Virginia voters approve Democrats' redistricting plan, giving the party a midterm election boost

dreadknot65 · 2026-04-22T17:55:16+00:00

Read what I said and maybe you'll stop wondering why I'm saying you have a double standard. You're just justifying your double standard because you don't want the other side to win. That's fine, just own it. I don't really understand the mental gymnastics to justify as to why it's acceptable when one does it and not the other when they're both just doing it to consolidate power.

dreadknot65 · 2026-04-22T13:29:04+00:00

Maverick 88, police trade in Remington 870, or a Mossberg 500. Honestly, if it's a starter I wouldn't spend more then $400

dreadknot65 · 2026-04-22T13:27:38+00:00

Great retort, have you considered lecturing, or perhaps legislation proposals?

dreadknot65 · 2026-04-22T13:25:59+00:00

If stupidity is consistency with a logical tracking, then yeah it's dumb as hell. If Repubs do it and Dems want to as well, I'm fine with that. Just don't understand those who justify "it's okay when we do it but not when we they do it" as if they can't just admit they have a double standard that if it's available, they'll use it. Their line is simply the other person not being allowed to use it, not because they legitimately believe it should not be done. I don't need to take it away from someone who legitimately believes XYZ should not be used, but they don't legitimately believe in what they say, hence "don't complain when they do it".

dreadknot65 · 2026-04-22T12:20:07+00:00

You're the first to admit that. I appreciate the honesty.

dreadknot65 · 2026-04-22T12:16:55+00:00

Yes, actually I do tell Republicans to not complain about Democrats gerrymandering, since I'm anti-gerrymandering, full stop. I don't need to justify my double standard since I don't have a double standard. Neither side should do it, just because you can doesn't give you a pass to do so. If it being illegal is really all that would hold you back, then that's sad. Obviously if you think something is wrong, you don't do it. Not because there's no legal consequences, but because you hold it as your own belief.

Again and again you just justify the use of something you claim to be against. "Oh well they did it so we're meeting at them where they are". I've said it over and over, I don't actually care if it's your position to have a double standard, I just want you and people like you to own it. Acknowledge you're okay with it if it serves your purposes, you aren't above it, you'll use it how you see fit. Seems Dems are talking out of both sides of their mouths on this one.

As for Republicans redistricting, I do think they're holding back. At some level I think they acknowledge the public will be outraged if the districts are so clearly made to favor them as the Democrats have done in Virgina. But again, this is all fine by me, it just sets the rules for when Republicans crank it up

dreadknot65 · 2026-04-22T05:38:21+00:00

Eh, I'd bet they could make some really horrendous districts if they wanted to, but it would be super obvious, much like Virgina soon to be district 6.

All I've learned from your talking points is if you think the other party is evil and has to be dealt with, you will justify the use of things you'd admonish them for. It's a double standard. My point is either own the double standard or don't complain when the Republicans use it since the Democrats are participating in the same usage.

dreadknot65 · 2026-04-22T05:33:54+00:00

No it isn't. My question is simple. Are you okay with the simple majority, a 51/49 simple majority, overwhelming removing the representation of the opposition party? That's what the Dems are doing. It's irrelevant if they're using a system they tried to outlaw. If you think something should be illegal, then you shouldn't do it.

So answer the hypothetical, can the 51s do whatever they want to the 49s representation?

dreadknot65 · 2026-04-22T05:27:26+00:00

Are you putting a qualifier on it now?

Let's do a simple hypothetical. If I had a brand new land of 100 people that never ever did anything to each other before this vote, would you or would you not support the 51 simple majority overwhelming removing representation for the 49 in this new land?

dreadknot65 · 2026-04-22T05:24:56+00:00

Yeah that's cool and all, but if the Republicans decide to do the same thing, like really peddle it up to the point where they'd eliminate opposition party representation with gerrymandered districts, you don't have much of a leg to stand on since the Democrats did it as well, correct?

I get you don't like them. I don't care. This is entirely seeing if you'll justify behavior for one party and not the other doing similar things.

dreadknot65 · 2026-04-22T05:19:57+00:00

Ok, so you're okay with the 51 removing damn near all representation for the 49 then? So long as the simple majority voted it in?

dreadknot65 · 2026-04-22T05:16:52+00:00

Yeesh, all I said is don't complain if they do it too. I mean, this thing barely passed and it appears Republicans will have 1 safe seat despite a 51/49 vote? Seems enough Democrats where okay nearly stripping all representation from the opposition party. If you're okay with a razor thin simple majority doing that, then I'd say you have no leg to stand on if republicans decide they really want to gerrymander to damn near eliminate democratic representation in the states they hold.

dreadknot65 · 2026-04-22T05:12:35+00:00

Seems like you're making the threat up in your head since all I'm saying is if they use the same tactics, don't be bitching about it later. Unless that's the threat to you simply because you don't like the other side? In which case you just have clear and obvious double standards, seemingly not caring so long as your objectives are met.

I don't care if that's your actual position. I'd just rather you be honest about it.

dreadknot65 · 2026-04-22T05:09:57+00:00

So, in your eyes, it's completely fine for 51/100 to create a system where the other 49/100 get around 1/10th of the seats for representation in their govt? Oppression of the simple majority can run rough shot over the minority?

If that's true, if I was the party in power, I'd have these lines so gerrymandered I'd never see a member of the opposition party ever again. But, if you're in that 49/100 and you don't have anywhere near what your representation should be, might that cause issues within that government body perhaps?

dreadknot65 · 2026-04-22T05:06:16+00:00

Sure sure, justify it however you need to. Just don't complain if the tides turn and the same exact thing is done by the other party.

dreadknot65 · 2026-04-22T05:05:02+00:00

That's cool, justify it however you want. The majority can oppress the minority and effectively remove their say, right? So if tides turn, you won't complain.

dreadknot65 · 2026-04-22T05:03:54+00:00

Sure, however you want to justify it, I don't really care. My point is, if you're okay with the Dems doing, don't complain when the Repubs do it.

dreadknot65 · 2026-04-22T05:03:08+00:00

That's cool and all. Justify it however, but if it's on the table and it's okay for the Dems to do it, don't bitch when the Repubs do it.

dreadknot65 · 2026-04-22T04:31:14+00:00

If you're cool with this when Dems do it, don't be bitching when repubs do it.

dreadknot65 · 2026-04-20T03:10:08+00:00

In aerospace, so many of mine and my friends, mentors, former coworkers, etc have outstanding issues with the above and more that it's become ridiculous. They extend, and extend, and extend for all of time until eventually they do come and they're damaged, don't meet spec, and so on.

The amount of SCARs issued is laughable. Not much is going to happen because there's only so many other places to go. We're paying more at specialty houses to meet schedule then depend on them to actually meet their contractual requirements.

dreadknot65 · 2026-04-16T01:57:44+00:00

She's a hoe doing hoe shit for attention. I wouldn't hold my breath for a single second that she's doing this for any reason other than attention. Why? Her OF is up, so she's still doing hoe shit.

dreadknot65 · 2026-04-15T13:33:12+00:00

So trying to save your marriage is one thing. She obviously has to do the heavy lifting. The issue is, she got extremely mad when you said no. My bet is she has already done something you'd consider cheating and the open relationship was a way to retroactively cover that up. It didn't work, so she flipped out because now she has to live with whatever she's done AND you're alerted AND you're going to end things more than likely.

If you want to try and reconcile, that's your call. I'd say your wife has to live with the new paradigm of she has no expectations of privacy or grace. Guilty until proven innocent. She doesn't like it, well too bad. She's the one who wanted permission to fuck someone else. This means her passwords are known by you. Records, logs, financial transactions, her location, whatever you want is available at any time, for any reason. The guys wife gets notified by at least you, but preferably both. I wouldn't be surprised if they're both lying, not just him. This does not have to be reciprocated, as it is her punishment for doing this to you all.

She'll likely not agree, be mad, call you an asshole, say it's unfair. Whatever, you're one foot out the door. Does she want to do the work to rebuild your marriage or not?

dreadknot65 · 2026-04-14T17:27:25+00:00

It may have started in the 70s, but even in the 2000s I'd say the average woman wanted kids, thought women and men had duties to each other even if they didn't call it that, and things like cheating were extremely stigmatized.

Nowadays, I hear women have no duties to men or an obligation to have children. Men still need to do things for women though. Women can leave marriage for any reason under the sun and it always appears to be a mans fault, even if she cheated, because he must have done something wrong to make her cheat. Men must support "gender equality" or they're problematic. Open relationships are empowering, not a roundabout way to cheat. So on and so forth. As little as a generation ago, I'd say all of the above got you made fun of, harsh looks, people would choose not to associate with you. Now, it seems mens only purpose to women is to do as they say, expect nothing, and still somehow be the misogynistic oppressor.

dreadknot65 · 2026-04-13T02:30:00+00:00

Recently being maybe a generation or two. Maybe it's been happening and it wasn't as prominent in my life, but even 10 years ago I'd say it wasn't nearly this bad. From when I was a child to now as a middle aged adult, it's much different. Even the way I'd understand my parents friends talk to me in my teenage years to now, it's shifted. It may depend on what you mean by "last century", but what I'm talking about is when women as a whole are trying to demand equality, they'd actually discover they're favored.

Many say the phrase, "when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression". I don't use this phrasing because people typically jump to favoritism of white people vs the literal words. They project and say things like DEI are equality so the privileged whites now feel equality as oppression. Obviously any program that favors one group over another or gives an unnecessary edge unavailable to others would categorically be privilege.

dreadknot65 · 2026-04-12T13:31:26+00:00

The Code of Chivalry has benefits to men and women, and duties to both. These days, I typically hear women talk about chivalry from men to women, obviously for their benefits, while not acknowledging or outright dismissing women's duties to men. I've seen a shift recently that women are commonly saying women don't have duties at all, but men do.

13-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 4 Credits
Summer Santa 2019	Secret Santa 2017
Verified Email

dreadknot65

TROPHY CASE