|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 30 2016 02:29 Kickstart wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2016 02:06 xM(Z wrote:
i believed(before it was meta) and still believe that Clinton will start ww3:
personal reasons:
-she is a woman, she wants to prove that women (can and will) make America great again and what better way to illustrate that than beating men at their own game: war.
-she is a woman, a cheated woman nonetheless, while she was the first lady; that leaves scars => a need to prove herself, to prove she is better than <...>.
-she is the product of her chosen environment, she can no longer relate to her subjects/them regular folk so she hates them with passion.
other reasons:
-during Obama's term in meetings on security/Middle East issues, Clinton was the warmonger, time and time again pushing for military intervention in Middle East.
-she is the establishment and it, wants the Middle East since '49.
if Russia loses Middle East it is done for. Reminds me of when I was discussing the election with a friend from Ukraine (the Russians and Ukrainians I know all like Trump). The only thing he could come up with against Hillary was 'but she is a woman'. What is it with you eastern euros and your woman issues?
There has been a Russian reporter writing into the NPR politics team saying that all the state media is pro Trump and depicts Hillary as the spawn of the devil.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 30 2016 03:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2016 02:53 LegalLord wrote:On October 30 2016 02:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2016 02:32 LegalLord wrote:
To be fair, East Europe has plenty of experience with "strong woman" leaders and they do tend to be some especially aggressive breed of warhawk. Last time I checked, both World Wars were caused by men. The idea that being a strong woman is something to criticize blows my mind. Does criticizing a female leader for openly advocating for nuclear war, as some of these EE "strong women" have done in the past, blow your mind as well? If anyone, regardless of their sex, is "openly advocating for nuclear war", then that's something that needs to be addressed. But for xM(Z to say that her sex is a driving force for starting WW3, and for you to follow up in agreement that that's a fair statement because strong female leaders can be aggressive... that does nothing but to perpetuate sexism.
Not that I necessarily agree with him on the issue, just that I see where he's coming from since from an outsider perspective you could very easily see Hillary as being cut from the same cloth as some of those rather insane EE "strong women" that have been in positions of power. There have been a disproportionate number of those in recent history and I could see why people would think gender has something to do with it.
Not too interested in playing the "what -ism can we use to discredit someone's opinion" game yet again though.
|
On October 30 2016 02:54 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2016 02:37 Dan HH wrote:On October 30 2016 02:29 Kickstart wrote:On October 30 2016 02:06 xM(Z wrote:
i believed(before it was meta) and still believe that Clinton will start ww3:
personal reasons:
-she is a woman, she wants to prove that women (can and will) make America great again and what better way to illustrate that than beating men at their own game: war.
-she is a woman, a cheated woman nonetheless, while she was the first lady; that leaves scars => a need to prove herself, to prove she is better than <...>.
-she is the product of her chosen environment, she can no longer relate to her subjects/them regular folk so she hates them with passion.
other reasons:
-during Obama's term in meetings on security/Middle East issues, Clinton was the warmonger, time and time again pushing for military intervention in Middle East.
-she is the establishment and it, wants the Middle East since '49.
if Russia loses Middle East it is done for. Reminds me of when I was discussing the election with a friend from Ukraine (the Russians and Ukrainians I know all like Trump). The only thing he could come up with against Hillary was 'but she is a woman'. What is it with you eastern euros and your woman issues? That's just 2 people, one of which we already knew is a bit cuckoo. I wouldn't read that much into it. There was an international poll about this election in 40-something countries and in Portugal Hillary had the largest lead (80 points), yet the only person from Portugal in this thread is fawning all over Trump. Lol if you knew anything about Portugal you wouldn't be surprised with those results. People here think if Trump wins he will use nuclear weapons and destroy the world, thats the actual thinking of many portuguese people. My biggest problem against Hillary is her foreign policy and how she wants to arm Alqaeda in Syria, but if you guys are ok with that that's your opinion i will be against it no matter what. I don't have to support her just because some random poll in my country where the majority of people don't care about foreign policy and what happens behind the curtains think.
Wasn't looking to argue over the candidates. I gave that example to make my point that people shouldn't conclude much about certain countries based on the opinions of a few posters in this thread with that country tag.
|
portugal -> the mods don't ban people for lying unless it gets REALLY out there. So I stand by my statements. and yes, the things wree debunked; you're being stupidly hyperbolic.
|
On October 30 2016 03:16 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2016 03:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2016 02:53 LegalLord wrote:On October 30 2016 02:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2016 02:32 LegalLord wrote:
To be fair, East Europe has plenty of experience with "strong woman" leaders and they do tend to be some especially aggressive breed of warhawk. Last time I checked, both World Wars were caused by men. The idea that being a strong woman is something to criticize blows my mind. Does criticizing a female leader for openly advocating for nuclear war, as some of these EE "strong women" have done in the past, blow your mind as well? If anyone, regardless of their sex, is "openly advocating for nuclear war", then that's something that needs to be addressed. But for xM(Z to say that her sex is a driving force for starting WW3, and for you to follow up in agreement that that's a fair statement because strong female leaders can be aggressive... that does nothing but to perpetuate sexism. Not that I necessarily agree with him on the issue, just that I see where he's coming from since from an outsider perspective you could very easily see Hillary as being cut from the same cloth as some of those rather insane EE "strong women" that have been in positions of power. There have been a disproportionate number of those in recent history and I could see why people would think gender has something to do with it. Not too interested in playing the "what -ism can we use to discredit someone's opinion" game yet again though.
So because men have been in power during the majority of wars throughout history, we can safely assume all men are war mongers. This seems like a simple way to draw conclusions, I like it.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 30 2016 03:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2016 02:29 Kickstart wrote:On October 30 2016 02:06 xM(Z wrote:
i believed(before it was meta) and still believe that Clinton will start ww3:
personal reasons:
-she is a woman, she wants to prove that women (can and will) make America great again and what better way to illustrate that than beating men at their own game: war.
-she is a woman, a cheated woman nonetheless, while she was the first lady; that leaves scars => a need to prove herself, to prove she is better than <...>.
-she is the product of her chosen environment, she can no longer relate to her subjects/them regular folk so she hates them with passion.
other reasons:
-during Obama's term in meetings on security/Middle East issues, Clinton was the warmonger, time and time again pushing for military intervention in Middle East.
-she is the establishment and it, wants the Middle East since '49.
if Russia loses Middle East it is done for. Reminds me of when I was discussing the election with a friend from Ukraine (the Russians and Ukrainians I know all like Trump). The only thing he could come up with against Hillary was 'but she is a woman'. What is it with you eastern euros and your woman issues? There has been a Russian reporter writing into the NPR politics team saying that all the state media is pro Trump and depicts Hillary as the spawn of the devil.
I haven't seen enough to think that that is really the case. The state media is more pro-Trump than pro-Hillary, and tends to whitewash some of his more stupid stuff (they mention it but don't go after it like they do on this half of the world), but it's mostly a matter of being more friendly towards someone who calls for better relations with Russia over someone who is openly aggressive towards Russia.
The more I've read, the less I see that "blatant bias." Even on Russian RT and the like.
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 30 2016 03:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2016 03:16 LegalLord wrote:On October 30 2016 03:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2016 02:53 LegalLord wrote:On October 30 2016 02:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2016 02:32 LegalLord wrote:
To be fair, East Europe has plenty of experience with "strong woman" leaders and they do tend to be some especially aggressive breed of warhawk. Last time I checked, both World Wars were caused by men. The idea that being a strong woman is something to criticize blows my mind. Does criticizing a female leader for openly advocating for nuclear war, as some of these EE "strong women" have done in the past, blow your mind as well? If anyone, regardless of their sex, is "openly advocating for nuclear war", then that's something that needs to be addressed. But for xM(Z to say that her sex is a driving force for starting WW3, and for you to follow up in agreement that that's a fair statement because strong female leaders can be aggressive... that does nothing but to perpetuate sexism. Not that I necessarily agree with him on the issue, just that I see where he's coming from since from an outsider perspective you could very easily see Hillary as being cut from the same cloth as some of those rather insane EE "strong women" that have been in positions of power. There have been a disproportionate number of those in recent history and I could see why people would think gender has something to do with it. Not too interested in playing the "what -ism can we use to discredit someone's opinion" game yet again though. So because men have been in power during the majority of wars throughout history, we can safely assume all men are war mongers. This seems like a simple way to draw conclusions, I like it.
Find any men who look like psychotic warhawks and they will be treated the same way as women who look like psychotic warhawks. John Rambo McCain is a good example.
|
On October 30 2016 03:16 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2016 03:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2016 02:53 LegalLord wrote:On October 30 2016 02:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2016 02:32 LegalLord wrote:
To be fair, East Europe has plenty of experience with "strong woman" leaders and they do tend to be some especially aggressive breed of warhawk. Last time I checked, both World Wars were caused by men. The idea that being a strong woman is something to criticize blows my mind. Does criticizing a female leader for openly advocating for nuclear war, as some of these EE "strong women" have done in the past, blow your mind as well? If anyone, regardless of their sex, is "openly advocating for nuclear war", then that's something that needs to be addressed. But for xM(Z to say that her sex is a driving force for starting WW3, and for you to follow up in agreement that that's a fair statement because strong female leaders can be aggressive... that does nothing but to perpetuate sexism. Not that I necessarily agree with him on the issue, just that I see where he's coming from since from an outsider perspective you could very easily see Hillary as being cut from the same cloth as some of those rather insane EE "strong women" that have been in positions of power. There have been a disproportionate number of those in recent history and I could see why people would think gender has something to do with it. Not too interested in playing the "what -ism can we use to discredit someone's opinion" game yet again though.
I'm not saying the argument is wrong because it's sexist; I'm saying the argument is wrong and that it's sexist. (At least, that's my intention.)
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 30 2016 03:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2016 03:16 LegalLord wrote:On October 30 2016 03:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2016 02:53 LegalLord wrote:On October 30 2016 02:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2016 02:32 LegalLord wrote:
To be fair, East Europe has plenty of experience with "strong woman" leaders and they do tend to be some especially aggressive breed of warhawk. Last time I checked, both World Wars were caused by men. The idea that being a strong woman is something to criticize blows my mind. Does criticizing a female leader for openly advocating for nuclear war, as some of these EE "strong women" have done in the past, blow your mind as well? If anyone, regardless of their sex, is "openly advocating for nuclear war", then that's something that needs to be addressed. But for xM(Z to say that her sex is a driving force for starting WW3, and for you to follow up in agreement that that's a fair statement because strong female leaders can be aggressive... that does nothing but to perpetuate sexism. Not that I necessarily agree with him on the issue, just that I see where he's coming from since from an outsider perspective you could very easily see Hillary as being cut from the same cloth as some of those rather insane EE "strong women" that have been in positions of power. There have been a disproportionate number of those in recent history and I could see why people would think gender has something to do with it. Not too interested in playing the "what -ism can we use to discredit someone's opinion" game yet again though. I'm not saying the argument is wrong because it's sexist; I'm saying the argument is wrong and that it's sexist. (At least, that's my intention.)
Well you can discuss that with x)Mz and see what he says because I'm not going to speak for him and his opinions. I just offer a little context as to where this "East European obsession with women" (which probably falls into your "racism" "-ism" if we really want to play that game) comes from. Whether or not you agree is a discussion to be had with the one who made the claim.
|
I'm not going over it again portugal, cuz we already did many pages back. we already went over that list you had, and it showed that they aren't receiving us support now; and the problem groups in question won't be. so you're just spouting nonsense hyperbole, which makes you not worth talking to. I will make an effort to not respond to you any further. please stop posting the nonsense about hillary supporting alqaeda.
|
On October 30 2016 03:23 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2016 03:21 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2016 03:16 LegalLord wrote:On October 30 2016 03:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2016 02:53 LegalLord wrote:On October 30 2016 02:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2016 02:32 LegalLord wrote:
To be fair, East Europe has plenty of experience with "strong woman" leaders and they do tend to be some especially aggressive breed of warhawk. Last time I checked, both World Wars were caused by men. The idea that being a strong woman is something to criticize blows my mind. Does criticizing a female leader for openly advocating for nuclear war, as some of these EE "strong women" have done in the past, blow your mind as well? If anyone, regardless of their sex, is "openly advocating for nuclear war", then that's something that needs to be addressed. But for xM(Z to say that her sex is a driving force for starting WW3, and for you to follow up in agreement that that's a fair statement because strong female leaders can be aggressive... that does nothing but to perpetuate sexism. Not that I necessarily agree with him on the issue, just that I see where he's coming from since from an outsider perspective you could very easily see Hillary as being cut from the same cloth as some of those rather insane EE "strong women" that have been in positions of power. There have been a disproportionate number of those in recent history and I could see why people would think gender has something to do with it. Not too interested in playing the "what -ism can we use to discredit someone's opinion" game yet again though. So because men have been in power during the majority of wars throughout history, we can safely assume all men are war mongers. This seems like a simple way to draw conclusions, I like it. Find any men who look like psychotic warhawks and they will be treated the same way as women who look like psychotic warhawks. John Rambo McCain is a good example.
But your argument was that it reasonable to see Hilary as an insane war hawk because other women have been insane war hawks. And that this inference could be made because she is a woman and no other.
I agree with DPB, not only is it a stupid view to hold and a sexist one to boot. I can understand the reasoning and think it is woefully flawed.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 30 2016 03:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2016 03:23 LegalLord wrote:On October 30 2016 03:21 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2016 03:16 LegalLord wrote:On October 30 2016 03:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2016 02:53 LegalLord wrote:On October 30 2016 02:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2016 02:32 LegalLord wrote:
To be fair, East Europe has plenty of experience with "strong woman" leaders and they do tend to be some especially aggressive breed of warhawk. Last time I checked, both World Wars were caused by men. The idea that being a strong woman is something to criticize blows my mind. Does criticizing a female leader for openly advocating for nuclear war, as some of these EE "strong women" have done in the past, blow your mind as well? If anyone, regardless of their sex, is "openly advocating for nuclear war", then that's something that needs to be addressed. But for xM(Z to say that her sex is a driving force for starting WW3, and for you to follow up in agreement that that's a fair statement because strong female leaders can be aggressive... that does nothing but to perpetuate sexism. Not that I necessarily agree with him on the issue, just that I see where he's coming from since from an outsider perspective you could very easily see Hillary as being cut from the same cloth as some of those rather insane EE "strong women" that have been in positions of power. There have been a disproportionate number of those in recent history and I could see why people would think gender has something to do with it. Not too interested in playing the "what -ism can we use to discredit someone's opinion" game yet again though. So because men have been in power during the majority of wars throughout history, we can safely assume all men are war mongers. This seems like a simple way to draw conclusions, I like it. Find any men who look like psychotic warhawks and they will be treated the same way as women who look like psychotic warhawks. John Rambo McCain is a good example. But your argument was that it reasonable to see Hilary as an insane war hawk because other women have been insane war hawks. And that this inference could be made because she is a woman and no other. I agree with DPB, not only is it a stupid view to hold and a sexist one to boot.
I didn't say that. I just said that that might be an explanation for why people do so. As I responded to DPB, whether or not you agree is something to take up with the person who actually made the original claim.
And I think I'll end a discussion that has become pointless and circular with this post. It's not going anywhere interesting.
|
On October 30 2016 03:26 zlefin wrote:
I'm not going over it again portugal, cuz we already did many pages back. we already went over that list you had, and it showed that they aren't receiving us support now; and the problem groups in question won't be. so you're just spouting nonsense hyperbole, which makes you not worth talking to.
LOL there are several groups that are still receiving support from the United states, and the point was that Hillary said she would arm the rebels in Aleppo, which groups do you think would get those weapons? You are worth talking to because you need to educate yourself and be more informed regarding this matters.
please stop posting the nonsense about hillary supporting alqaeda.
Her words not mine, she said she would arm the rebels in Aleppo, if the rebels in Aleppo are extremists and Alqaeda affiliates she would de facto be supporting them with weapons.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
She's only going to arm the moderate rebels, who will only become moderate extremists if something goes wrong. Don't worry.
|
As far as I'm concerned anyone holding a gun between Mosul and Aleppo without the backing of something that is recognized as a government is part of ISIS and needs to either drop their gun or expect to get shot.
|
On October 29 2016 13:45 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 13:10 Danglars wrote:
I'm having trouble believing this Comey thing is all about updating Congress about the status of the previously closed investigation to Congress. He's going to take flak regardless, why not just announce Day or week after? Because the FBI is in total chaos with multiple agents leaking thier utter disbelief about the first recommendation not to charge. This was coming out before the election with or without Comey. The Friday release means he was trying to minimize the political fallout.
That's one theory and it might be the best one.
|
On October 30 2016 03:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 13:45 cLutZ wrote:On October 29 2016 13:10 Danglars wrote:
I'm having trouble believing this Comey thing is all about updating Congress about the status of the previously closed investigation to Congress. He's going to take flak regardless, why not just announce Day or week after? Because the FBI is in total chaos with multiple agents leaking thier utter disbelief about the first recommendation not to charge. This was coming out before the election with or without Comey. The Friday release means he was trying to minimize the political fallout. That's one theory and it might be the best one.
If it leaked that there was ongoing investiagtion into shillary's emails after comey testified that the investigation was closed, reputation of the FBI which is already under question would have tanked even further into the dirt. It was either face the criticism of democrats now, or face the criticism of republicans and the people later.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
There was absolutely nothing Comey could have done that wouldn't get half the country to be pissed off at the FBI. This entire investigation was a losing proposition.
|
It could be considered less sexist (although only by a small margin) if you were to expect the same kind of deal with any leader that was commonly perceived as weak. As in, those kind of people might lash out in tense situations in order to appear strong -- or they might be the kind of person that boils up until they explode. There are some vague allusions of truth in that kind of reasoning, are there not? Of course, you might only perceive Hillary as weak or assume that she feels she must assert herself more strongly because she is a woman -- in which case we're right back on the train to sexism in one way or another. But yeah, any of the above is just not the case with Hillary. She's pretty much asserted herself as much as any male has, I think, and she's definitely a warhawk all on her own, regardless of genitalia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
