Senate The US Politics discussion

He's addressing the religion itself as an ideology, not its followers, so I don't think it would fall under hate speech. As someone who was born in a predominantly Muslim country myself, I'm not offended by this proposal. It's driven more by fear than malice (although I'm sure there's plenty of malice too among its proponents), and when we see that the fear is to an extent justified, I can't hold it against people to have apprehensions. On a human level, I can't condemn them. But of course, as a matter of principle, it's illegal in a number of ways, yeah.

 

All 6 of the world's major religions are violent, advocate or glorify violence, and have violent histories.

 

A round-up on Trump's lack of military knowledge from the last two days...

On needing more nukes

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/donald-trump-has-no-clue-about-nukes-1790410271

On F-35s and aircraft

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/donald-trump-now-asking-for-impossible-magic-fantasy-je-1790421607

And, in continued news, the Trump Administration's first actual act will be to force women to perform at his Inauguration against their will, because that's pretty much in line with the rest of his actions...

http://jezebel.com/the-rockettes-have-a-choice-perform-for-trump-or-lose-1790438403

 

So, there are now conflicting reports on whether they are forced to perform or not -- but basically, due to Broadway dance contracts, they're forced to perform. Here's some of the background information on what it's like to dance in NYC...

http://www.onstageblog.com/columns/...oled-the-rockettes-dont-have-much-of-a-choice

 

Most people are forced to do their jobs if they want to keep them, yes. It sucks that these women have to do it, but why aren't we fretting about, say, the non-political White House staff who have to wait on Trump for four years?

 

Are those people unionized and forced to do it?

 

The Rockettes can refuse just as the White House staff can refuse. They would both get fired and for the Rockettes it would jeopardize their careers, but those are normal consequences of not doing work they were hired to do.

To be clear, employers tend to be *****y. The dance/performing arts industry can be especially *****y. How is this specifically Trump's fault? The Rockettes wouldn't have been able to refuse to perform for HRC either.

 

People quitting the White House as normal staff are entirely different than a dancer in NYC refusing to perform. One would likely fully end one's career and the other wouldn't.

Also, why bring HRC into it -- it'd be just as crappy in reverse. And this isn't Trump's fault, other than him being the reason they don't want to perform, it's James Dolan and the union's fault. Though there is nice symmetry to women being forced to perform for Donald Trump...

 

Shouldn't you be railing against the industry instead of a President-elect who has little to do with it? I don't understand your angle here. Yes, Trump is a misogynist. Why not cite his actual misogynist actions instead of this "symmetry" that ignores that **** like this happens to performers and workers all the ****ing time?

 

Just to back that up, this is once more needed:

 

Because most of the time, it's not an overtly political act?

I mean, in most cases people are forced to work and do things they don't want to do -- but by doing so there's no political / free speech issues ascribed to the position. I've had exactly one in my almost twenty year career, but decided to go ahead with it for a variety of reasons (no, I can't say what it is but it wasn't domestic).

And the Rockettes who don't want to perform don't want to do so likely because of his actual misogynist actions.



Also, since we HAVE been commenting on his (and Pence's) actual misogynistic actions... I'm not sure what you're trying to get at?

 

How is performing at an inaugural celebration any more "inherently political" than being the janitor that cleans the ballrooms used for it, the cooks that prepare the meals for it, the photographers that shoot it, the limousine services that have to drive guests to it, or the countless other posts people will take up as a part of their daily work without you waving some great flag of martyrdom on their behalf?

 

Foxtrot Alpha has gone down hill since Tyler left.

Boeing has the F-15 Silent Eagle (F-15SE) which makes use of some stealth tech, conformal fuel tanks, and internal weapons stores. It's a variant of the F-15E which is already in service, so the F-15SE is effectively a 4th Gen ++ fighter. It's not impossible, and it wouldn't be an entirely new aircraft. Sure it would have to be slightly massaged, but the F-18 also already has a smaller radar cross section than the F-15 as well to start with, so starting from a smaller point to make it smaller with available technologies. This is of course not to mention that the more external stores you add begin to negate the effectiveness of the stealth capabilities of the aircraft, of which the F-35 has a grand total of 2 internal pylons to use. After that you start putting on external stores. Oh yeah, need a gun for CAS mission? Only the A model gets an internal gun, where as the B and C models have to mount a gun pod.

One of the main issues with the F-35 is the F-35B variant that the Marines specifically wanted to have STOVL capabilities. The entire air frame was designed around the B variant to meet those requirements (including a small redesign to accommodate the weigh specifications because it was initially over the weight requirements), and the A and C variants have suffered as a consequence. This all part of a longer on going discussion over the merits of the F-35 universal design and the effectiveness of the B model depends wholly on how well the Marines use it from their amphib carriers, or how well they deploy them in theater like they did with the AV-8B.

Really, the viability of the program is a subject of some debate considering that one of the air frames the F-35 was supposed to replace, the A-10C, is sticking around and especially since the USAF is looking into other CAS platforms to succeed the A-10 in lower intensity conflicts because of the cost associated with operating the F-35. The USAF has even gone as far as re-winging the aircraft which is going to give it some more longevity. Plus, some of the older aircraft in our inventory are slated to get upgraded systems like or similar to the AESA radar on the F-35.

It should of course be mentioned that F-22 production was terminated in favor of the promised capabilities that the F-35 held. Whether the F-35 will ever actually deliver on those promised capabilities I don't think anyone can say with certainty given the history of the program.

 

Come on, no need to call names.

 

Because it's all Trump's fault. It's all due to Trump. This stuff literally didn't exist in any substantive portion during Lord Obama's reign. It all magically occurred now that Trump is President elect. Please get with their program.

 

I'm starting to see appleseed's point.
I asked in what ways the US can protect itself against tyranny - no serious replies.
Dp posts about a dancer or a plane - yap yap yap yap yap yap

 

Who cares about dictatorships when you try and point-score against fellow JCers, and prove you're better than them?

 

Do you expect serious replies about tyranny in a Community thread on a Star Wars messageboard?

We can't even compare/contrast to Palpatine here, otherwise Ender gets grumpy!

 

Point scoring against JCCers is kind of the thing here. It's one thing for diggy from 2013 to not know that, but SuperWatto you oughta know that by now!

 

Your post got minimal replies because it was silly. There are already institutional protections against abuses. If they don't serve, most other alternatives probably won't.

 

i think my problem was more that it felt a little silly and naive to list the protections against tyranny in the wake of us spending a year listing all the common sense reasons trump could never win. like a fascist united states seems about as crazy to me as president donald trump did. novel times i guess.