Jump to content
A Note on Topic Titles – Be Clear & Descriptive!

"Just don't mention him": how Republicans try to connect with female voters

myata
 Share

Recommended Posts

myata Grand Master

myata

Posted
Posted

“I try to tell people to focus on the policies and ignore the candidates,” she says, knowing that Trump’s brash personality has deterred women previously (Trump's election campaigner, BBC).

Why would they do that though? Is it just "personality" or could there be something more to it? Is it because by now, pretty much everyone knows who that candidate is and hiding him behind "policies" is an awkward and ludicrous way to avoid obvious questions: can he be trusted? Is he fit, within a thousand miles, to lead a first-world democracy with a factual record of his?

What would be the point to chat about "policies" when the individual responsible for their implementation (or should we correct it to, irresponsible?) is a recognized prolific liar, with zero integrity and responsibility? Remember: he lied for years about "rigged election" and no factual, objective feedback made any difference. Why wouldn't he say that all policies are working brilliantly because that's what he thinks and sees, regardless of anything in the reality?

That's right: doesn't make much reasonable, rational sense. Because we all know it: if it looks wrong, feels and squawks lying and untrustworthy, it would be silly and irresponsible to place our trust in it. Thought and responsibility mean better choices.

 

If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant

gatomontes99 Grand Master

gatomontes99

Posted
Posted (edited)

Is it better to be like Republicans and ignore the person and embrace the policies or to be like Democrats and ignore the policies and the person to embrace the image?

Edited by gatomontes99

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
gatomontes99 Grand Master

gatomontes99

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, herbie said:

The GOP planners must actually think women are as stupid as they believe.

Nice word salad

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
robosmith Grand Master

robosmith

Posted
Posted
23 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Is it better to be like Republicans and ignore the person and embrace the policies or to be like Democrats and ignore the policies and the person to embrace the image?

The thing you OBVIOUSLY don't understand is that Democrats have read Project 2025 and HATE his policies, which is why he is ATTEMPTING to run away from them. Only the MAGA CULT believes they're NOT HIS PLANS cause they are gullible fools..

As a wise man once said, you don't make a plan if you're not going to follow it.

19 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Nice word salad

You don't know the meaning of the phrase and have ^proven that once again.

gatomontes99 Grand Master

gatomontes99

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, robosmith said:

The thing you OBVIOUSLY don't understand is that Democrats have read Project 2025 and HATE his policies, which is why he is ATTEMPTING to run away from them. Only the MAGA CULT believes they're NOT HIS PLANS cause they are gullible fools..

As a wise man once said, you don't make a plan if you're not going to follow it.

You don't know the meaning of the phrase and have ^proven that once again.

Project 2025 is the Heritage Foundation. Those policies are their policies, and no one else. Trump has repeatedly denied that they are his policies. Meanwhile, Harris has called for price controls, open borders, defund police, bailing out blm, allowing blm to riot, etc. She's got bad policies and she's freaking stupid. She actually said Democracy was a danger to America. She said that. Look it up. Oh, it wasn't just a danger, it was the number one threat to America. And she's running around talking like she's some house slave from the 1800s and cooking food in a bath tub. She's a disaster.

  • Downvote 1

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
robosmith Grand Master

robosmith

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Project 2025 is the Heritage Foundation. Those policies are their policies, and no one else. Trump has repeatedly denied that they are his policies.

 

Like I said, ONLY the ^MAGA CULT believes Trump's denials.

Jul 11, 2024 — The authors include Trump's former Cabinet secretaries, top White House officials and senior aides — including former Trump appointees to EPA, the Interior ...
 
Jul 16, 2024 — Numerous ex-Trump officials are involved in Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation's guidebook for the next conservative administration.
Jul 11, 2024 — Donald Trump has lately made clear he wants little to do with Project 2025, the conservative blueprint for the next Republican president ...
Jul 10, 2024 — Despite Trump trying to distance himself from the controversial policy document, 31 of its contributors served in his administration.

 

 

 

gatomontes99 Grand Master

gatomontes99

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Like I said, ONLY the ^MAGA CULT believes Trump's denials.

Jul 11, 2024 — The authors include Trump's former Cabinet secretaries, top White House officials and senior aides — including former Trump appointees to EPA, the Interior ...
 
Jul 16, 2024 — Numerous ex-Trump officials are involved in Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation's guidebook for the next conservative administration.
Jul 11, 2024 — Donald Trump has lately made clear he wants little to do with Project 2025, the conservative blueprint for the next Republican president ...
Jul 10, 2024 — Despite Trump trying to distance himself from the controversial policy document, 31 of its contributors served in his administration.

 

 

 

I see a lot of Xs there. This must be left wing fapping material.

____________________

https://www.forbes.com/sites/caileygleeson/2024/07/05/trump-disavows-project-2025-calls-some-of-conservative-groups-ideas-absolutely-ridiculous-and-abysmal/

Trump said in a Truth Social post he has “no idea who is behind” Project 2025, adding he disagrees with some of the project’s proposals for the next GOP administration and “some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal.”

Trump went on to say: “Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.”

____________________

 

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
robosmith Grand Master

robosmith

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

I see a lot of Xs there. This must be left wing fapping material.

____________________

https://www.forbes.com/sites/caileygleeson/2024/07/05/trump-disavows-project-2025-calls-some-of-conservative-groups-ideas-absolutely-ridiculous-and-abysmal/

Trump said in a Truth Social post he has “no idea who is behind” Project 2025, adding he disagrees with some of the project’s proposals for the next GOP administration and “some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal.”

Trump went on to say: “Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.”

____________________

 

Like I said, he's desperately trying to run away from THE PLAN. Only you MAGA CULT believe that he's not going to do most of it.

Both Trump and Project 2025 mention mass detainment camps for deportation.

Jul 16, 2024 — The party platform for this week's Republican convention promises the “largest deportation effort” in U.S. history if Trump wins.
 
 
gatomontes99 Grand Master

gatomontes99

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Like I said, he's desperately trying to run away from THE PLAN. Only you MAGA CULT believe that he's not going to do most of it.

Both Trump and Project 2025 mention mass detainment camps for deportation.

Jul 16, 2024 — The party platform for this week's Republican convention promises the “largest deportation effort” in U.S. history if Trump wins.
 
 

Of course they mention mass deportation...YALL FU$%!NG LET IN EVERY CRIMINAL SOUTH OF THE BORDER!!!!!

They both mention it because it is absolutely necessary to the safety of the American people. Did you miss the 75% OF ARRESTS IN NYC ARE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS???!!!

One policy does not mean they are symbiotic. It means they are on the same page as that one policy.

Meanwhile, Harris wants to drop oil prices by undoing the policies that her and Joe put into place. I don't believe her. I don't believe her for one second. She's going to keep doing things to drive up costs. She going to keep letting criminals, fentanyl and trafficked children to cross the border. She's going to continue using NGOs to censor ideas. She's going to continue to support Hamas, Iran and Russia. She's a train wreck.

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Deluge Grand Master

Deluge

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 9/8/2024 at 5:51 AM, myata said:

“I try to tell people to focus on the policies and ignore the candidates,” she says, knowing that Trump’s brash personality has deterred women previously (Trump's election campaigner, BBC).

Why would they do that though? Is it just "personality" or could there be something more to it? Is it because by now, pretty much everyone knows who that candidate is and hiding him behind "policies" is an awkward and ludicrous way to avoid obvious questions: can he be trusted? Is he fit, within a thousand miles, to lead a first-world democracy with a factual record of his?

What would be the point to chat about "policies" when the individual responsible for their implementation (or should we correct it to, irresponsible?) is a recognized prolific liar, with zero integrity and responsibility? Remember: he lied for years about "rigged election" and no factual, objective feedback made any difference. Why wouldn't he say that all policies are working brilliantly because that's what he thinks and sees, regardless of anything in the reality?

That's right: doesn't make much reasonable, rational sense. Because we all know it: if it looks wrong, feels and squawks lying and untrustworthy, it would be silly and irresponsible to place our trust in it. Thought and responsibility mean better choices.

 

Trump bashing is getting old and tired, myata. It's one reason Kamelface is starting to slip in the polls. The dummycrat machine and its media are doing everything they can to prop this b*tch up, but she's just too much of an empty headed m0ron. 

Look to January 20, where Trump returns to his rightful place in the Oval Office. 

Edited by Deluge
Five of swords Mentor

Five of swords

Posted
Posted
On 9/8/2024 at 7:51 AM, myata said:

“I try to tell people to focus on the policies and ignore the candidates,” she says, knowing that Trump’s brash personality has deterred women previously (Trump's election campaigner, BBC).

Why would they do that though? Is it just "personality" or could there be something more to it? Is it because by now, pretty much everyone knows who that candidate is and hiding him behind "policies" is an awkward and ludicrous way to avoid obvious questions: can he be trusted? Is he fit, within a thousand miles, to lead a first-world democracy with a factual record of his?

What would be the point to chat about "policies" when the individual responsible for their implementation (or should we correct it to, irresponsible?) is a recognized prolific liar, with zero integrity and responsibility? Remember: he lied for years about "rigged election" and no factual, objective feedback made any difference. Why wouldn't he say that all policies are working brilliantly because that's what he thinks and sees, regardless of anything in the reality?

That's right: doesn't make much reasonable, rational sense. Because we all know it: if it looks wrong, feels and squawks lying and untrustworthy, it would be silly and irresponsible to place our trust in it. Thought and responsibility mean better choices.

 

Why are you acting like only women care about a person's character?

myata Grand Master

myata

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The cult is incapable of an intelligent discussion (forget, honest). At issue is not any particular individual, but a general, common sense question: can / should / how unsmart would it be to place any trust in a patent, verified prolific and compulsive liar?

If a known liar promised you virtually unlimited riches in exchange for only a tiny bit of trust, should you trust him/her? Would it be smart or risk-free?

We can give up our reason and intelligence, any time and any number of times. What we can't do though is avoiding the consequences of that choice. Good that we know.

If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant

gatomontes99 Grand Master

gatomontes99

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, myata said:

The cult is incapable of an intelligent discussion (forget, honest). At issue is not any particular individual, but a general, common sense question: can / should / how unsmart would it be to place any trust in a patent, verified prolific and compulsive liar?

If a known liar promised you virtually unlimited riches in exchange for only a tiny bit of trust, should you trust him/her? Would it be smart or risk-free?

We can give up our reason and intelligence, any time and any number of times. What we can't do though is avoiding the consequences of that choice. Good that we know.

But we know what he will do because he did it the first time. Harris is lying about her positions on just about everything and mimicking Trump when she feels like he has the best answer.

But the better question is when will you stop beating your kids?

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
  • 2 weeks later...
Hodad Grand Master

Hodad

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 9/9/2024 at 3:56 PM, gatomontes99 said:

Of course they mention mass deportation...YALL FU$%!NG LET IN EVERY CRIMINAL SOUTH OF THE BORDER!!!!!

They both mention it because it is absolutely necessary to the safety of the American people. Did you miss the 75% OF ARRESTS IN NYC ARE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS???!!!

One policy does not mean they are symbiotic. It means they are on the same page as that one policy.

Meanwhile, Harris wants to drop oil prices by undoing the policies that her and Joe put into place. I don't believe her. I don't believe her for one second. She's going to keep doing things to drive up costs. She going to keep letting criminals, fentanyl and trafficked children to cross the border. She's going to continue using NGOs to censor ideas. She's going to continue to support Hamas, Iran and Russia. She's a train wreck.

In case you don't realize how unhinged you've become...

You are citing as fact  that 75% of arrests in NYC are illegal immigrants--based solely on one tabloid paper report of an offhand comment from one alleged beat cop. This has just bounced around your echo chamber enough that you think it's a true fact. 

Or let's break down that last paragraph:
1. You think record supply of domestic oil has magically upended the laws of economics and resulted in higher costs

2. You think Harris (who has no power of her own to change the law) is letting criminals, drugs and trafficking victims across the border when your candidate killed a bipartisan bill that would have provided for more enforcement, expedited removal and a number of other universally agreed upon upgrades to our current laws.

3. You think a person vocally in support of Ukraine is "support[ing] Russia. Relative to your candidate who is eager to give Ukraine to Russia. (And nobody in government "supports" Hamas or Iran. The worst that may be said is that people disapprove of what Israel is doing.)

It's like you live in bizarro world and don't even know it.

Edited by Hodad
gatomontes99 Grand Master

gatomontes99

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Hodad said:

In case you don't realize how unhinged you've become...

You are citing as fact  that 75% of arrests in NYC are illegal immigrants--based solely on one tabloid paper report of an offhand comment from one alleged beat cop. This has just bounced around your echo chamber enough that you think it's a true fact. 

Or let's break down that last paragraph:
1. You think record supply of domestic oil has magically upended the laws of economics and resulted in higher costs

2. You think Harris (who has no power of her own to change the law) is letting criminals, drugs and trafficking victims across the border when your candidate killed a bipartisan bill that would have provided for more enforcement, expedited removal and a number of other universally agreed upon upgrades to our current laws.

3. You think a person vocally in support of Ukraine is "support[ing] Russia. Relative to your candidate who is eager to give Ukraine to Russia. (And nobody in government "supports" Hamas or Iran. The worst that may be said is that people disapprove of what Israel is doing.)

It's like you live in bizarro world and don't even know it.

Yes, yes. The NYP is a tabloid rag because they don't subscribe to your fantasies, we know. But, if illegal immigrants aren't the problem in NYC, then why did Mayor Adams ask the federal government to declare an emergency and request funding?

1. Where the f do you get that weird ass logic? If we had the Keystone pipeline and the leases on federal lands at the levels they should habe been at, the production of oil would be higher and oil costs would be lower.

2. I said Harris would continue to support policies that allowed everyone to cross the border. The "bipartisan" border bill would habe passed if it was bipartisan or a border bill. It was truly neither. Nothing in that bill would have stopped any illegal immigration (let's do that again with emphasis) NOTHING IN THAT BILL WOULD DO ANYTHING TO STOP ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. The 5,000 a day number only meant CBP could send the people they encounter to a crossing BUT THEY STILL GET IN! And, if the President signed an EO declaring an emergency, even that was null and void. But it did stop CBP from turning anyone away until they reached an average of 5,000 a day. It was pathetic. And she would love to see that be law. T'hell with the women and girls getting raped and the boys forced to sell drugs. They need the imported votes!

3. Who did Putin Endorse? Harris or Trump?

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Hodad Grand Master

Hodad

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Yes, yes. The NYP is a tabloid rag because they don't subscribe to your fantasies, we know. But, if illegal immigrants aren't the problem in NYC, then why did Mayor Adams ask the federal government to declare an emergency and request funding?

1. Where the f do you get that weird ass logic? If we had the Keystone pipeline and the leases on federal lands at the levels they should habe been at, the production of oil would be higher and oil costs would be lower.

2. I said Harris would continue to support policies that allowed everyone to cross the border. The "bipartisan" border bill would habe passed if it was bipartisan or a border bill. It was truly neither. Nothing in that bill would have stopped any illegal immigration (let's do that again with emphasis) NOTHING IN THAT BILL WOULD DO ANYTHING TO STOP ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. The 5,000 a day number only meant CBP could send the people they encounter to a crossing BUT THEY STILL GET IN! And, if the President signed an EO declaring an emergency, even that was null and void. But it did stop CBP from turning anyone away until they reached an average of 5,000 a day. It was pathetic. And she would love to see that be law. T'hell with the women and girls getting raped and the boys forced to sell drugs. They need the imported votes!

3. Who did Putin Endorse? Harris or Trump?

0. A city requesting aid to manage an influx of immigrants does not mean that an unsubstantiated comment from one officer regarding immigrant crime is factual. Though your deflection is noted.

1. And if oil fell like rain prices would be lower! The FACT is that under Biden, oil production has increased dramatically from when he took office. It's been at record levels. From an environmental perspective, that's not great, but from a basic math perspective you people sound very, very stupid when you pretend that he's suppressed supply and driven up prices. Neither is true. It's pure anti-factual nonsense. -- And I get pretty tired of explaining it, but up or down, domestic production does very little to move the price needle in a global market. If we magically pumped 20% more oil out of the ground tomorrow the price you pay for gas isn't changing much. That oil just gets shipped around the world or displaces oil that would have been shipped. In terms of prices, it's a drop in the bucket. It's a global market, people. 

2. You understand immigration reform as well as you understand the oil market. There were sweeping changes from the closure trigger point to increased enforcement, increased detention, higher standards for asylum claims and faster processing and rejection/deportation. It would have addressed MANY of the key concerns with current law. And it certainly was bipartisan--it was Republican-led, in fact, and was a better deal than they are likely to get under any other circumstance. You know full well that Trump killed it so that he could campaign on the issue. That's the only reason it didn't pass. Boot-licking cowards who put Trump's political interests ahead of national interests. 

3. Putin's trolling has absolutely nothing to do with Harris's position on Russia, you loon. The facts again are very straightforward. Harris supports Ukraine and their fight against Russia. Trump will end support for Ukraine and give Russia exactly what they want--the same way he gave Afghanistan back to the Taliban.

Deluge Grand Master

Deluge

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 9/8/2024 at 5:51 AM, myata said:

“I try to tell people to focus on the policies and ignore the candidates,”.

Which is sage advice when you have an ldiot like Kamala Harris running for President.

But what are the policies? Hate Trump? Erase the borders? Abortion, Abortion, ABORTION?

Edited by Deluge

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,912
    • Most Online
      1,403
    AlembicoEMR
    Newest Member
    AlembicoEMR
    Joined

  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...