I just heard on MSNBC that the woman who says HW paid for her abortion, and wanted her to abort the child she did end up having, was, at the time, a graduate student at Columbia University! She’s INTELLIGENT. What the hell are women like that doing with guys like him, anyway?
(The same thing could also be said for the women who bred with Aaron Hernandez and Rae Carruth.)
Sexual behavior and intellect are wholly unrelated. And anyway, being in college indicates nominal academic competence, not actual intellience. More of that than HW, but my neighbor’s german shepherd can probably clear that bar.
He’s an…interesting cat, for sure. Conservative gay Republican, who doesn’t identify as gay but is attracted to men 
. Former UCLA cheerleader who left CA for FLA after graduation because among other things he felt less safe in the former. I mean just a curious individual.
You’d think his conservative bonafides would burnish his attacks against his dad, but…eh…who knows. The world is a wacky place these days
That comparison isn’t fair, as German Shepherds are among the smartest dogs. It is, however, fair to say that the average basset hound is also smarter than HW.
As for womens’ attraction to such, there are controversial psychological theories about why some women are attracted to low-life morons and street thugs. The sitcom Family Ties did a nifty takeoff on that with the boyfriend of the family daughter Mallory. Both parents were liberal intellectuals. In one classic episode Mallory’s father, shocked that the boyfriend, Nick, had dropped out of high school, asked him to please elaborate. Nick replied, “sure; when the high school had classes, I wasn’t there”.
The Dad to Nick, “can you expand on that?”
That’s a thing among gay conservative men, they consider themselves “same sex attracted” but they’ve decided the word “gay” refers to a lifestyle choice, not sexual preference - and that imaginary distinction lets them consider themselves to be “not gay”, and to claim that being gay is a choice.
Some same-sex attracted men ( I’m remembering a TV documentary about three such men) date and marry women, and although they are open about their attraction, they purport not to have sex with men - although the documentary also hinted that their efforts to abstain were not always successful.
ETA: The documentary was called “My Husband’s Not Gay” and it was a one time event on TLC. It was unintentional funny and also kind of sad…one guy said the only thing he had in common with gay men was love of show tunes and his desire to have sex with other men.
Goes back as far as Roy Cohn, at least:
Speculation about Cohn’s sexuality intensified following his death from AIDS in 1986.[8] In a 2008 article published in The New Yorker , Jeffrey Toobin quotes erstwhile Cohn associate Roger Stone: “Roy was not gay. He was a man who liked having sex with men. Gays were weak, effeminate. He always seemed to have these young blond boys around. It just wasn’t discussed. He was interested in power and access.”[86]
I’m pretty sure that the latter is the only thing that gay men have in common. (I know gay men who do not like show tunes.)
It’s a feature for the Republican leadership, since it insures that he’ll just do as he’s told. It’s also a feature for the MAGA Millions, who can claim to not be racist because they voted for a black guy while affirming their racist beliefs by elevating a nitwit who can barely string three words together as their black guy.
This is a question?
An unimpeachable source might have had, well, a certain ex-football player in mind.
“In the most extreme and negative interpretation, bad guys display qualities of the so-called psychological dark triad, according to relationship researcher and coach Marisa T. Cohen, Ph.D., CPLC. Basically, they might be narcissistic (with a sense of entitlement and a grandiose view of themselves), Machiavellian (callous and prone to exploiting others), and psychopathic (displaying antisocial and impulsive behavior). And yet, sometimes we just can’t quit them.”
More detailed explanations for “bad boy” attraction here.
The real question: what class of voter is irresistibly attracted to bad boys/bad girls?
In the mid '80s, I was perplexed that people would vote for that awful, ignorant waste of oxygen. It seems like some voters adopt “I don’t agree with him, but I respect his steadfast decisiveness”. Almost enough to make a body lose faith in democracy.
@nearwildheaven’s claim wasn’t about “who will serve the people of GA best as Senator.” It was about being a Christian. A reverend probably has a better claim on that criterion than a non-reverend, particularly one who’s paid for a girlfriend’s abortion while trying to get the procedure banned.
Walker was a tremendous athlete. All else being equal, he was probably pretty hot. Don’t underestimate the power of physical attraction in getting people to make terrible choices.
I have my doubts. The christ dude advocated humility and stuff like that. The more visible of the pulpiteers demonstrate aggressive and avaricious characteristics that frequently do not comport with what that christ guy (or even the tarsian dude who wrote half the NT) promoted. Many reverends are what they say it means to be a christian (or, more often, a façade of what they expound).
Warnock is undoubtedly a more decent person than some random running back, but I personally would not base that on his pulpitry. The general historical record does not show a correlation.
No, being called a reverend does NOT give one a better claim on being a Christian. That’s my point.
If your point was about being a Christian, then why did you ask about “who will serve the people of GA best as Senator”? Your reply to @nearwildheaven said nothing about being a Christian.
We’re talking past each other, apparently. I’m disagreeing with YOUR statement that " a revered probably has a better claim on that criterion".
I think the implication was that being a christian is somehow morally preferable to not being one – which could be the perception in that part of the country.
I’ll admit that there are loathsome clergy members, and so concede that someone who’s clergy isn’t automatically a better practitioner of their religion (or “more” of it, e.g., “more Christian”) than a layperson. But I think the original point I was trying to defend was (paraphrasing here) that it’s bonkers for Walker supporters to support him because of his Christianity when his opponent is literally a reverend at one of the most esteemed churches in the country. IOW, if they vote for “Christianity,” Warnock would be the more likely choice.
I’m afraid that’s all the hairs I can split this afternoon. It’s too damn nice out, and I have to get off this computer!
And I am reminded of Mencken’s comment that the American voter knows what he wants, and he deserves to get it, good and hard.
Does Walker actually have some kind of brain injury from his football days? I saw a short clip of him onstage at an event. Besides the dumb as a rock thing, he seemed to have the speaking ability of a drunk five year old. The way he walks is weird too. He seems really slow and drags his feet. Traumatic brain injury could explain a lot.
As others have said, what happened to Republicans that talked about personal responsibility and the sanctity of marriage? Not that they ever walked the walk, but they used to talk about it all the time. They don’t even bother to pretend these days. And they seem to have lost zero voters over it.