This weekend, the NY Times wrote up a piece over a noticeable problem in 2016....differences of politics in this election year, between a husband and wife....to such a degree....that they just might have to divorce.
So they used this story of a NY City couple.....intellectual couple....professionals....the guy was a Trump enthusiast and the wife was a Hillary enthusiast. Once the husband announced that he was a Trump guy.....she kinda laid out the cards that this was potentially strong enough to trigger a divorce.
It is an odd dilemma.
When you go and survey a hundred-odd couples....there used to be three simple things that mattered. First, there was the friend-index business where you found enjoyment with the company of the gal you were dating....you both bowled....you both liked camping....you both liked Labrador Retrievers....you both liked Italian food....you liked Burt Reynolds movies.
The second thing typically involved the lusty stuff. You liked wicked weekends in Vegas, and she did too. You liked her dressing up as a cop, and her interrogating you. This index ran from a marginal 4 on most scales to a '10'.
The third thing was that silly religious thing. She was Catholic and you were Catholic. Or you were Baptist and she was almost Baptist (Presbyterian). She had no religion, and you were almost no religion.
If you were around in the 1980s or 1990s....no one sat and asked you which network you got your news from. Today, if some gal asks....and you say Fox News....well, you might get the response: "Oh, you must be a Republican". Or you might ask this gal, and she responds with NPR, and you say: "You know they are kinda liberal slanted" and then discover that she's zeroed you out on date potential.
Some people....like my brother the engineer....would let you know that there are probably forty-four filters in place....even before we ever got to 2016 and Trump. In the Hillary discussion, if it got to that point, he'd probably try and see if you made it past the normal 44 filters, and if it got to Hillary question....he'd try to just overlook the problem....knowing by mid-November that it wouldn't be a problem worth worrying about anymore (he'd say that while grinning).
The problem I see with the way that the NY Times tells the story....is that a guy has enough trouble in life finding some gal who isn't dim, crazy, debt-enriched (meaning she owes $80,000 on college loans), two times divorced, camping-obsessed, a vegetarian, an unfiltered smoker, a Jim Beam captivated drinker, dressing in some skimpy attire meant for a 130-pound gal but she's 175 pounds, entrenched on a particular NCAA football team, tormented by NPR's emergency of the week, and she's bewitched by rural living (fantasy after fantasy) only to admit later that it was the Green Acre's like fakeness that drew her to the idea.
A guy simply can't worry about some gal being a Hillary-supporter on top of the normal priorities. Course, maybe in some cases....it's the guy who is charmed up and pro-Hillary, and the wife who is pro-Trump.
My advice? It's best lay in a big supply of Jim Beam in the garage, and prepare for a long period of drinking over the next eight years under President Trump, and hope that your drinking can mask your frustrations with a Hillary-wife. Somewhere out there though.....there's probably a pro-Trump wife fed up with her pro-Hillary husband. Maybe some web site will create a liaison type of on-line deal. Maybe this will turn out to help some guys find the perfect woman of their dreams....who was just pro-Trump all those years and never realized it.
Course, if we'd just done the right thing and voted for Jeb Bush back in the primary....none of this frustration business would be occurring.