may or may not have sexually assaulted women in his youth, but he has so many unquestionable strikes against him that I’m having great difficulty understanding the point of the GOP digging in with him – why die on this hill, when there are so many other similar but less controversial hills?

“How sad that KJ has been nuked. I love seeing open and honest discussions. Just sad.”

I’m of the belief that although she was probably initially nuked due to reporting of others, subsequent nukes are probably IP address related. As soon as your IP address is labeled “troublemaker,” the site probably quickly nuke all subsequent profiles from it. That seems to be what’s happened to most that lost their profiles.
 
Show ALL Forums