Tinder The Really Hard Truth About Girls

[hairblues]

Many legitimate points @hairblues that distinguish the American situation from the European situation.

@FredTheBelgian has actually acknowledged some bizareness with the American right wing in the past. For example he's glad he wasn't crippled by student loans, and that he has access to public health care and public transportation.

It was simply an all-out atrocious situation in this election. It wasn't good against evil, it was evil against evil. Trump: all the problems you mention. Meanwhile Hillary wanted to wage an aggressive war against Russia and to intervene in Syria immediately after the election. It would have been a catastrophe.

I do not agree with you about HRC wanting to wage war against Russia

No offense David--where is your legitimate sourced proof of such a thing?

 

[CopeForLife]

Like Syria, and Georgia 2007, Ukraine is a proxy war between NATO and Russia. They were going at it for twenty years via phoney colour revolutions, a couple years ago it went military.

Civil wars can also be proxy wars, classic example is the Spanish civil war. Hitler was heavily involved, and helped Franco.

NATO wants Sevastopol to prevent Russia from having Sevastopol.

Overall we're in a period of high risk now. It wouldn't be foolish to store canned food, bottled water, gold, and cash.

Syria sparkled by itself. There was a long history of tensions. Read Hama 1982 for example. But now yes, new it is definition of proxy war.

I cannot call war in Ukraine as 100% proxy either. There was a direct military invasion by Russia in September of 2014 and December of 2015.

Btw since Syrian war is one of my deepest interest, I have a few guys with who I talk sometimes (they from ex-USSR all) who went to Syria to fight Assad alongside with Syrian rebels (they mostly joined Nusra). Nice and well mannered guys tbh, always enjoying to talk with them. They are strongly against ISIS btw – they are even more enemy to them than Syrian regime.

 

[hairblues]

Nothing bothered me more in this election than the idea it was two equally bad choices or two equally evil options.

First off neither one is evil.

But it's a choice and even Sophie made a choice...she choice the child she knew had a better chance of surviving the concentration camps.

Trump is going to get us into HUGE international issues possibly more wars

Why? Because he's got a personality disorder--and if I figured that out about him YEARS ago--then the worlds leaders who are not stupid people or they would not be in position of powers--are going to figure it out..and they are going to know how to f*** with him.

It is going to be a mess.

I do NOT think the Right is going to allow him to remain in power as soon as his popularity goes down they will find a way to impeach him.

I have a notion it was ALWAYS in their minds to get Pence in VP spot to make President.

I would take Pence as MUCH as i dont agree with him over Trump...Because Pence will do all this fucked up Domestic policies and then some that i can not stand--BUT he is capable of governing the USA...Trump is inept.

He is already shown us he is inept with his Twitter rants.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

I do not agree with you about HRC wanting to wage war against Russia

No offense David--where is your legitimate sourced proof of such a thing?

She was heavily endorsed by the neoconservative establishment, and her foreign policy orbiters largely included Victoria Nuland, Robert Kagan, Samantha Power, Michael McFaul, etc. Robert Kagan explicitly highlited how she's better than Obama on the basis that Obama fears nuclear war with Russia. See for example this excellent article:
https://theintercept.com/2016/07/25/robert-kagan-and-other-neocons-back-hillary-clinton/

The way they described Clinton’s foreign policy vision suggested that if elected president in November, she will escalate tensions with Russia, double down on military belligerence in the Middle East, and generally ignore the American public’s growing hostility to intervention. ...

“I know Hillary cares more about Ukraine than the current president does,” Kagan replied. “[Obama] said to me [that he wouldn’t arm Ukraine because] he doesn’t want a nuclear war with Russia,” he added, rolling his eyes dismissively. “I don’t think Obama cares about Putin anymore at all. I think he’s hopeless.”

Kagan is married to Victoria Nuland, the Obama administration’s hardline assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs. Nuland, who would likely serve in a senior position in a Clinton administration, supports shipping weapons to Ukraine despite major opposition from European countries and concerns about the neo-Nazi elementsthose weapons would empower.

During the presidential debates she explicitly said that she wants to impose a no-fly zone over Syria. Do you know what that means? It means shooting down Russian jets. That's what a no-fly zone is: shooting down enemy planes. Once you shoot down Russian jets, it's hard to go back. This lunatic comment, for which she understood the implications, was widely discussed in the media:
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/12/hillary-clintons-insane-plan-for-a-no-fly-zone.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...zone-third-debate_us_58084280e4b0180a36e91a53
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/25/hillary-clinton-syria-no-fly-zones-russia-us-war
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/10/20/hillary-clinton-just-say-okay-going-war-russia/
The first of the four links is from 13 months ago, showing it's been a long-term issue with Clinton.

She also said she wants to arm the kurds (further escalating in Syria, and antagonistic with Turkey), and in general her campaign was one of anti-Putin, anti-Russian hysteria. She would talk about him non-stop. She had an obsession with Putin, for example she's compared Putin to Hitler,which is typical of western irrationality:
https://newrepublic.com/article/116875/hillary-clinton-compares-putin-hitler-over-crimea-ukraine

We know that Clinton is generally pro-war, she was the voice in the Obama administration most responsible for the catastrophic intervention in Libya, here's some info from her email accounts:
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...ls-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/
Hillary's known as a military hawk who is extremely enthusiastic about using the military as widely as possible. She has supported virtually every opportunity for war as a senator and a secretary of state.

So let's not kid ourselves: A Clinton presidency would have meant aggressive war. Possible way out if Russia unconditionally surrenders but that seems unlikely.

 

[hairblues]

She was heavily endorsed by the neoconservative establishment, and her foreign policy orbiters largely included Victoria Nuland, Robert Kagan, Samantha Power, Michael McFaul, etc. Robert Kagan explicitly highlited how she's better than Obama on the basis that Obama fears nuclear war with Russia. See for example this excellent article:
https://theintercept.com/2016/07/25/robert-kagan-and-other-neocons-back-hillary-clinton/


surrenders but that seems unlikely.

Im sorry Rania Khalek is your source of a writer for me

No thanks.

I read the article and its her inferring what it seems like because of yada yada yada

I dont trust her opinion..im surprised you do.

 

[hairblues]

Again no one has addressed my perspective of the things as to WHY I am on Left for where I live.

Its just been a theory from Rania Khalek who i cannot take seriously. To me she is a propaganda journalist.

And besides that

no one is even making ANY legitimate argument against the more then 10 reasons as to why i am on the Left.

Its like you guys ONLY choose to argue about what you see from YOUR perspectives for where you grew up or lived.

You want me to see your perspective and i grant you I get it...but no one takes the time to look at or address what is important to me for where I live.

Most of my sh*t i listed are DOMESTIC policies.

 

[hairblues]

Quoting her to me is like quoting Kurt Eichenwald to Trumpster.

I like Kurts reporting but to me its more opinion mixed with facts so he is not fairly balanced in his reporting its all agenda.
I agree with him so i like it but its not good proof for other side an you have to look into more than just him to really know whats up.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Im sorry Rania Khalek is your source of a writer for me

No thanks.

I read the article and its her inferring what it seems like because of yada yada yada

I dont trust her opinion..im surprised you do.

One weak and irrelevant ad hominem used to dismiss a whole lot of content, all of which is backed.

Did Rania Khalek get sued for her article? Was she asked to publish a retraction?

No and No.

All of the quotes in the article are real. Those lunatics actually said those things.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Again no one has addressed my perspective of the things as to WHY I am on Left for where I live.

Its just been a theory from Rania Khalek who i cannot take seriously. To me she is a propaganda journalist.

And besides that

no one is even making ANY legitimate argument against the more then 10 reasons as to why i am on the Left.

Its like you guys ONLY choose to argue about what you see from YOUR perspectives for where you grew up or lived.

You want me to see your perspective and i grant you I get it...but no one takes the time to look at or address what is important to me for where I live.

Most of my sh*t i listed are DOMESTIC policies.

I'm on the left so I don't disagree with you respect to private prisons, global warming, etc. That stuff is important too.

With that said your response to my long, well-researched, well-referenced post is extremely lazy and anti-intellectual. You're discouraging people from engaging with you by showing that you won't engage with anything said. And no, it's not "just a theory from Rhania Khalek". There were multiple references and accounts looking at various factors as well as the historical record. I deliberately including a range of media organizations: right-wing, left-wing, domestic, foreign, etc.

You saw information that was inconvenient to you, and then you looked for the quickest excuse to dismiss it, rather than engaging with it.

 

[SmoothSailing]

Lol, can you actually show me that the sky is blue?



Another one is marriage, when I announced here that I might get married, all the US/UK residents were all like: "Are you crazy?! She could take all your money and your kids!"

Well, no, that doesn't happen in Belgium, at worst, you'd have to pay a few hundred euros for divorce and 200€ per month for child support. And you know what happens if you don't pay? Nothing.

At a point they wanted to punish the dads who didn't pay by taking their driver's license away: http://www.lesoir.be/505539/article...etire-en-cas-non-paiement-pension-alimentaire But even that never happened.

You see, we are quite far from what's happening in the US/UK. I still don't get it, how is it allowed that women hold so much power over men and can ruin their lives so easily?

UK crime statistics by gender infographic.

Released by the UK government.

Averagely nearly twice as large a sentencing for males. And a male offender i twice as likely to be sentenced to custody as a female offender.

Take a look at the "Mitigating factors" as well.

And the only thing I hear about gender inequality is about the "Wage gap".

There is a clear gender bias in the court systems. Of course there might be some genuine reasoning for it, but no doubt it's in part sexism.

 

[hairblues]

I'm on the left so I don't disagree with you respect to private prisons, global warming, etc. That stuff is important too.

With that said your response to my long, well-researched, well-referenced post is extremely lazy and anti-intellectual. You're discouraging people from engaging with you by showing that you won't engage with anything said. And no, it's not "just a theory from Rhania Khalek". There were multiple references and accounts looking at various factors as well as the historical record.

If you see information that is inconvenient to you, you'll look for the quickest excuse to dismiss it, rather than engaging with it.

First off dont make assumptions

I am neither lazy nor anti-intellectual...so calling me such is you just trying to debase me in a more sophisticated manner than Fred does.

I read your article..I read whole thing anything in it made me feel their is truth to her wanting a war with Russia

I dont read standing up to Russia as wanting a war

Thanks for insulting me David.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

First off dont make assumptions

I am neither lazy nor anti-intellectual...so calling me such is you just trying to debase me in a more sophisticated manner than Fred does.

I read your article..I read whole thing anything in it made me feel their is truth to her wanting a war with Russia

I dont read standing up to Russia as wanting a war

Thanks for insulting me David.

I'm being honest, your response was extremely weak.

You feel insulted but I actually gave you a very sincere, very genuine compliment. I bothered to engage with you. I tried to respond to you with a well-referenced post backed by a series of arguments, which was an indicator of respect to you. It took some effort to track down all of those articles. I did not give the same respect to nameless. In his case I couldn't be bothered to put anything together as it would be pointless.

I was wondering, excited, eager to see how you'd respond. What did you come up with? A crude, irrelevant ad hominem. You didn't engage nor discuss any of the uncomfortable material.

ETA: I just checked and I in fact did not insult you, I insulted your response.

 

[hairblues]

I'm being honest, your response was extremely weak.

You feel insulted but I actually gave you a very sincere, very genuine compliment. I bothered to engage with you. I tried to respond to you with a well-referenced post backed by a series of arguments, which was an indicator of respect to you. It took some effort to track down all of those articles. I did not give the same respect to nameless. In his case I couldn't be bothered to put anything together as it would be pointless.

I was wondering, excited, eager to see how you'd respond. What did you come up with? A crude, irrelevant ad hominem. You didn't engage nor discuss any of the uncomfortable material.

Because i read the article and it 'reads' from this womans perspective..after i read the article i looked at her name...When i googled her name its all articles that are slanted against Clinton similar to Kurt EIchenwald..who i like but i will admit at least (you won't) he is slanted against Trump.

So if someones career is based on negative articles about one side vs the other--i don't take them seriously on either side.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Lol, can you actually show me that the sky is blue?



Another one is marriage, when I announced here that I might get married, all the US/UK residents were all like: "Are you crazy?! She could take all your money and your kids!"

Well, no, that doesn't happen in Belgium, at worst, you'd have to pay a few hundred euros for divorce and 200€ per month for child support. And you know what happens if you don't pay? Nothing.

At a point they wanted to punish the dads who didn't pay by taking their driver's license away: http://www.lesoir.be/505539/article...etire-en-cas-non-paiement-pension-alimentaire But even that never happened.

You see, we are quite far from what's happening in the US/UK. I still don't get it, how is it allowed that women hold so much power over men and can ruin their lives so easily?

I'm not sure why that is. Gender politics in the USA are somewhat complicated, sometimes men are favoured and other times women are very favoured. You can point to a lot of examples of men getting the shorter end of the stick, on the other hand women are still under-represented in key areas such as executives, scientific organizations, Hollywood, et cetera.

Did you know that no cis-woman has ever directed a live-action Hollywood movie with a budget exceeding 100 million dollars? The first exception is coming out this year (Wonder Woman, directed by Patty Jenkins).

There's also the issue that child support / alimony regulation needs to exist. I'm not quite sure how much it should be, but it should exist, probably more than 200 euros a month given the cost of living in the USA. For a middle-class family I'd estimate ~$10,000/year, but that's a rough estimate.

My best answer, which is a guess for which I don't have total confidence, to your post about divorce law is that it most harms working-class and middle-class men. If Joe Bloke gets divorced at 45, and is liquidated via child support and alimony, that ruins Joe Bloke's life. This doesn't really affect millionaires and billionaires nearly as much .... yes they pay child support and alimony, but by and large they don't suffer the same proportionate desolution. There are exceptions but typically they sign pre-nuptials.

The powerful in the USA, the billionaires, the country club crowd, the executives, the generals, etc are happy still working within the confines of an old boys club. However, most men have lost a great deal. The average man in his 30s today actually has a lower income than a man in his 30s did 40 years ago, even after correcting for inflation.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Because i read the article and it 'reads' from this womans perspective..after i read the article i looked at her name...When i googled her name its all articles that are slanted against Clinton similar to Kurt EIchenwald..who i like but i will admit at least (you won't) he is slanted against Trump.

So if someones career is based on negative articles about one side vs the other--i don't take them seriously on either side.

There's nothing with a writer having a "beat". I follow Sarah Kendzior on Twitter, her beat is criticizing Trump. That's fine. There's actually a case for writers to specialize. I also would not dismiss a Kurt Eichenwald article on the basis that it's from Kurt Eichenwald. As I don't dismiss articles by Kendzior nor by Khalek.

Note that "ad hominem" is a logical fallacy. You didn't address any of the content I put up. If you don't like Khalek that's irrelevant as I deliberately linked to a diversity of media organizations.

 

[SmoothSailing]

women are still under-represented in key areas such as executives, scientific organizations, Hollywood, et cetera.

Did you know that no cis-woman has ever directed a live-action Hollywood movie with a budget exceeding 100 million dollars? The first exception is coming out this year (Wonder Woman, directed by Patty Jenkins).

They are not institutionalized gender biases.

It's not because of some government policy/law or some judges decision that women are underrepresented in those positions.

No doubt it's worth finding out why there are these differences, and likely there's some sexism involved. But it's different to institutionalized sexism.

 

[Michael84]

I read your article..I read whole thing anything in it made me feel their is truth to her wanting a war with Russia
I dont read standing up to Russia as wanting a war
Thanks for insulting me David.

That would be great. Russia has always been at war with someone. Their political system and worldview are ugly and aggressive. There was no decade when this country lived in peace. And they hate Americans most of all, trust me. Too bad McCain lost the previous elections and now Hilary Clinton lost this one. Yeah, I understand that an average American doesn't want war and conflicts but I'm just saying my opinion as a neighbour of Russia. So it may be biased to some extent.

 

[CopeForLife]

That would be great. Russia has always been at war with someone. Their political system and worldview are ugly and aggressive. There was no decade when this country lived in peace. And they hate Americans most of all, trust me. Too bad McCain lost the previous elections and now Hilary Clinton lost this one. Yeah, I understand that an average American doesn't want war and conflicts but I'm just saying my opinion as a neighbour of Russia. So it may be biased to some extent.

u probably just leave the cave or nuclear bunker

it isn't 70-s anymore

what country are u from?

 

[CopeForLife]

That would be great. Russia has always been at war with someone. Their political system and worldview are ugly and aggressive. There was no decade when this country lived in peace. And they hate Americans most of all, trust me. Too bad McCain lost the previous elections and now Hilary Clinton lost this one. Yeah, I understand that an average American doesn't want war and conflicts but I'm just saying my opinion as a neighbour of Russia. So it may be biased to some extent.

Lol at scapegoating Russia

Great Britain and France had horrible history as well, for example

They are responsible for fucked up Middle East drawing artificial borders one century ago.

 

[tellersquill]

Lol at scapegoating Russia

Great Britain and France had horrible history as well, for example

They are responsible for fucked up Middle East drawing artificial borders one century ago.

They would be better under French and british rule