Politics' Official Eighteenth Thread

[Drowsy Emperor]

Bruh, chivalry is just holding the door open and picking up the tab. I doubt most normal women are thinking of feudal standards and **** when they talk about chivalry being dead.

 

Picking up the tab is as a gesture of 'chivalry' is such a joke in a world where women earn about the same as men.

 

I can pay the drinks for my female friends (they pay next time) or if I specifically want to treat my girlfriend, but for a random date - never.

 

If a date expects you to pay for her, you best move on to the next one pronto. If you want to pay for company, might as well get a hooker, the outcome is guaranteed from the start so it's a strictly better deal.

Edited May 29, 2018 by Drowsy Emperor

[Guard Dog]

I have an idea for a 28th Amendment of the US Constitution.

 

Article II Clause 5 states: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

 

I suggest we amend that as follows:

 

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, having completed a minimum of two years of honorable military service to the United States, having served a minimum of two terms in the United States House of Representatives, or one term in the United States Senate, or one term in a national appointed office confirmed by the United States Senate, or one term as Governor, Lieutenant Governor, or other State wide elected office of any state in the United States, or at least two terms as a legislator of any State within the United States, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

 

If the last two years have demonstrated anything it's that the executive office is no place for amateurs. Of course I can think of three off the top of my head who met all those requirements were worse Presidents than Trump so you never know.

[Malcador]

Why require military service?

[Guard Dog]

Why require military service?

The President is the commander in chief of the US Military. I'm hoping that having served and knowing what that is like they will be less reckless about ordering them into combat. I'm recalling Bil Clinton's ill-advised intervention in Haiti where US Airborne troops are landing in a hostile situation with no ammunition because Clinton did not want any casualties.

[Hurlshort]

Huh, I think the expectation that the man pays is because we are all ugly and lucky that the woman is even giving us the time of day. I don't even think about the salary situation. My wife and I make the same and I still pick up the tab most of the time because I am the one in pursuit.

 

But hey, maybe we are weird.

[Guard Dog]

Huh, I think the expectation that the man pays is because we are all ugly and lucky that the woman is even giving us the time of day. I don't even think about the salary situation. My wife and I make the same and I still pick up the tab most of the time because I am the one in pursuit.

 

But hey, maybe we are weird.

How does that old saying go? If I had a dollar for every time a woman snubbed me no woman would ever snub me again.

[Pidesco]

I have an idea for a 28th Amendment of the US Constitution.

 

Article II Clause 5 states: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

 

I suggest we amend that as follows:

 

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, having completed a minimum of two years of honorable military service to the United States, having served a minimum of two terms in the United States House of Representatives, or one term in the United States Senate, or one term in a national appointed office confirmed by the United States Senate, or one term as Governor, Lieutenant Governor, or other State wide elected office of any state in the United States, or at least two terms as a legislator of any State within the United States, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

 

If the last two years have demonstrated anything it's that the executive office is no place for amateurs. Of course I can think of three off the top of my head who met all those requirements were worse Presidents than Trump so you never know.

 

Who are those three?

[Guard Dog]

Franklin Pierce, Richard Nixon, and Jimmy Carter.

[smjjames]

There are Presidents who would arguably be worse than Carter. Of course, it’ll depend on who you ask.

[Guard Dog]

Oh easily. But for this discussion they have to be worse than Trump but meet the criteria in my proposed amendment.

[Malcador]

 

Why require military service?

The President is the commander in chief of the US Military. I'm hoping that having served and knowing what that is like they will be less reckless about ordering them into combat. I'm recalling Bil Clinton's ill-advised intervention in Haiti where US Airborne troops are landing in a hostile situation with no ammunition because Clinton did not want any casualties.

Given US foreign policy over the years, doesn't seem like former military are any better. In any case, at the level he is commanding, different skillset than one will get from the military. Well, unless one is a micromanager like Rummy was.

[smjjames]

As far as the hypothetical military service requirement goes, GD did say that there were Presidents who did have military service but weren’t necessarily great Presidents. IMO, it shouldn’t be a requirement because we don’t have mandatory military service in the US.

[Pidesco]

Oh easily. But for this discussion they have to be worse than Trump but meet the criteria in my proposed amendment.

 

What makes Carter worse than Trump?

[Gritino]

Very interesting article. I suggest that everyone reads it.

 

Libya's Main Rival Governments Agree to Hold Election on 10 December

 

https://www.eurasiafuture.com/2018/05/29/libyas-main-rival-governments-agree-to-hold-election-on-10-december/

 

What happened to Libya and Gaddafi is quite the tragedy.

 

People like Obama are truly evil.

Edited May 29, 2018 by Gritino

[Guard Dog]

@ smjames & Malcador: No argument from me that the record isn't much better. But is seems to me that being in charge of something should require and understanding of that thing. That said actual government experience is also important. Trump has on a number of occasions threatened do do things the Constitution does not empower the executive to do. And he's hardly the first one there. Barack Obama was 10 times worse because he actually DID things he did not have the power to do and was allowed to do so because Congress did not stop him.Back on subject military officers who came to office with no political experience also have a poor track record. Eisenhower is something of an exception in that he was not a disaster. But no one has him in their top 10 either. Grant & Taylor were both poor Presidents.. The only one to be a success was Washington. 

 

@Pidesco: Carter's biggest flaw was his indecisiveness. That is something a President absolutely cannot be. It's better to be decisively wrong than to dither. It lead Carter to do things in half measures which all but assures failure. On another note, if you have been reading my posts over the years you know Carter set in motion a series of events that culminated in the Great Mortgage, Banking and Financial Crisis of the early 2000's. He does not bear the blame alone but there is no doubt it started with him.Of course he can't be blamed for not seeing the future but decisions made with a poor grasp of economics and US History should surprise no one when they turn out badly.

 

@Gritino: I would not describe Obama as evil. He did not act out of malice or ill intent. Although he was perfectly willing to sacrifice the liberty, proceeds of labor and even lives of people in the name of some "greater good" (as he defined it). He did change forever the relationship between the American citizens and the government and not in a positive way IMO. He also did more to marginalize the power of Congress than any President since FDR and again, not a good thing IMO. That does not make him evil but for those who value personal liberty over some nebulous and intangible concept like a "social contract" might see this as a distinction without a difference.  

[Elerond]

 

Yet, I do believe we can agree that chivalry, in general, is indeed an expression of male dominance; that is, women are men‘s responsibility to be treated well. Women however are to smile and to be thankful for this. There’s a certain difference in the worth ascribed to each of the two here.

 

Chivalry has never been about male dominance over woman, it's structuring a knight to be worthy to fill the privileged roll that they have been granted. Knighthood was much more about religious piety, and being a servant soldier. As time went on the institution survived more as a form of noble distinction, and the social elements remained. But this did not grant a knight dominance over woman, it was about providence amongst one's peers.

 

Because woman had certain rolls at that time, it's somehow seen as chivalry being the institution that maintained such things. Which is laughable. Only in modern times when people are insistent on changing things meaning in order to be correct, would your definition hold any water.

 

 

Yeah chivalric code of conduit is based on teaching of Christianity. Opening doors for people for example has it root in story about Jesus washing his disciples feet, when they arguing who should do it. It is to show that you don't pride yourself over the others.

 

Although there is some merit in male dominance theory as women were seen as lower than men in society and therefore men who opened door for women showed greater humility than those who didn't and therefore opening doors lower class people (which in aristoratic settings means women and servants) become core part of chivalric behavior.

 

[smjjames]

Obama may have also made the mistake of not planning for what to do afterwards and how to deal with the aftermath like forming a new government. Or maybe he was trying to urge Europe to take the reins but they ended up not following through, not sure which.

[Gfted1]

I dont think Ive ever not paid while on dates. Thanks Trump.

 

I also hold doors and put on coat's. *runs in panic*

[Chilloutman]

I dont think Ive ever not paid while on dates. Thanks Trump.

 

I also hold doors and put on coat's. *runs in panic*

 

I would honestly felt filthy and I don't care if she even earns more

[HoonDing]

Shame about Roseanne, she told it like it is.

[Volourn]

Whiler what she was stupid talk about a total overreaction. of course, nobody ever got fired (to my knowledge0 for comparing George Bush to a monkey.  Gonna miss the show but  it is what it is.

 

I wonder if Libs are gonna claim her show were canceled for 'low ratings' like supposedly LMS was according to them even though LMS is coming back largely because of Rosseanne's successful comeback.

 

LMAO

 

What is funny is that the show Rosseane was pusing  the Liberal 'agenda' in many ways (usually in the right reasonable ways) like with her grandchild and the one with her Muslim neighbours so they canceled a 'friendly' show. L0L

[Zoraptor]

People like Obama are truly evil.

 

Obama was dragged into Libya by Hillary and Sarkozy/ Cameron. Sarkozy especially, since he wanted Gaddafi's illegal contributions to his election campaign kept secret. What has come after is the fault of Europe having neither plan beforehand nor spine after while making policy based on fantasy rather than reality, and the ludicrous internecine arab rivalries between secularists vs the ikhwan vs salafi/ wahhabis; all of whom Europe was relying on to keep the country together because... Europe is stupid and lazy, basically.

[Volourn]

"Obama was dragged into"

 

he was the President of the 'most powerful nation on Earth'. His choice. PERIOD.

[Gritino]

Declassified Emails Reveal NATO Killed Gaddafi to Stop Libyan Creation of Gold-Backed Currency

 

 

https://thefreethoughtproject.com/declassified-emails-reveal-natos-true-motive-topple-gaddafi-stop-creation-gold-backed-african-currency/

[smjjames]

Why would NATO be afraid of gold backed currency? The world abandoned gold backed currency for good reason.