Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
cuda1179 wrote: So, in order to not be "the Patriarchy" I needed to vote for Hillary no matter what?
I am pretty sure that nobody would call you part of the patriarchy for voting Bernie Sanders in the primary.
You needed not to vote for Trump. d-usa explicitly said that's why he considered you part of the patriarchy.
[.
Thanks for proving my point. Unless I fall in line and say the woman is better, regardless of how I feel on issues or previous records or how gak BOTH candidates were, I'm "the Patriarchy". Getting a bit Orwellian in here.
I love how Conservatives are the ones to immediately start trying to paint the Liberals as some Orwellian villain when people call them on their garbage.
You can feel on issues or previous records, but those same previous records should have told you one thing:
Trump had no business whatsoever being in office.
cuda1179 wrote: So, in order to not be "the Patriarchy" I needed to vote for Hillary no matter what?
I am pretty sure that nobody would call you part of the patriarchy for voting Bernie Sanders in the primary.
You needed not to vote for Trump. d-usa explicitly said that's why he considered you part of the patriarchy.
I highlighted the part that has the words and letters that are hard to read and comprehend:
Your own words are what damned you there, and it's too late to cover up your part in the issue that the country is facing when it comes to systematic sexism and the fact that you are part of the problem.
You can vote for Trump over Hillary and not be a sexist, it's your reply that paints you as a sexist.
You didn't argue that you chose a pro-life candidate over a pro-choice candidate. You didn't argue that you chose an anti-immigration candidate over a pro-immigration candidate. You didn't argue that you chose a budget hawk over a spending hawk. You didn't argue that you chose the person with the best foreign policy credentials.
You said you voted for the guy who brags about sexual assault, but not the ugly ones, and calls women he disagrees with ugly and fat because "she is more vile".
So many reasons you could have voted for him, but you chose "she is more vile" as your reply when I pointed out all of his anti-women based behaviors. That's what makes you a shining example of the patriarchy.
Relapse wrote: She's a proven individual who isn't shy about getting us or other countries into wars of one type or another. I think she would have been more dangerous than Trump.
More dangerous than the guy who publicly advocated for nuclear war, has talked about withdrawing from NATO, has been harping about how much more we should be doing to fight terrorists in foreign civil wars on the other side of the planet, who went on Morning Joe and boasted about how he was the most militaristic candidate in the GOP primary debates, has been increasingly belligerent with Iran, the guy who advocated that the US go in and involve itself in Libya and take out Gadaffi ourselves?
Really?
Hillary Clinton would have been more dangerous than that guy?
I mean, Clinton had a deserved reputation of being a gakbag in this respect with the 2003 Iraq war...but to say that she's be more dangerous than Trump is being disingenuous methinks.
Looking at what she had a hand in as Secretary of State with Lybia and it's decent into anarchy and turning into a home for terrorists, along with other events she was part of was the reason I voted against her.
Relapse wrote: She's a proven individual who isn't shy about getting us or other countries into wars of one type or another. I think she would have been more dangerous than Trump.
More dangerous than the guy who publicly advocated for nuclear war, has talked about withdrawing from NATO, has been harping about how much more we should be doing to fight terrorists in foreign civil wars on the other side of the planet, who went on Morning Joe and boasted about how he was the most militaristic candidate in the GOP primary debates, has been increasingly belligerent with Iran, the guy who advocated that the US go in and involve itself in Libya and take out Gadaffi ourselves?
Really?
Hillary Clinton would have been more dangerous than that guy?
I mean, Clinton had a deserved reputation of being a gakbag in this respect with the 2003 Iraq war...but to say that she's be more dangerous than Trump is being disingenuous methinks.
Looking at what she had a hand in as Secretary of State with Lybia and it's decent into anarchy and turning into a home for terrorists, along with other events she was part of was the reason I voted against her.
What role exactly did Clinton have in that?
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Relapse wrote: She's a proven individual who isn't shy about getting us or other countries into wars of one type or another. I think she would have been more dangerous than Trump.
More dangerous than the guy who publicly advocated for nuclear war, has talked about withdrawing from NATO, has been harping about how much more we should be doing to fight terrorists in foreign civil wars on the other side of the planet, who went on Morning Joe and boasted about how he was the most militaristic candidate in the GOP primary debates, has been increasingly belligerent with Iran, the guy who advocated that the US go in and involve itself in Libya and take out Gadaffi ourselves?
Really?
Hillary Clinton would have been more dangerous than that guy?
I mean, Clinton had a deserved reputation of being a gakbag in this respect with the 2003 Iraq war...but to say that she's be more dangerous than Trump is being disingenuous methinks.
Looking at what she had a hand in as Secretary of State with Lybia and it's decent into anarchy and turning into a home for terrorists, along with other events she was part of was the reason I voted against her.
What role exactly did Clinton have in that?
That's a point. Wasn't the reason for the intervention in Libya that it had already descended into chaos in the first place?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
The reason everyone thought Columbus was crazy was cause he said the Earth had a much lower circumference than was thought and his critics were in fact right. It's kind of dumb luck he managed to run into another continent on his insane journey to India. Really the big question is how did Europeans not know America was there. It's not like the Vikings had already found it or anything XD
Just a personal theory of mine on this: I think it's a combination of oral histories, and the fact that when the bulk of Viking voyages to Greenland, Iceland, and Newfoundland, they were pagans... and the Church (this is pre-reformation afterall) created an environment where pretty much anything deemed pagan (except for Easter, Christmas, etc. ) was to be discredited and ignored.
Relapse wrote: She's a proven individual who isn't shy about getting us or other countries into wars of one type or another. I think she would have been more dangerous than Trump.
More dangerous than the guy who publicly advocated for nuclear war, has talked about withdrawing from NATO, has been harping about how much more we should be doing to fight terrorists in foreign civil wars on the other side of the planet, who went on Morning Joe and boasted about how he was the most militaristic candidate in the GOP primary debates, has been increasingly belligerent with Iran, the guy who advocated that the US go in and involve itself in Libya and take out Gadaffi ourselves?
Really?
Hillary Clinton would have been more dangerous than that guy?
I mean, Clinton had a deserved reputation of being a gakbag in this respect with the 2003 Iraq war...but to say that she's be more dangerous than Trump is being disingenuous methinks.
Looking at what she had a hand in as Secretary of State with Lybia and it's decent into anarchy and turning into a home for terrorists, along with other events she was part of was the reason I voted against her.
What role exactly did Clinton have in that?
That's a point. Wasn't the reason for the intervention in Libya that it had already descended into chaos in the first place?
We have covered that twice, just in January. Facts don't matter anymore.
The reason everyone thought Columbus was crazy was cause he said the Earth had a much lower circumference than was thought and his critics were in fact right. It's kind of dumb luck he managed to run into another continent on his insane journey to India. Really the big question is how did Europeans not know America was there. It's not like the Vikings had already found it or anything XD
Just a personal theory of mine on this: I think it's a combination of oral histories, and the fact that when the bulk of Viking voyages to Greenland, Iceland, and Newfoundland, they were pagans... and the Church (this is pre-reformation afterall) created an environment where pretty much anything deemed pagan (except for Easter, Christmas, etc. ) was to be discredited and ignored.
From what I understand, it's not so much about Pagan. By the time of Leif Erikson's voyage the people of Iceland and Greenland were already Christianized thanks to some rather talented monks. The issue seems to be that Europeans just never connected the discovery of Greenland and Vinland (Newfoundland) by Bjarni Herjólfsson, and subsequent exploration by Erikson, with the existence of a larger continent. The word doesn't seem to have traveled much out of the Norse world, even after the arrival and settlement of Western Europe by the Normans. Only one writer, a German named Adam somethingorother, chronicled the discovery of these places in his writing, and there is a random story from the Netherlands of two "red skinned" men brought to Europe by an Icelandic trader in the 11th century which doesn't seem to have inspired any interest from anyone at the time.
Far as I can tell Europeans just didn't give a gak that maybe there was something over there until much later and by then the sparse stories of what the Vikings found had become something like lost knowledge. EDIT: Though early Swiss and Norwegian settlers in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania were very eager to brag about having gotten to America first
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/12 19:12:09
Stephen Miller told US media the court ruling was a "judicial usurpation of power" and that "the president's powers here are beyond question"...
Speaking on Fox News Sunday, Mr Miller accused the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the block on Mr Trump's order, of "overreaching".
He also told ABC's This Week: "We have equal branches of government in this country. The judiciary is not supreme."
Apparently the President's power is beyond question...and the Judiciary enacting its checks and balances is usurpation of power...
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
It's good I've been explained itt that fascism cannot happen in the US, else I would be worried. Wait, I'm worried nonetheless.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
The three branches of government should all be equal, this is all a huge overreaching of power by the Judicial branch- they should respect the President's ultimate authority in these matters!
Wait....what? This is being said by people with degrees in this stuff.
Apparently it's a usurpation of power to tell Trump no....because he doesn't like that.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/12 20:13:38
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."
cuda1179 wrote: So, in order to not be "the Patriarchy" I needed to vote for Hillary no matter what?
I am pretty sure that nobody would call you part of the patriarchy for voting Bernie Sanders in the primary.
You needed not to vote for Trump. d-usa explicitly said that's why he considered you part of the patriarchy.
I highlighted the part that has the words and letters that are hard to read and comprehend:
Your own words are what damned you there, and it's too late to cover up your part in the issue that the country is facing when it comes to systematic sexism and the fact that you are part of the problem.
You can vote for Trump over Hillary and not be a sexist, it's your reply that paints you as a sexist.
You didn't argue that you chose a pro-life candidate over a pro-choice candidate. You didn't argue that you chose an anti-immigration candidate over a pro-immigration candidate. You didn't argue that you chose a budget hawk over a spending hawk. You didn't argue that you chose the person with the best foreign policy credentials.
You said you voted for the guy who brags about sexual assault, but not the ugly ones, and calls women he disagrees with ugly and fat because "she is more vile".
So many reasons you could have voted for him, but you chose "she is more vile" as your reply when I pointed out all of his anti-women based behaviors. That's what makes you a shining example of the patriarchy.
Jesus H Christ, stop with the misquoting. I said her HISTORY was vile, which is true. Can you not be a liar for a while? Is that too hard?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/12 20:38:49
Stephen Miller told US media the court ruling was a "judicial usurpation of power" and that "the president's powers here are beyond question"...
Speaking on Fox News Sunday, Mr Miller accused the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the block on Mr Trump's order, of "overreaching".
He also told ABC's This Week: "We have equal branches of government in this country. The judiciary is not supreme."
Apparently the President's power is beyond question...and the Judiciary enacting its checks and balances is usurpation of power...
Totes not fascists guys!
I'm wondering when we'll see Alternative Courts.
/mostlybutnotalljoking
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Am I the only one that remembers Sommer's role in the gamergate debacle? Where her so-called analysis was essentially "I hate video games, but men like them and men should be able to do whatever they want without criticism, and evil evil feminists are trying to take them away"? Perhaps some of her work isn't a complete joke and goes beyond superficial "SJW TUMBLR FEMINAZIS SUCK" ranting, but I'd be surprised if the total came to anything close a majority.
...
I can link you to MANY videos where she specifically denounces the threats of violence and refers to those people as thugs. She in no way endorsed it. It was more of a "I don't condone it, but I understand it" mentality. She even went so far as to say that there were extremists on both sides, which is true, and that people on both sides were getting death threats, which is also true. She was calling for a more moderate approach from both sides. She even supported more diversity in video games, she just recognized that some people didn't want the genres they liked limited because of someone else's call for diversity.
In my person opinion, Zoë Quinn was the largest victim of this. Almost all the criticism and ALL the threats were unwarranted. Anita Sarkeesian on the other hand deserved quite a bit of criticism (although threats were still crossing the line). She made many claims, including her Tropes vs. Women in Video Games videos, that were not only factually wrong (demonstrably so in many cases), but came off as shallow, insulting, and accusatory. I feel somewhat sorry for Brianna Wu, although I don't totally know what to believe with some of her claims. She went a little off the deep end with some of her claims and I feel like she cried wolf more than once.
Jesus H Christ, stop with the misquoting. I said her HISTORY was vile, which is true. Can you not be a liar for a while? Is that too hard?
Your lack of reading comprehension doesn't make me a liar.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit:
Since the wording apparently means so much to someone, and makes a huge difference, I will make the following correction to my statement from yesterday.
I don't think cuda1179 is a representative of the patriarchy. He just has a posting history that may be representative of someone that is a member of the patriarchy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/12 21:23:11
cuda1179 wrote: There are many feminists that I agree with and admire. Christina Hoff Sommers for example has fought the good fight, done A LOT for equality
Name one thing that isn't “working against feminism”. If someone identify herself as a feminist but literally everything she does is to fight against feminism… yeah, no.
Can you name one thing?
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
...we're veering into that territory that gets threads locked again - and brings us one step closer to my dream becoming a reality here on Dakka Dakka.
Stephen Miller told US media the court ruling was a "judicial usurpation of power" and that "the president's powers here are beyond question"...
Speaking on Fox News Sunday, Mr Miller accused the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the block on Mr Trump's order, of "overreaching".
He also told ABC's This Week: "We have equal branches of government in this country. The judiciary is not supreme."
Apparently the President's power is beyond question...and the Judiciary enacting its checks and balances is usurpation of power...
Totes not fascists guys!
I'm wondering when we'll see Alternative Courts.
/mostlybutnotalljoking
Didn't the Republican party freak out over Obama saying something like "I disagree with the courts but will abide by their ruling," in a speech? I seem to remember something like that. But now we have a Republican president who is openly hostile to the judiciary and they are silent.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
They also freaked out whenever Obama played golf. Trump has spend half his weekends so far not only playing golf, but playing on his private country club where he also hosts official guests.
But it's not like Trump himself ever had a problem with Obama playing golf...
I think there needs to be a better definition of what a "vacation" is as a President. If you play golf while entertaining political guests it is not technically a "vacation" per the rules. I'm somewhat on the fence about that kind of thing. I mean, yeah, you have to kiss some foreign booty to keep up appearances, but come on.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but a while back (I think it was the first US politics thread on this forum) there was a little stir-up because the Obama Grand Canyon trip lasted 5 days, yet wasn't counted as a "vacation" because he also did a speech at a college on one of those days.
Trump really hasn't interested me so I don't keep up with his shenanigans. I did however hear that one of the people he played golf with was a Japanese dignitary?
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Trump turns into a vacations hypocrite.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: They also freaked out whenever Obama played golf. Trump has spend half his weekends so far not only playing golf, but playing on his private country club where he also hosts official guests.
But it's not like Trump himself ever had a problem with Obama playing golf...
Hey, I just noticed, but that's only 10 times Trump criticized Obama for playing golf. One is just shock that he isn't playing golf... LOL
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/12 22:14:11
To be fair, I don't really think that anything a sitting POTUS does really counts as a vacation. He still gets his daily, if not more often, briefings and still has to make constant decisions about anything. I know we would be bitching if our boss told us "you can have vacation, but you have to have your phone with you and answer all calls and emails and make constant decisions about everything you normally do, have fun doing your job at the beach and enjoy your vacation though".
It's not like the POTUS officially delegates all his authority to the VPOTUS for a week while he goes on vacation, although that might not be such a bad idea with our current occupant.
Alpharius wrote: ...we're veering into that territory that gets threads locked again - and brings us one step closer to my dream becoming a reality here on Dakka Dakka.
RULE #1 - NOT OPTIONAL.
MANDATORY.
How does this help the dream of AoS going away forever ?
d-usa wrote: To be fair, I don't really think that anything a sitting POTUS does really counts as a vacation. He still gets his daily, if not more often, briefings and still has to make constant decisions about anything. I know we would be bitching if our boss told us "you can have vacation, but you have to have your phone with you and answer all calls and emails and make constant decisions about everything you normally do, have fun doing your job at the beach and enjoy your vacation though".
It's not like the POTUS officially delegates all his authority to the VPOTUS for a week while he goes on vacation, although that might not be such a bad idea with our current occupant.
Honestly give how insane the toll of Presidency seems to be on the human body (seriously it adds 10-20 years to their photos), I think the President is someone who should rest and relax as much as can be afforded. The world won't come crashing to the ground just because Obama or Trump decided to go out and play nine holes, and they're never far from the Secret Service or their aids if there is an emergency. The leader of the free world has to look after themselves, you know?
That said, Trump shouldn't be playing or hosting anything on his own properties. Even if he doesn't in turn charge the government, it's free advertising from the podium and shouldn't be happening.
Jesus H Christ, stop with the misquoting. I said her HISTORY was vile, which is true. Can you not be a liar for a while? Is that too hard?
How is any of what Hillary has done (for example voting for the Iraq war is just taking part in the democratic function of your country. It may have been a bad decision in hindsight but that doesn't change what it is) worse or more vile than sexual assault?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/12 22:56:45
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
