Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Trump doesn’t just objectify women.
Bill was caught and impeached. He was punished.
Now. to hold a woman responsible, as an enabler, for the sins of her husband is not a novel concept, it’s very old. Women were held responsible for adultery, domestic violence against themselves and their kids.
On the right there is definitely a longing for traditional roles for women, among men and women. That’s why Trump was given a pass.
About my own views, I think that women should be given equal rights and responsibilities. They should earn their own money, take care of their own selves; and they can objectify men if they wish. Why can’t we have a female Trump? That would really mean that women finally made it.[/quote]FIH, I don’t buy that women were ever held responsible for their spouse’s adultery and domestic violence.
And I don’t feel that the “longing for traditional roles for women” can be attributed to “Republican dogma.” It is a relatively new phenomena adopted primarily by millenial women, who are the best-educated generation of women thus far, but who deep down would prefer to quit their FT jobs in a heartbeat if they could find a “sugar daddy” willing to take care of them financially … hopefully for `life,’ lol …. Men didn’t fear marriage because of too many perceived “gold-diggers” out there until the first millenials came of age and these women, are, for the most part, more “high-maintenance” (financially) then their older counterparts. (I know because I have daughter(s) who spend more on ONE cosmetic item than I do on food for myself and my pets for a week-plus.) Yes, many millenials live and work in expensive areas where their incomes are needed to survive … even as part of a couple. That is the only thing keeping many of them in their jobs. If they are parents and their spouses could obtain a well-paying job in a lesser-cost-of-living area where they wouldn’t have to work at all, they would be more than happy to move. Millenial women, as a group, aren’t anywhere near as goal-oriented as their oldest Gen X and Boomer counterparts and frankly don’t care if they walk away from FT employment still owing ~$100K in student loans. Millenial women are the ones who are coming back to work ONE BUSINESS DAY after their maternity leaves are over and handing in their resignations (AFTER collecting ALL of their maternity benefits) with or without the consent of their spouses. For whatever reason, major employers still favor hiring them over us boomers as FT employees, in spite of their fickleness, disloyalty, frequent improper dress at the office and constant requests for time off and “work-at-home schemes.” In addition, millenial moms have lost their generation’s credibility when they blatantly damaged the (social and workplace) gains their boomer moms achieved for them by displaying their very pregnant selves regularly in public in very tight and skimpy clothes (have they ever heard of maternity wear?) and insisting on nursing their babies in the middle of restaurants, airports, etc. This (delusional) group of “uber-moms” seem to think that everyone wants to watch all of this stuff in public and that they are somehow curious anomalies when pregnant or nursing :=0
In other words, the “gold-digger” phenomenon (which has been scaring young men away from commitment and marriage in the past decade … and rightly so) is generational. It has nothing to do with political party and everything to do with the “sense of entitlement” many millenial women have. Instead of being equal partners with their spouses, they want to be put on a pedestal and taken care of financially by a spouse as long as the ride lasts.
The vast majority of us boomer women never expected men to take care of us . . . ever (regardless of marital status) and irregardless if we have lived our entire lives in a “deep red state.” We never expected men to insure us medically. We earned our own pensions, our own SS benefits, earned or purchased our own healthplans, own our own homes and many, many of us have paid all of our own living expenses for years …. even decades or all of our lives (regardless of marital status). We didn’t get to the place we are by staying home during our kids’ minority thereby pi$$ing away our best earning years. Some of us even paid ALL the family bills when we were part of a two-income couple and managed our family’s household budget for long-term continuity. And boomer women didn’t and don’t want to support able-bodied men unless they were serving as (temporary) SAHD’s in families where childcare expense would be cost-prohibitive.
I’m sorry to hear from FIH that he hasn’t been able to find any “quality” women who are used to paying their own living expenses and not looking for a man to support them. They’re out there but he’s probably been hunting in the younger Gen X/Millenial category and, for the most part, he’s going to get exactly what he can find in those categories.
And yes, as Russ pointed out, it’s true that men are attracted by looks first and only consider other attributes after the female passes his “looks” bar (um, yes … even men who are 65+)! That’s just the way it is and this will never change. Lazy females of all ages who are “letting themselves go” and/or have remained underemployed/unemployed when their incomes were desperately needed by their household are doing/have done so at their own peril (again, regardless of marital status). Divorce judges aren’t kind to able-bodied women who are purposely unemployed or underemployed (whether parents … or not), especially in CA.
All of the Donald’s spouses were successful in their own right and had personal sports endorsements (Ivana, a boomer), TV and radio gigs (Marla, a late-boomer American from a fairly well-off family) and top model pay and a jewelry company (Melania, a Gen X) before they each married him. NONE of them needed the Donald to pay their bills so they could continue to live on their own before they married him. Had any of them NOT ever married Donald, they would ALL still be financially okay today because they are ALL very motivated individuals. THAT MOTIVATION (plus their beauty, of course) was what Donald was attracted to. Ivana, in particular, worked 8-14 hour days for more than a decade in Donald’s hotel(s) and was instrumental in their success. She received a large lump sum in her divorce (to set her for life) and deserved every penny of it. Donald had/has prenups with his second and third wives. Marla likely wasn’t married to Donald long enough to be awarded a regular monthly alimony check but nonetheless, received a settlement in her divorce to start over as a middle-class resident of Los Angeles, where she could pursue her acting and TV career. Melania was still peddling her jewelry on TV as late as last month. In all three of these cases, it was actually DONALD who insisted all his spouses stay home with their kid(s) when they were young because he frequently worked 12-18 hour days. In short, he was a workaholic all of his life. It was DONALD who insisted on paying child support to Marla for Tiffany to live nearly FT with her mom in CA (3000 miles away from him) because that was what was best for her (because of his erratic work schedule). In all cases, DONALD put his kids first, took care of ALL of them financially during all of their minorities, sent four of them to college (with one left to go) and did not hang around all of his life “living a lie,” as the Clinton’s did, (however much they were in collusion over their “big lie”) :=0
“Locker-room talk” aside, we can’t begrudge President-Elect Trump for “doing the right thing by his family” all of his life, regardless of his personal circumstances. That alone is the most telling mark of his character, in my opinion.
ParticipantI agree with xboxboy. I think that under a Trump administration, the party will eventually be over for foreign students (from any country) taking coveted seats from our stateside public universities while American freshman applicants get to live in their parents’ back bedroom and duke it out with their local (underfunded) community college registrar for needed classes whilst attempting to get their associate degrees in two years (a nearly impossible feat in many CA CC’s).
Also, Esco has it wrong about UCSD. 4,000 likely represents the amount of FRESHMEN it admits from China every year. When you count ALL its students, including grad students, the number it has from China (foreign students, NOT Chinese American) is more like 15-16K. All these students (and more OOC/OOS students) are taking up seats from CA HS graduates who had an expectation during HS (and rightly so) to attend a public university in their own state which offers their desired program AFTER they did everything necessary to get admitted.
Participant[quote=Hobie]C-mon you guys. Now not just the 1% can hire Hillery for $250k speeches. I’m sure her wisdom could be had by high school graduations for cheap.[/quote]LOL . . .
Participant[quote=Flyer in HI]Central Denver is pretty gentrified and hip, i hear.[/quote]It’s been “gentrified” and “hip” since about 1969. The RE prices in Central Denver neighborhoods began escalating in about 1989 and have now gone thru the stratosphere, pricing almost all first-time buyers out as well as most subsequent buyers. In addition, most of the houses there which were suitable for flipping are now gone (just like SD).
Even with an interstate spur-loop now completed all around the Denver Metro area (with its northern portion a toll road), it is still an arduous commute to work centers for moderate and middle-income buyers who must almost always purchase in distant subdivisions (if they wish to buy a SFR). It is not uncommon for a Boulder County worker (where much of the tech firms are located) to spend 3.5 hours per day commuting, especially in the snow.
Just like in SD, whichever families have been most established in Denver (usually for several decades) win at the RE game.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]. . . Southern California is new economy. You may support Trump but you’re not in the majority. The people you talk to don’t reflect where you live.[/quote]As I posted here before, my actual precinct is registered roughly 1/3 D, 1/3 R and 1/3 I. I have no idea how it voted. My surrounding precincts which are similarly demographically-situated had the same voter registration characteristics, give or take 5 points. I know Dems and Independents who stated they were voting Trump but I don’t know any Republicans who stated they would vote for HRC. If any Pigg could post a SD County precinct map of the results of the 2016 presidential election here, that would be helpful. OR, in the alternative, a CA Legislative District map. It is possible that not enough time has elapsed to come up with these maps. HRC won San Diego County by 17.1 points (a virtual landslide) but I don’t yet know how the vote broke down in the individual precincts.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi] . . . The fact that Hillary was not inspiring but carried CO speaks volumes to Trump not being able to overcome new-economy demographics.[/quote]The only “new-economy demographics” in CO were the thousands of incoming millenials who moved there in recent years for the legal weed. Were it not for legal weed, I believe CO would have gone red this election cycle.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi] …. Show me where I’m wrong…. and BTW, who did your millennial kids vote for?[/quote]They voted for Bernie in the primaries and then two of them had a crying fest in July in front of me because Bernie lost the nomination to HRC. AFAIK, none of them ended up voting in the general election.
Participant[quote=njtosd][quote=FlyerInHi]So evangelicals voted for Trump.
I’m really at a loss how Trump represents Christian values.You’re right scaredy. Abortion is a biggy. He will have to do something.
Looks like the list of Supreme Court justices under consideration don’t share your love of the coasts. They are listed in an NYT article entitled “Ivy League? Out. The Heartland? In.”
[/quote]LOL, FIH’s love of the coast is so great that he has been (voluntarily) living in hot, dusty, windy NV for the last several years.
Actions speak louder than words in my book.
November 15, 2016 at 1:38 PM in reply to: Electoral College: the disenfranchisement of Californians #803687Participant[quote=spdrun]Can she take Sen. Chuckles Scummer, that authoritarian in a blue jacket, with her? Please?[/quote]I sympathize with your request, spd. It appears that both of these clowns’ tenures have exceeded normal “term limits” (had there actually been any in place, lol) 3-4x over. What were the voters in CA and NY thinking?? Maybe the Trump administration will be able to fix that problem.
November 15, 2016 at 1:25 PM in reply to: Electoral College: the disenfranchisement of Californians #803685ParticipantI’m still waiting for that ancient hag, Nancy Pelosi, to finally throw in the towel, rouse up her collection of trenchcoats and decide to spend the rest of her waning nights (and days … as time permits) at Monaghan’s, where she develop a “consensus” among the other regular (opinionated) patrons and can walk to and from without being arrested for DUI :=0
November 15, 2016 at 1:11 PM in reply to: Electoral College: the disenfranchisement of Californians #803682Participant[quote=ocrenter]
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/us-politics/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-boxer-files-longshot-bill-to-scrap-the-1479234745-htmlstory.html
[/quote]
Oh, Good L@rd! She’s another CA ultra-lib living in her (self-imposed) “bubble of the privileged.” She needs to crawl back to her quiet, bucolic Marin County enclave and enjoy her “retirement,” now that she’s finally out of the picture. She’s wasting her time on proposing this go-nowhere “legislation.” Doesn’t she have a bicycle, a library card and grandchildren to visit? I hear there is a fairly new (albeit hidden from the sunlight :=0) bike trail going all the way down to Muir Beach. Why isn’t she down there picking up whole seashells and live crabs in her “old age?”November 15, 2016 at 12:39 PM in reply to: Electoral College: the disenfranchisement of Californians #803679Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]George Will is the classic small government conservative republican …[/quote]WAPO has been one of the most biased rags in existence this past election cycle . . . biased towards the Dems, that is.
It’s not even worth receiving for “free” to line one’s birdcage with.
November 15, 2016 at 12:36 PM in reply to: Electoral College: the disenfranchisement of Californians #803678Participant[quote=FlyerInHi] . . . Stop saying undocumented immigrants vote. They don’t.[/quote]You are beyond delusional if you actually believe this.
Not only that, the “undocumented immigrant vote” doesn’t even account for all those “border crossers” (living in MX) who successfully voted in San Diego and Imperial County, CA on election day (or registered to vote early and used a friend/relative’s house situated in said counties to have their mail-in ballots sent to and later picked them up and mailed them in to the County Registrar).
This same scenario could have easily also played out in AZ, NM and TX but I am not familiar with the nuances of their voter registration systems.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]That was a good call temecula guy.
I think i have a pretty good pulse of the country. But I missed the disaffection in the industrial east/Midwest.
What you said is true and affected Florida where the the old folks voted for Trump. But in California and new-economy cities and states such as Colorado, Virginia, Nevada, Dallas County, even AZ, economics and demographics overcame the Trump factors.
Despite her shortcomings, Hillary did better than Obama in Georgia, Texas, Arizona, and of course California. I think that Trump is the last stand of the old guard.[/quote]Um, FIH?? Not sure where you are getting your info from but Trump WON all those states but CA … and CO, where he lost by 2.8%. It doesn’t matter what happened in the election (and re-election) of Obama. He is on his way out and so is most of his “legacy.” And Trump would have won CO but for (mostly) “progressive” millenials moving in its most populous counties (with JOBS) since the legalization of MJ (1/1/14) and registering to vote. The exceptions were El Paso (county seat: CO Sprs, which has a high “evangelical” population) and Weld (county seat: Greeley, which has a very high illegal immigrant population which has been stretching the gratuitousness of local charities there for decades). Those two populous counties voted Trump. HRC only won Pueblo County by .2% (199 votes), which is heavily (majority?) Latino and where the bulk of legal MJ is cultivated! CO has the possibility of reverting back to red in the next election cycle.
http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/colorado/
The reasons are because CO state and local gubments are beyond fed up with the cost of “policing” the sales and use of recreational MJ, in spite of the public coffers its 35% + “sales tax” brings in. The law also created drivers on (often icy) mountainous roads who were impaired and a danger to everyone, sometimes heavily so and also mostly uninsured or relying on Medicaid.
The truth is, new incoming millenials just starting out have been priced out of rent in CO’s blue counties (the counties with CU/CSU and most of the good jobs) for almost 10 years now. Only the well-established boomers from states with higher-priced housing can afford to “retire” in CO and often not even in the county of their choice due to prohibitive cost so they better hurry. Rent and RE prices in most of CO are higher than most of CA except within the priciest coastal enclaves. The areas with cheaper rent/RE prices in the Denver metro area are trailer-park-like transient h@llholes which have beat cops parked on every corner and are an onerous commute to major job centers (especially in the winter). For these reasons, millenials who have not doubled and tripled up in a house/unit with a long term lease that they can live with (or are part of a dual-income couple, BOTH permanently gainfully employed FT) are not going to be able to make it long-term in the Denver area, Boulder County or Larimer County (county seat: Ft Collins).
Once this shift takes place in CO (millenials leave for the likes of [more affordable] KS City and the boomers move in while the getting is good), CO will revert back to red and vote to repeal their short-sighted law to legalize recreational MJ.
I’m intimately familiar with all four corners of CO and everything in between, having lived there for ~10 years in my youth (which was a lo-o-o-o-ong time ago :=0) and making 1-4 road trips through CO nearly every year since then. I’ve spent 35 days there in the last five years in the rockies alone. I was last in CO 2.5 months ago, staying for 6 nights in 3 different counties. I have a full and complete understanding of its people, its culture and the (often stark) differences between its counties.
-
AuthorPosts
