2024 Presidential Election: let the jockeying commence
- Thread starter Joe Fan
- Start date
Most of us aren't. We ****-talk about politics on a message board. Ladies' men don't do that. Politics is largely a sausage fest, and this board is almost entirely a sausage fest. And most of us score the ladies we have by developing a very sharply refined rap over a period of many years, not by being Leon Phelps.
Most folks are not smart enough to know that many of his policies undermined families.
Manson Family...
And let's be honest. He could have had a parade of skanks in and out of the White House, and we would have no idea, because our media wouldn't have said a word about it. They covered for JFK. They covered for Bill Clinton until Matt Drudge blew their cover. The idea of practicing journalism as a pursuit of facts and truth is dead. It's all about political activism and self-promotion. They've made that very clear over the last several years.
So yes, they'd cover for Obama. They loved the guy and loved his politics. And if Obama had a parade of skanks, good chance some of them would have been white women. You think some woke journalist would touch that third rail? Hell no. It would end his career. (If we were talking about a black Republican with a white mistress, they'd be all over that. They'd go full Birth of a Nation on his ***.)
I'm not saying Obama wasn't a solid father or husband. From everything I've ever heard and read, he was both, and being married to Michelle can't be easy. However, if he wasn't, we would have no clue.
You mean being married to Big Mike?
Right but people seem to vote on image. I think @Mr. Deez touched on this when analyzing the white suburban woman voter. They want to feel good about their representative on a human level. Trump turned them off. Obama made them happy. They don't drill down. They like the speeches and the manner. My wife, who is a Catholic Latina Republican told me she loved Obama's first speech long ago at the Democrat Primary. It was the one where he hit the big-time. His class and dignity is very powerful. Do we not have anyone like that today who can articulate the policies that you like?
It's a tall order. You have to be a very sophisticated and tough minded person who knows all the issues and is very worldly with the manner of Anthony Hopkins.
Trump turned them off which proves mona's point that people are stupid. They liked Trump on SNL back in the day and when he did The Apprentice and beauty pageants.
Then, when he had (R) after his name, they were told he is horrible. The same people then believed it.
Yes. So how do we then win elections? We have to pander to the stupidity and find the right person. One who will be strong enough to calmly sell and push forward the social values along with the foreign and domestic policy in which we believe.
I guess I am just saying it will never matter for Republicans. They are just evil. Hillary could become an (R) and they would suddenly attack her for everything she should have already been attacked and discredited for.
I agree with that. Liberals are pathologically fanatical. I'm talking about how do we reach true moderates?
Good luck lol.
It doesn't even have to be moderates - just independents who aren't fully ideological conservatives. And this is the problem with the Trump faction of the GOP. They don't have a plan for this, and if you raise the issue, they go on rabbit trails about how unfair the media is, or they'll bash the voters for being dumb. And they aren't wrong, but it's not relevant and not responsive to the issue.
This isn't about convincing the media to be nice. It's about reaching voters who are usually with you on issues but need to feel better about voting for you. You can get mad at them all you want, but you need them, so get over their dumbness and make your case to them. When I went to court and had a crappy jury panel, I could pitch all caution to the wind, act like a jackass in front of them, and then complain about how unfair the judge was or how dumb they were when I lost. Or I could be a professional and an adult and accept that it's my job to try the case for the jury I have rather than the jury I want. Same thing with voters.
What you said. That's my feeling too.
My ex (an attorney) once told me something about "finding the defendant as they are." This was in a discussion about a slip and fall case. It was the idea that being a klutz is not a defense for the one who designed/built a faulty staircase.
We have to find the electorate as they are. We have to adjust to them. There is a term called "electability" and I guarantee it's a problem on the Left too; look at Warren and Que Mala's dismal showings in the Democrat primary.
Always remember the general election. Life doesn't end in the primary when you can be more extreme.
Mr D
excellent point
"It's about reaching voters who are usually with you on issues but need to feel better about voting for you. You can get mad at them all you want, but you need them, so get over their dumbness and make your case to them. "
Who are these people? The only people that enrage me are Demx who are intent on destroying our country
So who do you think the people are who are usually with us ?
I am all for Them
excellent point
"It's about reaching voters who are usually with you on issues but need to feel better about voting for you. You can get mad at them all you want, but you need them, so get over their dumbness and make your case to them. "
Who are these people? The only people that enrage me are Demx who are intent on destroying our country
So who do you think the people are who are usually with us ?
I am all for Them
I think Deez said it's white suburban house wives. Of course there are other demographics. I have some friends who are normally Republican's who absolutely hated Trump. And they hate Governor Abbott too.
Reagan is the man we need.
I have one friend in mind who is a very cool guy. Plays the guitar and sings well. Loves The Beatles. Likes to smoke a doobie. He just thinks Trump is a world-class a-hole and felt that he (and whatever movement you may ascribe to him) needed to be stopped even if it meant Liberalism might gain a leg up in the process.
The whole, "Grab a woman by her P" thing offended quite a few women. Whether he said it or not, it became the truth. They don't like his tweets. It's all there. Whatever Trump said is there for everyone to review. People are superficial at times and just want to feel comfortable. Trump doesn't do that for them. Many of them understand immigration laws but they think of children and "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," and he makes them spit the bit.
What's crazy is that we deported over 3 million people during Obama's tenure. But somehow that was not seen as inhumane. It's all in the message.
It's the people who voted for Brian Kemp in Georgia but wouldn't vote for Herschel Walker. In Texas, it's the people who voted for Abbott in 2018 but then voted for Beta over Ted Cruz. In Arizona, it's the people who voted for Doug Ducey in 2018 but wouldn't vote for Kari Lake 4 years later. In New Hampshire, it was the people who voted for Chris Sununu for governor but wouldn't vote for Don Boulduc. I'm sure that many of them are the pretentious white suburban women that tend to frustrate us. We may prefer that they ignore personality and obnoxiousness and vote on issues, but they're not going to. They must feel right about the candidates they vote for, and you'll never change that. It's what makes them tick.
For Cruz, it didn't matter, because Texas was red enough to make up for them. States like Georgia and Arizona are not, and we need to adjust for that. You need candidates who appeal to a broader electorate than Lake or Masters, and you need a unified party.
And think about it this way. If obnoxiousness and "mean tweets" shouldn't matter to these women voters, then why don't we act like they don't matter to us by not nominating candidates who are obnoxious and tweet stupid things? Let's treat it like it really doesn't matter and not do that.
Approach these voters the way we would if we wanted to date them. In the early 2000s, I went out with a vegetarian (the liberal granola chick I've talked about). Do you think I insisted on steak and bbq places and talked about how dumb vegetarianism was? No. I didn't pretend to be a veg myself, and I ate meat in her presence, but I kept my opinion to myself and was sensitive to her dietary wishes in choosing restaurants. After all, I didn't care what I had for dinner, so long as I had her for dessert. We should approach these voters the same way.
You knew your entire brief would be ignored for that one quote didn't you?
Ha...
She was a cute, cheery, nerdy, but fun brunette chick. Not busty (which is different from my style) but tall - 5' 10", only a little shorter than I was. All legs. We weren't a good match for the long term, but we had a good time.
A buddy of mine found a YouTube video with her from last year though, and she didn't age well at all. She's pretty "tore up" now. Lol.
Mr D
HOW is that not you? this is how I think you are. Except when you get a little wobbly on election fraud.
Ted Cruz gets into INTENSE fight with Dem when she shuts down savage Biden question
HOW is that not you? this is how I think you are. Except when you get a little wobbly on election fraud.
Ted Cruz gets into INTENSE fight with Dem when she shuts down savage Biden question
You had her when it mattered. Poor thing. That's the way it seems with many of the ladies from my high school years. It's weird to see them all frumpy and run down when they were so cocky and seemingly unattainable long ago. Speaking of cocky, I look real good and I ain't joking or being that internet guy. It's been fun to see the looks on their faces when we have reunions. I was personable but shy on the sex front back then and one of them said, "I'm having a hard time getting used to your obvious self-confidence." Ha... that was fun. 40 years later, revenge tastes sweet!
Built to last, Bystander!
Hence, bitter single women voting for Dem party.
Yep. A lot of women let themselves go when they get older, and some develop medical conditions that make it much harder for them to keep up. I try not to judge them. You never know what anybody's going through. I have aged reasonably well, but I was never some studly guy, so there wasn't far to fall. Lol. The big thing is that though I'm not bald (at least not yet), I definitely have less hair at 46 than I had at 22, when I dated that girl. My skin has held up fairly well - not really starting to be wrinkle - yet.
As for shyness on the sex front, we all are when we're young, because even if we were stronger, we didn't really know what the hell we were doing even if we thought we did. People can tell you about sex, but one really learns it by doing it. Furthermore, there's a bit of trial and error when you're young. (You just hope you don't err badly enough to ruin things.) Experience builds skill and confidence.
Very true. However, I will say this about my ex-gf. Though she's probably still a lib, she was never bitter, and I'll bet she isn't bitter now. She was very cheery and kind and very respectful of my views. It was a different time. Many liberals could disagree but not see all conservatives as monsters. Far less true now.
Moments like that were rare, but ironically the biggest one big one I ever did involved a piddly little Personal Injury Protection (PIP) claim with Nationwide Insurance that was worth less than $2,000. For some reason, they suspected fraud - still not sure why. It was a significant wreck, and both claimants were mentioned on the police report and reported injury at the scene. It didn't even smell fishy, but they wanted an examination under oath (EUO) - meaning to question my client under oath as in a deposition. I was somewhat new, so my boss still coached me quite a bit. He told me that it made little sense but that because it was a first party claim, we had a duty to cooperate and had to allow it. He also told me to let them have pretty broad latitude, because the last thing you want to do is get your client's claim ruined because you didn't cooperate.
So the fraud investigator and the adjuster came to my office to conduct the EUO of my client. The investigator did the questioning, and after a few minutes, he got a very aggressive tone for no obvious reason. He spent about 3 hours asking a bunch of background questions that had nothing to do with the claim and were clearly to exhaust my client (who was an old lady). A few times I considered fighting back or shutting it down, but in the back of my mind, I thought about what my boss had said about the duty to cooperate and didn't want to screw that up. Then he spent about 5 minutes on the actual claim. "Finally," I thought.
But then he said, "well I have run back to San Antonio for another appointment, but will you agree on the record to submit to another examination like this for further questioning next week?" That was the end of my patience.
"No, she will not."
"But I have more questions, and you have a duty"
"I know what our duties are, and you're free to question her more today if you want to, but we're not doing this a second time."
"But I have to get going."
"[With a bit more intensity.]I didn't tell you to waste three hours on pointless background questions that had nothing to do with the claim. You made that decision, and it was stupid one, but that isn't our problem. Now are you going to get to the relevant questions, or are we done now?"
"We're done, and off the record."
Then instead of just quietly ending these, the MFer (who was kind of a tall guy but clearly had small penis issues) pushed me harder off the record. "You should have agreed. I'm advising the carrier to deny this one."
"You have no basis for that, but you can do what you want and face the consequences of it. However, right now, I want all of you to get the hell out of my office, before I really get mad and hurt somebody."
Then I looked to the adjuster and said, "If this claim is not paid in full in 24 hours, Nationwide is getting sued, and every single one of you are getting sued, including this ******* [gestured to the fraud investigator]."
Then I turned to the investigator, "and if you think you're a tough guy for badgering an old lady, just wait until you're in the witness chair facing me. Bring your mom and some tissues, because you'll be in tears before I'm done with you. Now beat it." Looking intimidated, he left.
By 10:00 a.m. the next morning, the adjuster showed up at my office, personally apologized for the fraud investigator's behavior, and paid the claim. He denied involvement in the decision to bring him in - pinned it on his supervisor. I didn't believe him at first, but I had several other claims with him after that and was totally professional. Maybe he was telling the truth.
Nationwide is on your side.
Recent Threads
-
Fetterman
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 45
- West Mall
-
Insanity, thy name is public education
- Started by ProdigalHorn
- Replies: 8
- West Mall
-
Elon Musk Stuff
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 509
- West Mall
