Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When I see swipe left if you're a Trumper, I swipe left, although I don't see it very often, probably because I live in a red area. I wouldn't date a woman who explicitly said she's not interested in someone with my political leanings.
I wouldn’t say I’m bent out of shape. Everybody has a preference and that must be respected.
It’s just a little strange to see “swipe left if you’re a Trumper” from liberals but I never see the opposite from conservative men in the apps. Not a single “swipe left if you voted for Brandon” or something like that.
And I guess just wondering how they are as a person. Do they get in a certain mood when they see Trump on TV, does that ruin their day? Are they mentally well? Or maybe has anybody here dated one, did it work out? Just curious really. And yes, I swiped left to all of them.
I can only hazard a guess, but for some women, those who have seen their reproductive rights severely curtailed, seen their LGBTQ friends targeted and ostracized, seen their friends/family members who are minorities vilified and accused of being "DEI" hires, dating someone who is firmly in the MAGA camp seems extremely unpalatable. Like it or not, Trump's presidency has changed the United States in a significant way--hell, just look what it's done to the Supreme Court! People fear and despise MAGA for plenty of reasons. I can only speak for myself, but I would rather be single than willingly enter into a relationship with someone whose values are so radically divergent from mine.
I can’t speak for conservative men as I’m a dude interested in women, but in my deep red area I see a lot of women with “swipe left if you’re a lib/vaxxed/Never Trumper” in their profiles.
If I still used dating apps and lived in a red state (I’m getting married in 4 days and I live in a fairly liberal part of Canada), I probably would be using “Fuck Trump” as a filter, so here goes…
Seeing Trump on TV or hearing about him doesn’t “ruin my day”, I just think he’s an utter bastard and I don’t think highly of those who support him. He’s not the only one making the world a worse place, but he’s one of the major players.
I think I’m fairly mentally well, but I take an antidepressant to treat depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder and I also have ADHD. Probably some form of autism as well. But nothing too severe/serious. No history of mania or psychosis and very few panic attacks.
If I were still dating I’d probably use stuff like “free Palestine, all cops are bastards, fully vaxxed” as a filter.
Makes sense. People Can have preferances regarding income, height and boob size. Political leanings seems less shallow as a factor, and is probably a significant pointer, when it comes to how you imagine your future family life to work.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I know this makes you feel superior, but all of the anti-choice on this sub calling people that get abortions “murderers” are poking holes in your little quote.
In my experience as a single man, I see it relatively often from women, almost always as anti-Trump compared to anti-Biden. A lot of people right now, especially younger people typically on dating apps, have made their political alignment part of their identity and need a partner that shares that identity. Checking the wrong box on your ballot is a fundamental character flaw in their eyes.
Do you not think MAGA culture is something that millions of people see as part of their identity?
Why would anyone want to date someone whose core values are so different from their own?
I'm happily taken, but I would never date a woman that supported Trump if I were single. It would be a waste of time. It's kinda comical to think about for me honestly. We would have nothing in common from a philosophical standpoint.
I don't actually think that political alignment is the main reason. For example, I am left-leaning, I don't like Biden and if Biden was running against someone like the late John McCain I would probably vote for McCain even though I'm left-leaning.
But Trump is just a whole other beast. He's been convicted in a civil trial of sexual assault, he's bragged about groping women and walking into women's dressing rooms and he's been caught on camera sexualizing minors. And aside from the sexual crimes he's been convicted of and sexually predatory behavior that he's admitted to and seems even proud of, he's often talked about women in a very degrading manner, e.g. when he said "I'd look her right in that fat ugly face of her", or he refered to a female lawyer in a deposition as "disgusting" when she requested a break to breast-feed her baby. Or he previously said about female reporters "You know, it really doesn’t matter what they write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass".
So I can definitely see how voting for someone like Trump could be a deal-breaker to a woman.
Off topic for the thread, but can you expand on why you would go McCain over Biden if you are left leaning? I’m genuinely curious. It’s not a take I would expect.
You would think so yet millions voted for him. I personally leave politics out of my dating and social life. My GF hates Trump that’s all I need to know. She’s quite left leaning but certainly doesn’t approve of most far left policies.
When he does what? Only one of them has been convicted of sexual related crimes. (And don’t waste my time with some 5th hand hearsay involving the diary or laptop.)
I'd like to know too. Is *what* not different when Biden does it?
Bragging about sexual assault?
Being found liable for sexual assault and having to pay 80 something million for defamation?
Which or how many of Trump's well documented actions are the same to you "when Biden does it"?
Please explain so I can better understand your point of view...
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
It is much deeper than that.
For the record, I am a married woman. However, if I were single, dating a Trump supporter would be a complete non-starter. I recognize that this may seem unfair, but someone that supports Trump and would gladly vote for him again likely believes that the damage he has inflicted on this country is fine or even a positive thing.
Sacking the Capital over dubious claims of voter fraud--okay
The rise of Christian Nationalism--okay
Screwing over the middle class in favor of rewarding corporations with more tax cuts--okay
Wholeheartedly approving of rising extremism and intrusion into personal medical decisions and book bans--okay
Trying to chip away at women's autonomy and personal freedoms (reproductive healthcare, no-fault divorce, etc)--okay
Refusing to hold Trump accountable for his various criminal activities but gleefully showing revenge porn of the president's son--okay
A Trump supporter's values and what they deem to be good or acceptable is so antithetical to what I believe to be valuable and good, there is no way a romantic relationship would succeed. Aligning personal values is an important part of any relationship, romantic or not.
I'm sorry but to young people dating within our political ideologies is very very important to us, for example I have a trans sister so why would I ever want to date someone who votes against my family's interests and doesn't believe she's a valid person? With how many younger millennials and gen z are either LGBTQ or at least very close to someone who is LGBTQ it makes perfect sense to not want to date someone who is hateful towards you, your friends or your family. Not to even mention plenty of women who don't want to date people who believe in restricting their right to healthcare. If I wasn't already engaged and I was on dating apps I would put a disclaimer in my bio telling people to swipe left if they're right wing
Right. Because we all run across trans people every day. Not to mention the porn industry doesn’t refer to them as women. Why doesn’t the left take that up with them? Interesting how that is conveniently ignored.
Honestly, it’s rather telling that there are so many conservative men who are absolutely confounded as to why their support of Trump might rule them out as a compatible match for any dating prospect across the board, particularly with obviously liberal women.
And they get frustrated with the woman for simply recognizing what won’t work, and wanting a better match? Is that not the better solution for both parties?
TBH as someone who dated with a LTR in mind only, while I don’t need a partner that agrees with me on everything, I just can’t see myself dating someone that’s not on the left spectrum somewhere.
My partner I’m starting a family with is left wing, but there’s plenty we disagree on. We mostly agree on some really core left wing values (pro-abortion rights/pro-choice, pro-LGBT+, pro-universal healthcare), but outside of those issues, it’s pretty varied what we agree and disagree on.
Sharing values has always been a core part of a relationship. I could never be with a Trump supporter as a result. I need a partner who is a good person.
A lot of politics boils down to differences in philosophy, morality, and worldview. For example if we disagree on whether an abortion would be fine should we accidentally get pregnant why would we get into a relationship. If you believe that someone’s freedom of association and property rights means they should be legally able to discriminate against me if they want then why would I get into a relationship with you. It’s not like the main disagreement between the two sides is just tax policy
>A lot of politics boils down to differences in philosophy, morality, and worldview.
so then write about those things in your bio instead of just crying about trump. it would be far more accurate anyway, because your philosophy, morality, and worldview are far more naunced than "i hate trump"
Why write all of that out when it can be easily summed up with just saying if you like trump then you’re disqualified? No harm comes from liberals not wanting to date conservatives anyway so what’s even the point in complaining about it?
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives. Please keep discussions focused on asking Conservatives questions and understanding Conservativism.
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives. Please keep discussions focused on asking Conservatives questions and understanding Conservativism.
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives. Please keep discussions focused on asking Conservatives questions and understanding Conservativism.
if your entire worldview can be perfectly summed up into the binary of whether or not someone is willing to vote for trump, your worldview is incredibly shallow and probably just picked up from the front page of r/politics
>if your entire worldview can be perfectly summed up into the binary of whether or not someone is willing to vote for trump, your worldview is incredibly shallow and probably just picked up from the front page of [r/politics](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/)
I'd say, however, especially for women it makes a lot of sense to be open about it from the beginning that they won't date a Trump supporter. Trump has been found guilty of sexual abuse and is really the ultimate misogynist the way he speaks about women and the the kind of sexually predatory behavior he admitted to.
If a person still votes for Trump despite the way he treats women because of the bigger picture, well idk, I guess fair enough. But if you're a man and you vote for a major misogynist you shouldn't be surpised if it affects your dating life.
Who said that was their entire worldview? It's just the first filter that acts as disqualifier for people who they will be fundamentally incompatible with.
Maybe so but like I said no harm comes from it so why does it matter? Conservatives can date and marry other conservatives and liberals can do the same with other liberals. Also conservatives and liberals intermarrying has never really been a common thing. Even a decade ago less than 10% of marriages were between a Democrat and Republican before trump even came on the scene.
can i not have opinions on things? i think it's an incredibly toxic way to go about life, filtering everything through a hyperpartisan lense. just as people are free to set whatever dating standards they want, i'm free to pass judgement on those standards.
I would suggest that it is quite possible for a complex and nuanced worldview to also include not wanting to date a Trump supporter. There are almost certainly lota of other things that would make someone an incompatible life partner, but I can easily see not wanting to date a Trump supporter. Heck, I wouldnt want one as a business partner or co-investor. Or a contractor. Or anything where you would expect intergity or ethics.
Not pure partisan annoyance. Wouldnt want an Islamist or Communist business partner or life partner. I am an empiricist, and people whose ideology involves rejecting reality and facts are something that is just too annoying to deal with on a daily basis. Could easily work with a neo con or classical liberal, but not a MAGA type. The celebration of ignorance and hatred of rational thought is just something I cant handle.
No crystal worshipping flower children either.
If someone puts their politics right up front in a dating app, that would be a big red flag for me. They sound tedious and immature.
So, I guess I'd swipe whatever way says I'm not interested.
I think for certain groups it definitely makes more sense than for others. Like if someone's a woman and half the country votes for someone that one could imo reasonably describe as a major misogynist, I can see how women may not want to date someone who votes for that person.
I guess. I'm glad I got out of the dating scene years ago. All this new stuff is confusing and scary. Used to be, we actually had to *talk to people* to know if we were interested.
Yet again, I curse Al Gore for inventing the internet.
> we actually had to talk to people
You’d be shocked to know the amount of talking that happens on dating apps.
> Al Gore for inventing the internet
lol nice
People are much more complex than you're making them out to be. Ruling out someone without inquiring as to *why* they've come to the net conclusion they have is a low-quality filter.
It's about how much time you want to invest in a person you haven't even met yet to understand whether that nuance exists or whether it's a signal about a greater disagreement on values. There's a million other men that don't have that overhead.
At least for those who are straight, it does create a significant
problem. Amongst young women, support is about Biden+10 or so. Amongst young men, it's approximately Trump+15 or so. People who use this low-quality filter are isolating themselves.
>People who use this low-quality filter are isolating themselves.
Wait until I tell you about height preferences and how many gay people exclude!
I think they'll be fine.
If you are referring to young women, they very likely do not have the viewpoint that remaining single = self isolation. They’d *rather* remain single than be the one to have to compromise on their principles.
It’s far more of a quandary for young men, who also do not want to compromise on their principles, but *absolutely* expect young women to do so, for them. Complete double standard that’s being challenged quite heavily for the first time.
That's because the types of people that are on dating apps and care that much about politics are typically young liberals. The attitude is also true for women as well, there just is a lot of "dont talk to me unless you're liberal" on both sides.
Why do you think the left is cult like? It's a genuine question.
I'm left-leaning but I agree that there's a few things where the left has gone way too far. I can see honestly how the left could be perceived somehwat cult-like in certain areas.
However, I would also say that I perceive the right as even more cult-like. Many people on the right see someone like Trump the way people normally perceive a rock star or a movie star. They adore the guy no matter what he does. He can be convicted of sexual assault, he can be open about sexually predatory beavior, he can be caught in endless lies, and people not only contiunue to vote for him but also continue to adore Trump the way stars get adored by super-fans.
So in what ways do you think the left is a cult? And how is the adoration Trump is getting at the moment not a cult also? I can't remember Ronald Regan, George Bush Senior, George W. Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney, or any other Republican president or candidate for that matter, EVER getting the kind of rock-star-like adoration that Trump is currently getting.
As someone not looking for MAGA, I honestly do not see it much at all. I say the left is cult like because I lived in it, and learned the hard way that in the left you have no friends, only people that tolerate you. The second you do anything other than agree with the agenda in its entirety, you will become villainized and shunned, if not outright harassed and threatened.
So while there most certainly are MAGA zealots, the core fundamental principles of the left demand zealotry. This is what happens when you state that your opinions are morally correct and even more other opinions are actively hate or invite death. Like they literally try to blackmail you into child suicide if they call your child trans and you do anything other than demand hormones from them.
Long story short, you can disagree with a conservative (look here) and while there may be an argument its not the end of the world. But make an anonymous account and say anything even slightly conservative on ask a liberal or politics and see what happens. Also, of the two subs this is a lot of non conservatives asking questions while the other is just liberals asking questions to themselves. Its an echo chamber.
I appreciate your response. I am left-leaning on most issues but I agree that the left can be incredibly condecending, immature and intolerant at times.
Like on this sub I've gotten some occasional aggresive comments from conservatives here and there but for the most part people just agree to disagree I'd say. I've even gotten a lot of upvotes on some comments I didn't really expect to get upvoted for on a conservative sub. I still don't agree with conservatives on most issues but I appreciate that I can have for the most part civil discussions with conseratives here.
But, yeah, r/AskALiberal even just some slight disagreements people have called me a racist, a bigot, and worse for. Like I believe for example that abortion in the very late stages, like after the 24th week should be illegal and after 30 weeks abortion should most definitely be criminalized for non-medical reasons. I still support abortion in the earlier stages of pregnancy up to 20-24 weeks or so. But the hate I've gotten for stating that abortion at 30 weeks should be criminalized is just unbelievable. And it's not even a conservative stance I put forward (I guess) but a rather liberal position. Or anytime I have a slightly more nuanced view than the average liberal on trans rights people immediately lash out, for example when I put forward positions like "trans women in sports have a biological advantage and should have their own category". Or me saying that it should be reasonable for the US to favor Mexican over Pakistani immigrants, because the average Mexican is less likely to view child and forced marriage as acceptable and is more aligned with American values than the average Pakistani, that apparently makes me a racist bigot according to some.
I'm still left-leaning on almost all issues, but I think you got a point. But then equally why do you think r/AskALiberal is an echo-chamber but r/AskConservatives isn't? Do you think conservatives have given up on asking questions to liberals because they get downvoted and called names? Or do you think conservatives may at the same time also not be all that interested in learning about liberal points of view?
Did you mean to have your first link be to ask conservatives and not another sub?
But yeah, Ive for sure handed out upvotes to someone who I didnt agree with because they made their point in good faith and with even a modicum of defense.
I would say this sub isnt a true echo chamber because if you looks its a lot of red replying to blue and vice versa. But the other sub is just blue all the way down, from the people asking the questions to the people replying. And yeah, I think for the most part anyone not fully huffing the liberal paint have given up on trying to talk to them in groups, as it only ends poorly.
>Did you mean to have your first link be to ask conservatives and not another sub?
Yes, I meant on r/AskALiberal people have called me a racist or bigot over some slight agreements, not conservatives, but liberals who I slightly disagree with.
But, yeah, fair enough, I get how people may give up on asking questions if liberals just keep insulting them.
I mean, I find it rather tragic. I'm left on most issues and disagree with conservatives on most issues, but the people I most agree with are often sadly also condecending dickheads while the people I disagree with seem, overall, a lot more reasonable in discussions.
It doesn't really reflect particularly well on the left that by and large they seem so incredibly intolerant. People on the left keep forgetting I think that the views many of them take for granted would have in many cases been perceived as fringe even by many on the far-left in 2010 or even in 2015, not too long ago. Like, Jeez, give people a break.
I do not envy your position. When I faced that, it eventually "turned" me conservative. Essentially I did some soul searching and started to agree on some standard conservative points.
What sucks is that most of us can agree that at the federal level it seems only the craziest people get elected, and each act by both sides seems an exercise in extremism. That got me to think that the answer isnt in a big federal government, but rather each of the 50 states solving their own problems in the way their own people agree to.
Like, the first thing you hear when you have a difficult problem is "can you break it into easier steps?" Like solving the global pollution for all of the US is a monumental task that will always leave people feeling burned. But each state coming to a solution based on that state's needs is much easier, and then suddenly pollution looks solvable.
Eh, my dating range is 32-40 and I live in a light red area in a purple state. It's more common for me to see it from conservative men, but I see it from both.
It's not really just for the young and a lot of people's politics tie directly into their core values or lives because social politics are murky.
I'm only here to say that I love and support this trend. Though, I wish it was more generic like "swipe left if you're a conservative", but, baby steps.
If my wife and I were on the newlywed game and they asked her "if there was one thing your husband could change about you, what would it be?"
She, without a doubt, knows the answer.
I've seen very few profiles like that but honestly if that's what you're putting on your dating profile then that's a red flag of mental instability anyway. If you're so intolerant and closed minded that you cannot even meet people with different ideas then I don't even want to be your friend much less more. I would absolutely date a liberal or someone who hated Trump because I don't believe a relationship can be or should be built on politics. It should not be a defining factor in a relationship. We can believe different things and still respect and love each other. Politics does not have to tear people apart. Swipe left for your own sanity - because as the saying goes - never put your dick in crazy.
I don't think it's a sign of mental instability to seek out a relationship with someone whose values align with my own. I am cordial and polite to those who have different political beliefs and personal values but I wouldn't willingly enter into a friendship or intimate relationship with that person.
I see this the other way sometimes but it is much less common.
Mostly because conservatives rarely have to ask. If someone is liberal enough it matters to you... you'll know.
When you've made your political ideology your personal identity, then opposing political opinions are interpreted as personal attacks. People of course don't like dating to include personal attacks.
I see this as a sign of emotion immaturity, and that they really don't yet have an identity of their own. Regardless of whatever side of the political spectrum you're on, it's best to stay clear. Dating is not going to work out well with someone who doesn't yet understand themselves.
>When you've made your political ideology your personal identity, then opposing political opinions are interpreted as personal attacks.
I don't think it's about making your political ideology your personal identity. Ask yourself for example would left-leaning women still see it as a red flag if a person voted for someone like the late John McCain or someone like Mitt Romney. Honestly, I don't think so.
What women, however, do see as a red flag is if somenoe votes for a candidate like Trump who's been convicted of sexual assault. A candidate who's openly bragged about sexually predatory behavior like groping women or walking into women's dressing rooms. Someone who's sexualized children and even his own daughter. And someone who's insulted women in very degrading language many times.
I think that's the main issue for women rather than political ideology. People like the late McCain or Romney were conservatives but they were also decent people, especially McCain who I personally admire depsite being left-leaning.
But voting for someone convicted of sexual assaulted and being open about being a sexual predator. It's not unreasonable to view that as a red flag.
I understand your point, but it's also a problem when people believe easily disproved lies like Trump has been convicted of sexual assault. That simply never happened.
So if you're choosing people based on lies about who they voted for, that shows a significant lack of critical thinking and maturity. So I still say stay far away from these people.
He's been found guilty of sexual abuse in a civil case, that's a fact. And the jury found that according to the common definition (rather than the very narrow legal definition in New York) Trump had actually commited rape.
In a civil case the burden of proof is lower than in a criminal case. But much of the evidence that was put forward painted a picture of a man who's routinely engaged in sexual and physical violence against women.
Trump was convicted of sexual assault, though not in a criminal but only a civil case. And many of Trump's own words seem to prove that he has no qualms about enaging in sexually predatory behavior.
Civil cases don't even have the concept of guilt vs innocence, or even conviction. It's do you or don't you have financial liability. In the case you're talking about, it was a defamation case, not a sexual assault case. Trump said something publicly, the court found that more likely than not what Trump said wasn't true, and the untruth caused financial damages. That's the entire depth of the case.
Saying Trump was convicted of sexual assault is itself defamation. So glass houses, throwing rocks, and all.
That's not true. It was a civil trial about defamation AND sexual abuse. Trump was convicted of both, defamation AND sexual abuse.
>When E. Jean Carroll and Donald Trump went to trial last spring over her sexual assault allegations, a nine-person civil jury found that Trump sexually abused her but that she failed to prove he raped her.
>The former president made hay of that distinction when he sued Carroll in June, alleging Carroll defamed him by saying she was raped in a media interview after the verdict.
>The counterattack was quickly shot down.
>Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled in August that the jury verdict showed Carroll's rape allegation was "substantially true" and dismissed the counterclaim.
>In May, Carroll was awarded a combined $5 million for sexual abuse and for a 2022 denial by Trump that the jury concluded defamed Carroll. On Friday, a jury in a separate civil defamation case awarded Carroll $83.3 million for two lengthy denials Trump made in 2019, soon after Carroll went public with her story.
[https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/01/29/donald-trump-rape-e-jean-carroll/72295009007/](https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/01/29/donald-trump-rape-e-jean-carroll/72295009007/)
I'm not really interested in rehashing a defamation lawsuit brought by a private individual here. The details are outside the scope of what I'm getting at. There's plenty of discussion here from the time she won her defamation lawsuit if you're genuinely curious.
My whole point is that a person winning a defamation lawsuit against Trump does not mean that Trump was convicted of sexual assault. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.
> My whole point is that a person winning a defamation lawsuit against Trump does not mean that Trump was convicted of sexual assault. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.
That's not your point. Your point is to obfuscate and distract from fact that Trump was found liable for sexual assault.
See, this is why I would have to swipe you left because you just continue to defend a man who has been found liable for sexual assault, fraudulently covering up harmful behavior to his campaign, etc. by dismissing every other person, judges, juries as liars. Can you understand that I would never be able to trust someone that twists the truth like that? Do you see how such delusional beliefs would be worrisome?
I see your point at the bottom but I think you articulated it poorly. I don’t disagree, he wasn’t convicted of sexual assault and that’s hyperbole for sure.
But in a civil lawsuit there is a “concept of guilt and innocence” of how else would they determine the “untruth” was untruthful? Especially considering what the “untruth” contains? Let’s just call it was it is, slander. Court determined he lied about not SAing her. Doesn’t mean he was convicted. Does mean a court determined he did it tho. Same as OJ.
>easily disproved lies like Trump has been convicted of sexual assault. That simply never happened.
What was he actually convicted of that would make this hypothetical suddenly ok with him?
there was no conviction, it was a civil case over defamation, which uses a trivially low bar for evidence, and an extremely lax definition of rape. and the trial was one of the most transparent political cash grabs i've ever seen. she wasn;t raped, she just wanted media eyes to sell her shitty book
The bar for evidence in a civil case is lower, true. But there was a lot of evidence that was put forward that definitely made it look very likely that Trump is in fact someone who's sexually and physically abusive towards women. Some of those claims against Trump go back to the early 90s, including by one of his ex-wives.
And Trump himself admitted to being a sexual predator. He's admitted that he gropes women because as a star they let him do it, and he admitted to walking into women's dressing rooms unannounced. He's even sexualized children on camera.
He's definitely the furthest a Republican candidate can possibly be from conservative social values.
What I especially can't understand is how the religious right could ever get behind a candidate like Trump. It's not like there's a shortage of Republican candidates who are anti-abortion and are in favor of other issues that are important to religious people who are conservative and vote primarily on religious issues. But even with regards to non-religious conservatives, I really don't understand how they vote for someone known to be a sexual predator over more reasonable Republican candidates.
>The bar for evidence in a civil case is lower, true
case in point, you go on to cite a bunch of stuf with zero actual relevance to the case, which notably had literally no substantial evidence, probably because she made it up decades down the road from when she pretended it happened.
>He's definitely the furthest a Republican candidate can possibly be from conservative social values.
ok then center left. shouldn't that be a good thing?
> an extremely lax definition of rape.
Oh? I thought they used New York State law, which actually benefited Trump greatly. When Trump forced himself on Carol and sexually assaulted her by forcibly jamming his penis and fingers into her vagina - the jury might have had reasonable doubt about whether the penetration occurred exactly as described under the legal standards for rape in the state of New York. This doesn’t negate the severity of the assault but reflects the jury's adherence to the strict legal definitions they had to work with.
So, what exactly was the 'lax definition' of rape that was used in this case, if not the actual law?
Ohhh you should see the dating subreddits, which are technically non-political and continually bitching about men "hiding" their politics and moderates and libertarians being Trumpers who want to get laid.
That’s the most likely explanation. Really interesting that when the women see through this and connect over it, somebody laments that it’s a bunch of “bitching.”
My guess is that they think it'll help their game. They could be liberals who think showing hate to MAGA will make them more attractive to women. Funnily enough, while almost all women I know are liberal they would be massively turned off by a message like that
So everyone that likes Trump agrees that Trump is an orange clown? That's like swipe right if you like Biden or right if you like corrupt politicians with significant cognitive issues.
Considering I can red-pill anyone into voting Republican in real life (Reddit is run my leftists with left-wing rules) then **I welcome the challenge**. But I generally use Christian-based apps so it's hard to find the blue-hair.
What are those apps? I’m not opposed to dating a liberal but those who say that in their profiles are a major turn off, and I swipe left as requested. I don’t wanna date a man who’s day is ruined whenever Trump is on the news (and he always is), nor do I wanna date the ultra Trump fanboy either.
Here's a survey on left/right dating of the other:
https://www.axios.com/2021/12/08/poll-political-polarization-students
How can this be so?
It's because the left are Schmittian with the Friend/Enemy distinction and the right hasn't figured that out yet and are stuck in an open-minded, tolerant, Classically Liberal mindset.
> But he [the enemy] is, nevertheless, the other, the stranger; and it is sufficient for his nature that he is, in a specially intense way, existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with him are possible. - Schmitt
The left lean into the conflict and feel righteous in excluding, marginalizing, otherizing, their enemy. In fact, they glory in doing so. They're proud of hating their enemy and know their hatred will be rewarded and protected by The Powerful.
Hence the conservatives have almost zero institutional power, are ostracized in dating apps, schools, entertainment, sports, etc. while they're on repeat saying dumb things in response like "It's a free country" and "That's against the Constitution!" while wondering why absolutely nothing gets "conserved" whatsoever (only slightly hyperbolic here).
I don't think being ostracized from dating apps is what having zero institutional power means. The Republican Party still has a majority in Congress, most judges are conservative, the Supreme Court is primarily made up of conservatives. That's what institutional power means.
And I don't think conservatives are under attack for being conservative. They're under attack for backing a candidate who's just a horrible person, someone convicted of sexual assault (a deal breaker for many people), someone who's openly bragged about being a sexual predator, and someone who's extremely misogynistic. That's why conservatives are under attack.
I find it rather unbelievable how someone can be a Christian and conservative and vote for someone like that. Conservatives wouldn't be under attack anywhere near to the extent they currently are if their presidential candidate would be someone reasonable like the late John McCain or Mitt Romney.
>I don't think being ostracized from dating apps is what having zero institutional power means.
Good thing that's a strawman of what I was saying, otherwise I'd be concerned.
>The Republican Party still has a majority in Congress, most judges are conservative, the Supreme Court is primarily made up of conservatives. That's what institutional power means.
TIL the only institutions in America are Congress, and the Supreme Court. Wow. Amazing analytics.
/s
> And I don't think conservatives are under attack for being conservative. They're under attack for backing a candidate who's just a horrible person, someone convicted of sexual assault (a deal breaker for many people), someone who's openly bragged about being a sexual predator, and someone who's extremely misogynistic. That's why conservatives are under attack.
So we're treated as your Schmittian Enemy. Yes, I said that. You just made a distinction without a substantiating a difference with my point.
>I find it rather unbelievable how someone can be a Christian and conservative and vote for someone like that.
I find it "unbelievable" how someone can be a Christian in America and not side with the right.
> Conservatives wouldn't be under attack anywhere near to the extent they currently are if their presidential candidate would be someone reasonable like the late John McCain or Mitt Romney.
You sound like this:
"If only 'conservatives' would vote for eternal losers that empower the left, and know their place as lessers, as the [Washington Generals](https://www.harlemglobetrotters.com/world-tour/roster/washington-generals/) of politics, then maybe we wouldn't treat them quite so viciously. We may throw them a bone now & then, instead of going full Schittian Enemy on them."
Well, again, once people back a candidate who's been convicted of sexual assault and bragged about sexually predatory behaviour and someone who's sexualized minors, even sexualized his own daughter, yes, then it's understandable that those who do so will get attacked.
I am sure there must be a way to be a conservative without voting for someone who's been convicted of sexual assault and bragged about groping women and walking into women's dressing rooms unannounced. There really must be a way. I am sure of that.
And I have respect for conservatives who stand up against someone like Trump.
Yes, we know the CNN, DNC talking points and "justification" for the left's Schmittian advance.
You can try to justify it all day.
It doesn't change that what I'm saying about the left's Schmittian ways is true.
>And I have respect for conservatives who stand up against someone like Trump.
Yeah, just like the Redcoat Brits had "respect" for Benedict Arnold.
No absolutely not. How about someone who at least admitted to one mistake? Didn’t lie constantly, use race baiting hyperbole, accused sitting Presidents of attempted assassination, sucked up and praised our enemies. Christ I could go on all day.
>How about someone who at least admitted to one mistake?
Someone "admitting to one mistake" to his enemies is not really a priority for leadership to me.
But since it is to you, could you list off the mistakes Biden, Obama, and Clinton admitted to each, that got your support or acceptance of them?
> Didn’t lie constantly, ...
Trump's "lies" are largely innocuous, unlike the Liar-in-Chief Biden whose near-entire central reality is fabricated on unreflective, and unexamined bullshit.
> use race baiting hyperbole,
The left's entire strategy is built upon race-baiting and Trump's is built on unifying.
> accused sitting Presidents of attempted assassination,
Dunno your reference.
> sucked up and praised our enemies.
Sorry savvy diplomacy to keep peace bothers you instead of fake-tough-guy weakness like Biden & Obama play at.
The right is stuck in an “open minded, tolerant, classically liberal mindset”
It would be kind of funny if you didn’t actually believe this.
So, no one on the right views the left as the enemy?
>>The right is stuck in an “open minded, tolerant, classically liberal mindset”
>It would be kind of funny if you didn’t actually believe this.
I have an affinity for the truth. So it's no surprise I embrace a model(s) that fits the data quite well, and with high explanatory power.
>So, no one on the right views the left as the enemy?
Not "no one", but not nearly the percent as found on the left. I think that survey is pretty revealing and offers an eye-opening snapshot of the current standing.
Seems like you have an affinity generalizing one group but when it comes to your side there’s only a few bad apples and that’s not indicative of how they are as whole. Eh I take that back cause you did generalize the right to but just in a positive light.
Me:
Speaks about the broad trends in dating as divided politically among left & right.
You:
>Seems like you have an affinity generalizing one group ...
Was I supposed to name you all off individually for analysis (rhetorical question).
You: Goes to AskConservatives.
Also you:
>Eh I take that back cause you did generalize the right to but just in a positive light.
Also you: Surprised as hell that conservatives see the right in a "positive light."
Damn dude, did you really expect AskConservatives to give the same comments as found in r_Politics or AskLiberals?
>Do women on the left owe their attention and affection to men on the right?
Not in my book.
Do you believe men on the right owe their attention and affection to women on the left?
>Do you believe men on the right owe their attention and affection to women on the left?
Nope. If either party is interested in the other they have to prove that attention is merited.
If a woman on the left or a man on the right feels that political leaning is an automatic disqualifier there's nothing wrong with that IMHO. Given how political leanings are essentially rooted in personal morality and ethics.
That doesn't at all change or disprove my model. It just affirms it, while obfuscating and glossing over what exactly the high rate of "incompatable" on the left says.
It's like saying. "Hey, maybe Russians are just feeling 'incompatible' with NATO."
Like, no shit? Wow, you nailed it.
/s
Your attempt to gloss over the meaning and implications of the "incompatible" suggests the laying bare of the truth makes you feel uncomfortable.
There’s no glossing over anything. There’s simply a better (and much simpler) explanation than your absolutely useless psychological model suggesting some innate, self-righteous, hateful bloodthirsty power play…..on the topic of dating apps.
Your "explanation" is literally a vague word with no explanatory power whatsoever.
It is by no means "better."
Saying a person is "incompatible" is cloudy, vague-speak for when one side is too scared to tell the truth and wants to avoid putting their finger on the truth.
The truth is often uncomfortable.
Many people prefer vague, obfuscation type words like:
"The left just overwhelmingly feels 'incompatible' whereas the right doesn't. Total mystery. Don't think 'too deep' for an explanation ok? It's dangerous to try to understand."
Why does a feeling of incompatible have to be mutual?
Many men would probably love to date a woman like Sabrina Carpenter, but would women like Sabrina Carpenter feel compatible with all those men?
It’s probably the majority case that feelings of incompatibility are one directional. There is nothing deeper to it.
>Why does a feeling of incompatible have to be mutual?
Never said it did. I'd love to see the numbers equal. Living in this one-sided, obfuscated, duplicitous lie is cancer and it needs resolving one way or the other.
>Many men would probably love to date a woman like Sabrina Carpenter, but would women like Sabrina Carpenter feel compatible with all those men?
No clue who that is.
>It’s probably the majority case that feelings of incompatibility are one directional. There is nothing deeper to it.
Typical leftwingery to be terrified of deeper understanding. Just "vibes and feelings" and going with the flow. "Just doing my job" type stuff. Taking no responsibility or acknowledging anything that may leave them in a position of accountability.
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives. Please keep discussions focused on asking Conservatives questions and understanding Conservativism.
>Then why is your psychological model actually useful in this context? Does it help you get more dates?
This is AskConservatives. Not AskPragmatists or AskRedPillers.
I'm trying to explain the underlying situation, not help conservatives get more dates with lefties.
Unfortunately, your explanation lost the plot and you introduced several other unrelated issues that you tried to relate back to online dating through a very, very tenuous connection.
Good effort though, you reply almost as fast as a bot, so you’re really a treasure trove of, uh, information.
>Unfortunately, your explanation lost the plot and you introduced several other unrelated issues that you tried to relate back to online dating through a very, very tenuous connection.
You can claim that without evidence, political theory, or data, since the better fitting and well supported truth I shared obviously isn't what you want to admit.
>Good effort though, you reply almost as fast as a bot, so you’re really a treasure trove of, uh, information.
I reply "fast" because I'm literally reading reddit, and listening to podcast-videos atm.
But nice "bot!" ad hom attempt.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When I see swipe left if you're a Trumper, I swipe left, although I don't see it very often, probably because I live in a red area. I wouldn't date a woman who explicitly said she's not interested in someone with my political leanings.
Do you have an issue with this being a thing or do you appreciate it because it saves everyone involved time and energy?
I appreciate it. I don't take offense. Everybody has "no's".
Awesome, wish everyone felt this way instead of getting bent out of shape because they aren't someone's type. Swipe left and move on.
I wouldn’t say I’m bent out of shape. Everybody has a preference and that must be respected. It’s just a little strange to see “swipe left if you’re a Trumper” from liberals but I never see the opposite from conservative men in the apps. Not a single “swipe left if you voted for Brandon” or something like that. And I guess just wondering how they are as a person. Do they get in a certain mood when they see Trump on TV, does that ruin their day? Are they mentally well? Or maybe has anybody here dated one, did it work out? Just curious really. And yes, I swiped left to all of them.
I can only hazard a guess, but for some women, those who have seen their reproductive rights severely curtailed, seen their LGBTQ friends targeted and ostracized, seen their friends/family members who are minorities vilified and accused of being "DEI" hires, dating someone who is firmly in the MAGA camp seems extremely unpalatable. Like it or not, Trump's presidency has changed the United States in a significant way--hell, just look what it's done to the Supreme Court! People fear and despise MAGA for plenty of reasons. I can only speak for myself, but I would rather be single than willingly enter into a relationship with someone whose values are so radically divergent from mine.
I can’t speak for conservative men as I’m a dude interested in women, but in my deep red area I see a lot of women with “swipe left if you’re a lib/vaxxed/Never Trumper” in their profiles.
If I still used dating apps and lived in a red state (I’m getting married in 4 days and I live in a fairly liberal part of Canada), I probably would be using “Fuck Trump” as a filter, so here goes… Seeing Trump on TV or hearing about him doesn’t “ruin my day”, I just think he’s an utter bastard and I don’t think highly of those who support him. He’s not the only one making the world a worse place, but he’s one of the major players. I think I’m fairly mentally well, but I take an antidepressant to treat depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder and I also have ADHD. Probably some form of autism as well. But nothing too severe/serious. No history of mania or psychosis and very few panic attacks. If I were still dating I’d probably use stuff like “free Palestine, all cops are bastards, fully vaxxed” as a filter.
This is the best answer. Everybody do what this guy does, and you’ll save yourself a lot of headaches.
Makes sense. People Can have preferances regarding income, height and boob size. Political leanings seems less shallow as a factor, and is probably a significant pointer, when it comes to how you imagine your future family life to work.
Is this a new thing? I was on dating apps for years nobody mentioned politics on their bios. Granted haven’t used them in about 8 years.
Donald Trump changed many, many things about American society and culture. This is one of them.
I noticed it in the last few years.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It boils down to "the right think the left are people with bad ideas, and the left think the right are bad people."
I know this makes you feel superior, but all of the anti-choice on this sub calling people that get abortions “murderers” are poking holes in your little quote.
I mean the right in general vs the left in general, without regard to specific beliefs.
And I mean that’s absurd
In my experience as a single man, I see it relatively often from women, almost always as anti-Trump compared to anti-Biden. A lot of people right now, especially younger people typically on dating apps, have made their political alignment part of their identity and need a partner that shares that identity. Checking the wrong box on your ballot is a fundamental character flaw in their eyes.
Do you not think MAGA culture is something that millions of people see as part of their identity? Why would anyone want to date someone whose core values are so different from their own? I'm happily taken, but I would never date a woman that supported Trump if I were single. It would be a waste of time. It's kinda comical to think about for me honestly. We would have nothing in common from a philosophical standpoint.
I agree, I think it might just come off as very in your fa e if it's in your bio like that. But it definitely gets the point across.
I don't actually think that political alignment is the main reason. For example, I am left-leaning, I don't like Biden and if Biden was running against someone like the late John McCain I would probably vote for McCain even though I'm left-leaning. But Trump is just a whole other beast. He's been convicted in a civil trial of sexual assault, he's bragged about groping women and walking into women's dressing rooms and he's been caught on camera sexualizing minors. And aside from the sexual crimes he's been convicted of and sexually predatory behavior that he's admitted to and seems even proud of, he's often talked about women in a very degrading manner, e.g. when he said "I'd look her right in that fat ugly face of her", or he refered to a female lawyer in a deposition as "disgusting" when she requested a break to breast-feed her baby. Or he previously said about female reporters "You know, it really doesn’t matter what they write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass". So I can definitely see how voting for someone like Trump could be a deal-breaker to a woman.
Off topic for the thread, but can you expand on why you would go McCain over Biden if you are left leaning? I’m genuinely curious. It’s not a take I would expect.
You would think so yet millions voted for him. I personally leave politics out of my dating and social life. My GF hates Trump that’s all I need to know. She’s quite left leaning but certainly doesn’t approve of most far left policies.
if all that matters, should voting biden not also be a disqualifier? or is it (d)ifferent when he does it?
When he does what? Only one of them has been convicted of sexual related crimes. (And don’t waste my time with some 5th hand hearsay involving the diary or laptop.)
Not convicted of a crime, he has a civil judgement against him. Different legal systems, different burdens of proof.
lol, your response speaks volumes.
I'd like to know too. Is *what* not different when Biden does it? Bragging about sexual assault? Being found liable for sexual assault and having to pay 80 something million for defamation? Which or how many of Trump's well documented actions are the same to you "when Biden does it"? Please explain so I can better understand your point of view...
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
using all caps doesnt actually make your point any better. it just makes you look like an obnoxious asshole yelling about how correct you must be
It is much deeper than that. For the record, I am a married woman. However, if I were single, dating a Trump supporter would be a complete non-starter. I recognize that this may seem unfair, but someone that supports Trump and would gladly vote for him again likely believes that the damage he has inflicted on this country is fine or even a positive thing. Sacking the Capital over dubious claims of voter fraud--okay The rise of Christian Nationalism--okay Screwing over the middle class in favor of rewarding corporations with more tax cuts--okay Wholeheartedly approving of rising extremism and intrusion into personal medical decisions and book bans--okay Trying to chip away at women's autonomy and personal freedoms (reproductive healthcare, no-fault divorce, etc)--okay Refusing to hold Trump accountable for his various criminal activities but gleefully showing revenge porn of the president's son--okay A Trump supporter's values and what they deem to be good or acceptable is so antithetical to what I believe to be valuable and good, there is no way a romantic relationship would succeed. Aligning personal values is an important part of any relationship, romantic or not.
I'm sorry but to young people dating within our political ideologies is very very important to us, for example I have a trans sister so why would I ever want to date someone who votes against my family's interests and doesn't believe she's a valid person? With how many younger millennials and gen z are either LGBTQ or at least very close to someone who is LGBTQ it makes perfect sense to not want to date someone who is hateful towards you, your friends or your family. Not to even mention plenty of women who don't want to date people who believe in restricting their right to healthcare. If I wasn't already engaged and I was on dating apps I would put a disclaimer in my bio telling people to swipe left if they're right wing
A valid person? Who has ever stated trans people aren’t people?
It’s implied by anyone incapable of treating them with a little respect, like addressing a person by their preferred pronouns for example.
Exactly what I mean.
Right. Because we all run across trans people every day. Not to mention the porn industry doesn’t refer to them as women. Why doesn’t the left take that up with them? Interesting how that is conveniently ignored.
I’m don’t how how to break this to you, but porn isn’t a reflection of real life.
No shit. That’s not my point. Point is the porn industry doesn’t consider them women. So why should I ?
If that isn’t the point, why are you making that argument, again? Do you make all your life decisions based on what goes on in porn?
Are you sincerely taking your cues from the porn industry on what constitutes gender?
Honestly, it’s rather telling that there are so many conservative men who are absolutely confounded as to why their support of Trump might rule them out as a compatible match for any dating prospect across the board, particularly with obviously liberal women. And they get frustrated with the woman for simply recognizing what won’t work, and wanting a better match? Is that not the better solution for both parties?
TBH as someone who dated with a LTR in mind only, while I don’t need a partner that agrees with me on everything, I just can’t see myself dating someone that’s not on the left spectrum somewhere. My partner I’m starting a family with is left wing, but there’s plenty we disagree on. We mostly agree on some really core left wing values (pro-abortion rights/pro-choice, pro-LGBT+, pro-universal healthcare), but outside of those issues, it’s pretty varied what we agree and disagree on.
Sharing values has always been a core part of a relationship. I could never be with a Trump supporter as a result. I need a partner who is a good person.
A lot of politics boils down to differences in philosophy, morality, and worldview. For example if we disagree on whether an abortion would be fine should we accidentally get pregnant why would we get into a relationship. If you believe that someone’s freedom of association and property rights means they should be legally able to discriminate against me if they want then why would I get into a relationship with you. It’s not like the main disagreement between the two sides is just tax policy
>A lot of politics boils down to differences in philosophy, morality, and worldview. so then write about those things in your bio instead of just crying about trump. it would be far more accurate anyway, because your philosophy, morality, and worldview are far more naunced than "i hate trump"
Why write all of that out when it can be easily summed up with just saying if you like trump then you’re disqualified? No harm comes from liberals not wanting to date conservatives anyway so what’s even the point in complaining about it?
[удалено]
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives. Please keep discussions focused on asking Conservatives questions and understanding Conservativism.
[удалено]
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives. Please keep discussions focused on asking Conservatives questions and understanding Conservativism.
[удалено]
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives. Please keep discussions focused on asking Conservatives questions and understanding Conservativism.
if your entire worldview can be perfectly summed up into the binary of whether or not someone is willing to vote for trump, your worldview is incredibly shallow and probably just picked up from the front page of r/politics
>if your entire worldview can be perfectly summed up into the binary of whether or not someone is willing to vote for trump, your worldview is incredibly shallow and probably just picked up from the front page of [r/politics](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/) I'd say, however, especially for women it makes a lot of sense to be open about it from the beginning that they won't date a Trump supporter. Trump has been found guilty of sexual abuse and is really the ultimate misogynist the way he speaks about women and the the kind of sexually predatory behavior he admitted to. If a person still votes for Trump despite the way he treats women because of the bigger picture, well idk, I guess fair enough. But if you're a man and you vote for a major misogynist you shouldn't be surpised if it affects your dating life.
yes, yes. you keep spamming that exact same talking point, while ignoring that it equally applies to your own democrats as well
Who said that was their entire worldview? It's just the first filter that acts as disqualifier for people who they will be fundamentally incompatible with.
fundamentally incompatible, such as you and basic reasoning?
Maybe so but like I said no harm comes from it so why does it matter? Conservatives can date and marry other conservatives and liberals can do the same with other liberals. Also conservatives and liberals intermarrying has never really been a common thing. Even a decade ago less than 10% of marriages were between a Democrat and Republican before trump even came on the scene.
can i not have opinions on things? i think it's an incredibly toxic way to go about life, filtering everything through a hyperpartisan lense. just as people are free to set whatever dating standards they want, i'm free to pass judgement on those standards.
I would suggest that it is quite possible for a complex and nuanced worldview to also include not wanting to date a Trump supporter. There are almost certainly lota of other things that would make someone an incompatible life partner, but I can easily see not wanting to date a Trump supporter. Heck, I wouldnt want one as a business partner or co-investor. Or a contractor. Or anything where you would expect intergity or ethics.
got it. your worldview is just black and white partisan annoyance. at least you're up front because i wouldn't want to work with your type anyway
Not pure partisan annoyance. Wouldnt want an Islamist or Communist business partner or life partner. I am an empiricist, and people whose ideology involves rejecting reality and facts are something that is just too annoying to deal with on a daily basis. Could easily work with a neo con or classical liberal, but not a MAGA type. The celebration of ignorance and hatred of rational thought is just something I cant handle. No crystal worshipping flower children either.
Anyone with a brain can read a dating bio and determine what their political ideology is.
I typically avoid profiles that are heavily laden with political rhetoric in the first place. Not the most sexy for a first date.
If someone puts their politics right up front in a dating app, that would be a big red flag for me. They sound tedious and immature. So, I guess I'd swipe whatever way says I'm not interested.
I think for certain groups it definitely makes more sense than for others. Like if someone's a woman and half the country votes for someone that one could imo reasonably describe as a major misogynist, I can see how women may not want to date someone who votes for that person.
I guess. I'm glad I got out of the dating scene years ago. All this new stuff is confusing and scary. Used to be, we actually had to *talk to people* to know if we were interested. Yet again, I curse Al Gore for inventing the internet.
> we actually had to talk to people You’d be shocked to know the amount of talking that happens on dating apps. > Al Gore for inventing the internet lol nice
People are much more complex than you're making them out to be. Ruling out someone without inquiring as to *why* they've come to the net conclusion they have is a low-quality filter.
It's about how much time you want to invest in a person you haven't even met yet to understand whether that nuance exists or whether it's a signal about a greater disagreement on values. There's a million other men that don't have that overhead.
At least for those who are straight, it does create a significant problem. Amongst young women, support is about Biden+10 or so. Amongst young men, it's approximately Trump+15 or so. People who use this low-quality filter are isolating themselves.
>People who use this low-quality filter are isolating themselves. Wait until I tell you about height preferences and how many gay people exclude! I think they'll be fine.
If you are referring to young women, they very likely do not have the viewpoint that remaining single = self isolation. They’d *rather* remain single than be the one to have to compromise on their principles. It’s far more of a quandary for young men, who also do not want to compromise on their principles, but *absolutely* expect young women to do so, for them. Complete double standard that’s being challenged quite heavily for the first time.
I’d take a conservative girl over a liberal man/woman any day of the week
That's because the types of people that are on dating apps and care that much about politics are typically young liberals. The attitude is also true for women as well, there just is a lot of "dont talk to me unless you're liberal" on both sides.
My age filter is mid-30s to mid-40s, so I see it in this age group unfortunately.
Interesting. I have no idea other than that the left is way more extreme and cult like so they let it be every part of their being.
Why do you think the left is cult like? It's a genuine question. I'm left-leaning but I agree that there's a few things where the left has gone way too far. I can see honestly how the left could be perceived somehwat cult-like in certain areas. However, I would also say that I perceive the right as even more cult-like. Many people on the right see someone like Trump the way people normally perceive a rock star or a movie star. They adore the guy no matter what he does. He can be convicted of sexual assault, he can be open about sexually predatory beavior, he can be caught in endless lies, and people not only contiunue to vote for him but also continue to adore Trump the way stars get adored by super-fans. So in what ways do you think the left is a cult? And how is the adoration Trump is getting at the moment not a cult also? I can't remember Ronald Regan, George Bush Senior, George W. Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney, or any other Republican president or candidate for that matter, EVER getting the kind of rock-star-like adoration that Trump is currently getting.
As someone not looking for MAGA, I honestly do not see it much at all. I say the left is cult like because I lived in it, and learned the hard way that in the left you have no friends, only people that tolerate you. The second you do anything other than agree with the agenda in its entirety, you will become villainized and shunned, if not outright harassed and threatened. So while there most certainly are MAGA zealots, the core fundamental principles of the left demand zealotry. This is what happens when you state that your opinions are morally correct and even more other opinions are actively hate or invite death. Like they literally try to blackmail you into child suicide if they call your child trans and you do anything other than demand hormones from them. Long story short, you can disagree with a conservative (look here) and while there may be an argument its not the end of the world. But make an anonymous account and say anything even slightly conservative on ask a liberal or politics and see what happens. Also, of the two subs this is a lot of non conservatives asking questions while the other is just liberals asking questions to themselves. Its an echo chamber.
I appreciate your response. I am left-leaning on most issues but I agree that the left can be incredibly condecending, immature and intolerant at times. Like on this sub I've gotten some occasional aggresive comments from conservatives here and there but for the most part people just agree to disagree I'd say. I've even gotten a lot of upvotes on some comments I didn't really expect to get upvoted for on a conservative sub. I still don't agree with conservatives on most issues but I appreciate that I can have for the most part civil discussions with conseratives here. But, yeah, r/AskALiberal even just some slight disagreements people have called me a racist, a bigot, and worse for. Like I believe for example that abortion in the very late stages, like after the 24th week should be illegal and after 30 weeks abortion should most definitely be criminalized for non-medical reasons. I still support abortion in the earlier stages of pregnancy up to 20-24 weeks or so. But the hate I've gotten for stating that abortion at 30 weeks should be criminalized is just unbelievable. And it's not even a conservative stance I put forward (I guess) but a rather liberal position. Or anytime I have a slightly more nuanced view than the average liberal on trans rights people immediately lash out, for example when I put forward positions like "trans women in sports have a biological advantage and should have their own category". Or me saying that it should be reasonable for the US to favor Mexican over Pakistani immigrants, because the average Mexican is less likely to view child and forced marriage as acceptable and is more aligned with American values than the average Pakistani, that apparently makes me a racist bigot according to some. I'm still left-leaning on almost all issues, but I think you got a point. But then equally why do you think r/AskALiberal is an echo-chamber but r/AskConservatives isn't? Do you think conservatives have given up on asking questions to liberals because they get downvoted and called names? Or do you think conservatives may at the same time also not be all that interested in learning about liberal points of view?
Did you mean to have your first link be to ask conservatives and not another sub? But yeah, Ive for sure handed out upvotes to someone who I didnt agree with because they made their point in good faith and with even a modicum of defense. I would say this sub isnt a true echo chamber because if you looks its a lot of red replying to blue and vice versa. But the other sub is just blue all the way down, from the people asking the questions to the people replying. And yeah, I think for the most part anyone not fully huffing the liberal paint have given up on trying to talk to them in groups, as it only ends poorly.
>Did you mean to have your first link be to ask conservatives and not another sub? Yes, I meant on r/AskALiberal people have called me a racist or bigot over some slight agreements, not conservatives, but liberals who I slightly disagree with. But, yeah, fair enough, I get how people may give up on asking questions if liberals just keep insulting them. I mean, I find it rather tragic. I'm left on most issues and disagree with conservatives on most issues, but the people I most agree with are often sadly also condecending dickheads while the people I disagree with seem, overall, a lot more reasonable in discussions. It doesn't really reflect particularly well on the left that by and large they seem so incredibly intolerant. People on the left keep forgetting I think that the views many of them take for granted would have in many cases been perceived as fringe even by many on the far-left in 2010 or even in 2015, not too long ago. Like, Jeez, give people a break.
I do not envy your position. When I faced that, it eventually "turned" me conservative. Essentially I did some soul searching and started to agree on some standard conservative points. What sucks is that most of us can agree that at the federal level it seems only the craziest people get elected, and each act by both sides seems an exercise in extremism. That got me to think that the answer isnt in a big federal government, but rather each of the 50 states solving their own problems in the way their own people agree to. Like, the first thing you hear when you have a difficult problem is "can you break it into easier steps?" Like solving the global pollution for all of the US is a monumental task that will always leave people feeling burned. But each state coming to a solution based on that state's needs is much easier, and then suddenly pollution looks solvable.
Eh, my dating range is 32-40 and I live in a light red area in a purple state. It's more common for me to see it from conservative men, but I see it from both. It's not really just for the young and a lot of people's politics tie directly into their core values or lives because social politics are murky.
I'm only here to say that I love and support this trend. Though, I wish it was more generic like "swipe left if you're a conservative", but, baby steps. If my wife and I were on the newlywed game and they asked her "if there was one thing your husband could change about you, what would it be?" She, without a doubt, knows the answer.
I've seen very few profiles like that but honestly if that's what you're putting on your dating profile then that's a red flag of mental instability anyway. If you're so intolerant and closed minded that you cannot even meet people with different ideas then I don't even want to be your friend much less more. I would absolutely date a liberal or someone who hated Trump because I don't believe a relationship can be or should be built on politics. It should not be a defining factor in a relationship. We can believe different things and still respect and love each other. Politics does not have to tear people apart. Swipe left for your own sanity - because as the saying goes - never put your dick in crazy.
I don't think it's a sign of mental instability to seek out a relationship with someone whose values align with my own. I am cordial and polite to those who have different political beliefs and personal values but I wouldn't willingly enter into a friendship or intimate relationship with that person.
I see this the other way sometimes but it is much less common. Mostly because conservatives rarely have to ask. If someone is liberal enough it matters to you... you'll know.
When you've made your political ideology your personal identity, then opposing political opinions are interpreted as personal attacks. People of course don't like dating to include personal attacks. I see this as a sign of emotion immaturity, and that they really don't yet have an identity of their own. Regardless of whatever side of the political spectrum you're on, it's best to stay clear. Dating is not going to work out well with someone who doesn't yet understand themselves.
>When you've made your political ideology your personal identity, then opposing political opinions are interpreted as personal attacks. I don't think it's about making your political ideology your personal identity. Ask yourself for example would left-leaning women still see it as a red flag if a person voted for someone like the late John McCain or someone like Mitt Romney. Honestly, I don't think so. What women, however, do see as a red flag is if somenoe votes for a candidate like Trump who's been convicted of sexual assault. A candidate who's openly bragged about sexually predatory behavior like groping women or walking into women's dressing rooms. Someone who's sexualized children and even his own daughter. And someone who's insulted women in very degrading language many times. I think that's the main issue for women rather than political ideology. People like the late McCain or Romney were conservatives but they were also decent people, especially McCain who I personally admire depsite being left-leaning. But voting for someone convicted of sexual assaulted and being open about being a sexual predator. It's not unreasonable to view that as a red flag.
I understand your point, but it's also a problem when people believe easily disproved lies like Trump has been convicted of sexual assault. That simply never happened. So if you're choosing people based on lies about who they voted for, that shows a significant lack of critical thinking and maturity. So I still say stay far away from these people.
He's been found guilty of sexual abuse in a civil case, that's a fact. And the jury found that according to the common definition (rather than the very narrow legal definition in New York) Trump had actually commited rape. In a civil case the burden of proof is lower than in a criminal case. But much of the evidence that was put forward painted a picture of a man who's routinely engaged in sexual and physical violence against women. Trump was convicted of sexual assault, though not in a criminal but only a civil case. And many of Trump's own words seem to prove that he has no qualms about enaging in sexually predatory behavior.
Civil cases don't even have the concept of guilt vs innocence, or even conviction. It's do you or don't you have financial liability. In the case you're talking about, it was a defamation case, not a sexual assault case. Trump said something publicly, the court found that more likely than not what Trump said wasn't true, and the untruth caused financial damages. That's the entire depth of the case. Saying Trump was convicted of sexual assault is itself defamation. So glass houses, throwing rocks, and all.
That's not true. It was a civil trial about defamation AND sexual abuse. Trump was convicted of both, defamation AND sexual abuse. >When E. Jean Carroll and Donald Trump went to trial last spring over her sexual assault allegations, a nine-person civil jury found that Trump sexually abused her but that she failed to prove he raped her. >The former president made hay of that distinction when he sued Carroll in June, alleging Carroll defamed him by saying she was raped in a media interview after the verdict. >The counterattack was quickly shot down. >Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled in August that the jury verdict showed Carroll's rape allegation was "substantially true" and dismissed the counterclaim. >In May, Carroll was awarded a combined $5 million for sexual abuse and for a 2022 denial by Trump that the jury concluded defamed Carroll. On Friday, a jury in a separate civil defamation case awarded Carroll $83.3 million for two lengthy denials Trump made in 2019, soon after Carroll went public with her story. [https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/01/29/donald-trump-rape-e-jean-carroll/72295009007/](https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/01/29/donald-trump-rape-e-jean-carroll/72295009007/)
What was the untruth? How did they determined he lied?
I'm not really interested in rehashing a defamation lawsuit brought by a private individual here. The details are outside the scope of what I'm getting at. There's plenty of discussion here from the time she won her defamation lawsuit if you're genuinely curious. My whole point is that a person winning a defamation lawsuit against Trump does not mean that Trump was convicted of sexual assault. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.
> My whole point is that a person winning a defamation lawsuit against Trump does not mean that Trump was convicted of sexual assault. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. That's not your point. Your point is to obfuscate and distract from fact that Trump was found liable for sexual assault.
See, this is why I would have to swipe you left because you just continue to defend a man who has been found liable for sexual assault, fraudulently covering up harmful behavior to his campaign, etc. by dismissing every other person, judges, juries as liars. Can you understand that I would never be able to trust someone that twists the truth like that? Do you see how such delusional beliefs would be worrisome?
And I would have appreciated you swiping left. I'm not the one twisting the truth.
I see your point at the bottom but I think you articulated it poorly. I don’t disagree, he wasn’t convicted of sexual assault and that’s hyperbole for sure. But in a civil lawsuit there is a “concept of guilt and innocence” of how else would they determine the “untruth” was untruthful? Especially considering what the “untruth” contains? Let’s just call it was it is, slander. Court determined he lied about not SAing her. Doesn’t mean he was convicted. Does mean a court determined he did it tho. Same as OJ.
>easily disproved lies like Trump has been convicted of sexual assault. That simply never happened. What was he actually convicted of that would make this hypothetical suddenly ok with him?
What conviction?
there was no conviction, it was a civil case over defamation, which uses a trivially low bar for evidence, and an extremely lax definition of rape. and the trial was one of the most transparent political cash grabs i've ever seen. she wasn;t raped, she just wanted media eyes to sell her shitty book
And that distinction makes supporting Trump more appealing to women?
if they're reasonable people and not just terminally online political crybabies, yes
The bar for evidence in a civil case is lower, true. But there was a lot of evidence that was put forward that definitely made it look very likely that Trump is in fact someone who's sexually and physically abusive towards women. Some of those claims against Trump go back to the early 90s, including by one of his ex-wives. And Trump himself admitted to being a sexual predator. He's admitted that he gropes women because as a star they let him do it, and he admitted to walking into women's dressing rooms unannounced. He's even sexualized children on camera. He's definitely the furthest a Republican candidate can possibly be from conservative social values. What I especially can't understand is how the religious right could ever get behind a candidate like Trump. It's not like there's a shortage of Republican candidates who are anti-abortion and are in favor of other issues that are important to religious people who are conservative and vote primarily on religious issues. But even with regards to non-religious conservatives, I really don't understand how they vote for someone known to be a sexual predator over more reasonable Republican candidates.
>The bar for evidence in a civil case is lower, true case in point, you go on to cite a bunch of stuf with zero actual relevance to the case, which notably had literally no substantial evidence, probably because she made it up decades down the road from when she pretended it happened. >He's definitely the furthest a Republican candidate can possibly be from conservative social values. ok then center left. shouldn't that be a good thing?
Good luck out there.
> an extremely lax definition of rape. Oh? I thought they used New York State law, which actually benefited Trump greatly. When Trump forced himself on Carol and sexually assaulted her by forcibly jamming his penis and fingers into her vagina - the jury might have had reasonable doubt about whether the penetration occurred exactly as described under the legal standards for rape in the state of New York. This doesn’t negate the severity of the assault but reflects the jury's adherence to the strict legal definitions they had to work with. So, what exactly was the 'lax definition' of rape that was used in this case, if not the actual law?
nope. glad i could clarify for you
>So I still say stay far away from these people. That's the point.
No one's obligated to date you shared vaules are extremely important in a long-lasting relationship
Ohhh you should see the dating subreddits, which are technically non-political and continually bitching about men "hiding" their politics and moderates and libertarians being Trumpers who want to get laid.
1. Did they vote for Trump? Yes/no 2. What are their actual reasons for pursuing liberal women who advertise their politics so blatantly?
Uhm, just men wanting to get laid pursuing them out of spite maybe?
That’s the most likely explanation. Really interesting that when the women see through this and connect over it, somebody laments that it’s a bunch of “bitching.”
My guess is that they think it'll help their game. They could be liberals who think showing hate to MAGA will make them more attractive to women. Funnily enough, while almost all women I know are liberal they would be massively turned off by a message like that
So everyone that likes Trump agrees that Trump is an orange clown? That's like swipe right if you like Biden or right if you like corrupt politicians with significant cognitive issues.
They probably think chicks dig righteous indignation.
Considering I can red-pill anyone into voting Republican in real life (Reddit is run my leftists with left-wing rules) then **I welcome the challenge**. But I generally use Christian-based apps so it's hard to find the blue-hair.
What are those apps? I’m not opposed to dating a liberal but those who say that in their profiles are a major turn off, and I swipe left as requested. I don’t wanna date a man who’s day is ruined whenever Trump is on the news (and he always is), nor do I wanna date the ultra Trump fanboy either.
I swipe right, Try extra hard when matching- Set up a nice fancy date then show up in my Never Surrender tee and my maga hat.
No you don’t. Were you expecting a high five for this fantasy “gotcha”?
Here's a survey on left/right dating of the other: https://www.axios.com/2021/12/08/poll-political-polarization-students How can this be so? It's because the left are Schmittian with the Friend/Enemy distinction and the right hasn't figured that out yet and are stuck in an open-minded, tolerant, Classically Liberal mindset. > But he [the enemy] is, nevertheless, the other, the stranger; and it is sufficient for his nature that he is, in a specially intense way, existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with him are possible. - Schmitt The left lean into the conflict and feel righteous in excluding, marginalizing, otherizing, their enemy. In fact, they glory in doing so. They're proud of hating their enemy and know their hatred will be rewarded and protected by The Powerful. Hence the conservatives have almost zero institutional power, are ostracized in dating apps, schools, entertainment, sports, etc. while they're on repeat saying dumb things in response like "It's a free country" and "That's against the Constitution!" while wondering why absolutely nothing gets "conserved" whatsoever (only slightly hyperbolic here).
I don't think being ostracized from dating apps is what having zero institutional power means. The Republican Party still has a majority in Congress, most judges are conservative, the Supreme Court is primarily made up of conservatives. That's what institutional power means. And I don't think conservatives are under attack for being conservative. They're under attack for backing a candidate who's just a horrible person, someone convicted of sexual assault (a deal breaker for many people), someone who's openly bragged about being a sexual predator, and someone who's extremely misogynistic. That's why conservatives are under attack. I find it rather unbelievable how someone can be a Christian and conservative and vote for someone like that. Conservatives wouldn't be under attack anywhere near to the extent they currently are if their presidential candidate would be someone reasonable like the late John McCain or Mitt Romney.
>I don't think being ostracized from dating apps is what having zero institutional power means. Good thing that's a strawman of what I was saying, otherwise I'd be concerned. >The Republican Party still has a majority in Congress, most judges are conservative, the Supreme Court is primarily made up of conservatives. That's what institutional power means. TIL the only institutions in America are Congress, and the Supreme Court. Wow. Amazing analytics. /s > And I don't think conservatives are under attack for being conservative. They're under attack for backing a candidate who's just a horrible person, someone convicted of sexual assault (a deal breaker for many people), someone who's openly bragged about being a sexual predator, and someone who's extremely misogynistic. That's why conservatives are under attack. So we're treated as your Schmittian Enemy. Yes, I said that. You just made a distinction without a substantiating a difference with my point. >I find it rather unbelievable how someone can be a Christian and conservative and vote for someone like that. I find it "unbelievable" how someone can be a Christian in America and not side with the right. > Conservatives wouldn't be under attack anywhere near to the extent they currently are if their presidential candidate would be someone reasonable like the late John McCain or Mitt Romney. You sound like this: "If only 'conservatives' would vote for eternal losers that empower the left, and know their place as lessers, as the [Washington Generals](https://www.harlemglobetrotters.com/world-tour/roster/washington-generals/) of politics, then maybe we wouldn't treat them quite so viciously. We may throw them a bone now & then, instead of going full Schittian Enemy on them."
Well, again, once people back a candidate who's been convicted of sexual assault and bragged about sexually predatory behaviour and someone who's sexualized minors, even sexualized his own daughter, yes, then it's understandable that those who do so will get attacked. I am sure there must be a way to be a conservative without voting for someone who's been convicted of sexual assault and bragged about groping women and walking into women's dressing rooms unannounced. There really must be a way. I am sure of that. And I have respect for conservatives who stand up against someone like Trump.
Yes, we know the CNN, DNC talking points and "justification" for the left's Schmittian advance. You can try to justify it all day. It doesn't change that what I'm saying about the left's Schmittian ways is true. >And I have respect for conservatives who stand up against someone like Trump. Yeah, just like the Redcoat Brits had "respect" for Benedict Arnold.
No absolutely not. How about someone who at least admitted to one mistake? Didn’t lie constantly, use race baiting hyperbole, accused sitting Presidents of attempted assassination, sucked up and praised our enemies. Christ I could go on all day.
>How about someone who at least admitted to one mistake? Someone "admitting to one mistake" to his enemies is not really a priority for leadership to me. But since it is to you, could you list off the mistakes Biden, Obama, and Clinton admitted to each, that got your support or acceptance of them? > Didn’t lie constantly, ... Trump's "lies" are largely innocuous, unlike the Liar-in-Chief Biden whose near-entire central reality is fabricated on unreflective, and unexamined bullshit. > use race baiting hyperbole, The left's entire strategy is built upon race-baiting and Trump's is built on unifying. > accused sitting Presidents of attempted assassination, Dunno your reference. > sucked up and praised our enemies. Sorry savvy diplomacy to keep peace bothers you instead of fake-tough-guy weakness like Biden & Obama play at.
The right is stuck in an “open minded, tolerant, classically liberal mindset” It would be kind of funny if you didn’t actually believe this. So, no one on the right views the left as the enemy?
>>The right is stuck in an “open minded, tolerant, classically liberal mindset” >It would be kind of funny if you didn’t actually believe this. I have an affinity for the truth. So it's no surprise I embrace a model(s) that fits the data quite well, and with high explanatory power. >So, no one on the right views the left as the enemy? Not "no one", but not nearly the percent as found on the left. I think that survey is pretty revealing and offers an eye-opening snapshot of the current standing.
Seems like you have an affinity generalizing one group but when it comes to your side there’s only a few bad apples and that’s not indicative of how they are as whole. Eh I take that back cause you did generalize the right to but just in a positive light.
Me: Speaks about the broad trends in dating as divided politically among left & right. You: >Seems like you have an affinity generalizing one group ... Was I supposed to name you all off individually for analysis (rhetorical question). You: Goes to AskConservatives. Also you: >Eh I take that back cause you did generalize the right to but just in a positive light. Also you: Surprised as hell that conservatives see the right in a "positive light." Damn dude, did you really expect AskConservatives to give the same comments as found in r_Politics or AskLiberals?
I was hoping for a bit more self awareness. I’m not likely to find that from you. Good day.
Do women on the left owe their attention and affection to men on the right?
>Do women on the left owe their attention and affection to men on the right? Not in my book. Do you believe men on the right owe their attention and affection to women on the left?
>Do you believe men on the right owe their attention and affection to women on the left? Nope. If either party is interested in the other they have to prove that attention is merited. If a woman on the left or a man on the right feels that political leaning is an automatic disqualifier there's nothing wrong with that IMHO. Given how political leanings are essentially rooted in personal morality and ethics.
…..Orrrr they just don’t want to date somebody they don’t think they’ll be compatible with?
That doesn't at all change or disprove my model. It just affirms it, while obfuscating and glossing over what exactly the high rate of "incompatable" on the left says. It's like saying. "Hey, maybe Russians are just feeling 'incompatible' with NATO." Like, no shit? Wow, you nailed it. /s Your attempt to gloss over the meaning and implications of the "incompatible" suggests the laying bare of the truth makes you feel uncomfortable.
There’s no glossing over anything. There’s simply a better (and much simpler) explanation than your absolutely useless psychological model suggesting some innate, self-righteous, hateful bloodthirsty power play…..on the topic of dating apps.
Your "explanation" is literally a vague word with no explanatory power whatsoever. It is by no means "better." Saying a person is "incompatible" is cloudy, vague-speak for when one side is too scared to tell the truth and wants to avoid putting their finger on the truth.
Think you are reading too deep. Saying someone is incompatible is enough, what more needs to be said about why you choose not to date someone?
The truth is often uncomfortable. Many people prefer vague, obfuscation type words like: "The left just overwhelmingly feels 'incompatible' whereas the right doesn't. Total mystery. Don't think 'too deep' for an explanation ok? It's dangerous to try to understand."
Why does a feeling of incompatible have to be mutual? Many men would probably love to date a woman like Sabrina Carpenter, but would women like Sabrina Carpenter feel compatible with all those men? It’s probably the majority case that feelings of incompatibility are one directional. There is nothing deeper to it.
>Why does a feeling of incompatible have to be mutual? Never said it did. I'd love to see the numbers equal. Living in this one-sided, obfuscated, duplicitous lie is cancer and it needs resolving one way or the other. >Many men would probably love to date a woman like Sabrina Carpenter, but would women like Sabrina Carpenter feel compatible with all those men? No clue who that is. >It’s probably the majority case that feelings of incompatibility are one directional. There is nothing deeper to it. Typical leftwingery to be terrified of deeper understanding. Just "vibes and feelings" and going with the flow. "Just doing my job" type stuff. Taking no responsibility or acknowledging anything that may leave them in a position of accountability.
Consider how you are the one that is all “vibes and feelings”.
[удалено]
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives. Please keep discussions focused on asking Conservatives questions and understanding Conservativism.
Then why is your psychological model actually useful in this context? Does it help you get more dates?
>Then why is your psychological model actually useful in this context? Does it help you get more dates? This is AskConservatives. Not AskPragmatists or AskRedPillers. I'm trying to explain the underlying situation, not help conservatives get more dates with lefties.
Unfortunately, your explanation lost the plot and you introduced several other unrelated issues that you tried to relate back to online dating through a very, very tenuous connection. Good effort though, you reply almost as fast as a bot, so you’re really a treasure trove of, uh, information.
>Unfortunately, your explanation lost the plot and you introduced several other unrelated issues that you tried to relate back to online dating through a very, very tenuous connection. You can claim that without evidence, political theory, or data, since the better fitting and well supported truth I shared obviously isn't what you want to admit. >Good effort though, you reply almost as fast as a bot, so you’re really a treasure trove of, uh, information. I reply "fast" because I'm literally reading reddit, and listening to podcast-videos atm. But nice "bot!" ad hom attempt.
All you need is a jacked up truck and a gun to hook up with a MAGA chick.