Leaderboard

Nonsense. "We" don't know shit. I have virtually no progressive friends who are aware of even the simplest facts surrounding their platform, and hypergamy is blasphemy. Meanwhile the right denies income inequality as a threat because the left mischaracterizes it as "income" inequality when really we may be facing a completely unintentional eugenics program. Both sides have their heads firmly in the sand. Do not mistake your own awareness as common. That aside. I'm not sure what the answer is. The system is *great* for me. My partner is a doctor, and I'm a pilot. We will make a fortune and our children will have amazing opportunity, as long as they don't lose the genetic lottery. To me it's just one more example of a narrowly-focused goal that overwhelmingly disregards human nature. Which one needs to be fixed first? Urbanization? Multiculturalism? Equality of outcome for the genders? Affirmative action? I think we would be just as stupid to assume we can do something to fix all of the problems these programs have caused with another narrowly focused policy. We probably need a broader return to the concept of human nature. This is not a new concept considering the founders crafted our entire system around it. I don't think most people actually want what the modern world is providing in many cases. Suicide rates in the developed world support the idea. Maybe we stop telling people what they *should* want from a young age. Viciously protect and provide opportunities for all kids. Remove any and all government policies or programs that discourage two-parent homes. Stop incentivizing behavior unless the behavior limits someone else's rights and freedom. Overall, stop thinking that you can reengineer the human race quicker than over the course of several generations. Beyond that, 🤷‍♂️. Hopefully a broader conversation on the above rather than sloganeering and sign waving will result in some specific answers.

$100 visa gift cards to each board member probably wouldn't hurt. Kidding aside, I personally never liked the idea of bringing gifts to strangers with an ulterior motive of trying to get hired. Being a military guy myself, I know that my peers and myself would see it as a "kissing ass" gesture. Sell yourself and your work/flying history. You can bring the booze when you're the snacko.

I'm not sure. I like that it makes a distinction between Democratic and democratic, but if there's a broader movement behind it I've been unwittingly conscripted. Your definition of multiculturalism is what I would call ethnic diversity. Very different things. And using anecdote to make a point isn't particularly useful. Of course *you* like raising a family in an urban center. You have the resources to choose, and to live in a manner that is better than how the lower class lives. If you didn't like it you would leave, like so many do. But statistically you are in the minority, and that matters for policy decisions. But I agree, there's not much of a point. You have the tendency to mischaracterize opposing views by their most cartoonish representation then act enlightened that you don't agree with what no one said. Like I said, strawman.

2. Are you saying that sociology as a whole is not to be trusted or only the pop-sociology that we can digest in 30 second sound bites? 1. You’ve told us that women really want to be in historically women’s professions; I’d love to see the science (sociology) and whether there was any attempt at separating correlation from causation. It’s way more difficult than just asking. A) Ask 10 aircrew what their first choice of airframes was when they were two weeks from track select. 6-9 will lie and cite their current airframe; 1-2 got their then-first choice. All others were FAIPS. B) Even if you figure out how to get the truth, getting the why behind the truth remains a problem—know any males who quit dancing, singing, playing the piano, or doing art when it became costly socially? That’s acting on a preference and is a measured choice, but is also counter to that individual’s natural predilection. Not saying it’s impossible or even unlikely, just that the study of such a thing would be difficult. Got a source? “Google it yourself” is fine if you don’t want to point to something specifically. 3. I’ve got a bit of an issue with this one. You use the word progress, as if it’s a march towards a better state. That acknowledges a gradient, two sides. One less desirable, one more desirable. When you say “inflame the issue” when we move too fast, I have a hard time finding an explanation for the “inflammation” that isn’t simply the feelings of those accustomed to the old (less progress) and uncomfortable with the new (progress). I am certain that you don’t mean that we should avoid empowering historically oppressed groups because it might upset people. What exactly do you mean? I think moving towards a less racist world/country/system is worth a bit of discomfort. 4. Honest question: what do you mean when you say ‘human nature’? Plato, Moses, Dennett, and Kant would all reach different conclusions. It’s literally one of the central questions of philosophy. Regardless, agree that the government should stay out. 5. It’s a shame that the most outrageous ideas seem to get the most attention. Wouldn’t it be great if critical thinking skills were sexy?

Are you saying all of these are problems? As defined by...whom exactly? As great as our Constitution is and many of our founders were, many also found it to be within the concept of human nature that the black race was rightly subjugated to the needs of the white race. Just saying that calling something "human nature" does not make it right and who gets to decide what is "human nature" and what is an aberration makes all the difference. I'll ask you: is same-sex attraction "human nature?" Is interracial marriage? The idea that the government, or businesses, or other humans are getting out of the "incentivizing other's behavior" game anytime soon is foolish and irrelevant; it's not going to happen.

Half of NATO isn't even sure there is Chinese influence. They are happy to buy on to their Huawei 5G plans and belt and road initiatives. NATO isn't going to win us China. If we could convince Korea and Japan to get passed grievances and sign a tri-latteral, we would be like that meme of a dude walking with NATO but turning back and looking at the hot chick that is Japan/Korea (#5 and #6 on the Global Firepower Index). Regardless, both countries are still committed to working with us, just not with each other. What Germany, and most of NATO needs to realize about the US and NATO, is at the end of the day, states are going to serve their interest. The US interest in NATO has been declining since the fall of the Berlin wall. Without a clear purpose, the alliance doesn't really do anything for us. GWB tried to define this GWOT thing but it fell flat with some countries. Because we keep adding partners, the ability to provide clarity of purpose for the alliance gets convoluted. What may have been easy common ground to find among 16 nations in 1999 is really difficult among 30 members today. The people in the Alliance we are closest with, mainly France and the Five Eyes nations, we have other partnerships with that transcend NATO. I think 10K troops in the Pacific will do a lot more for us against China than 10K troops in Germany.

Bwaaaahahahah!!! Unified NATO...countering Chinese influence...oh man, that's rich...that's good...tell another joke.

Hope they go through with it. Sorry regular folks in Minneapolis, but I want to get my popcorn and watch your city self-destruct. We can then all learn from this idiocy.

You're describing the water bro. We know the dynamics of female labor participation post 1970. We've also known about Hypergamy in Western women behavior post- labor market flooding for ages. The subtext is whether you want to pursue the reversal of the trend by coercive forces. That's what gets people defensive, high-achievement women of course included. Stop feigning neutrality, say what you really think. Are you on the "Johnny get my belt! and whip her back to the kitchen" crowd or not? 😄

I think a viable third party candidate would go a long way toward fixing our broken political discourse. The idiotic binary we have going on right now does nothing but entrench people to the point that they can't even talk about ideas they don't like. Maybe a third party could pull us out of this good vs evil dynamic. It's gotten so bad that I feel like the parties have abandoned ideas entirely are just nominating more and more absurd people to spite the opposition.

Mike Bloomberg, known for data-driven analysis, as well as Howard Schultz, Justin Amash, Bill Weld, Joe Walsh, etc. would all disagree. There is little appetite for a third-party or independent run this cycle due to President Trump's highly polarizing nature. If you support Trump, you're going to vote for Trump. If you oppose Trump, you're going to vote for the person most likely to beat him (Biden). There aren't very many people undecided on Trump. Honestly the same can be said for almost every modern US Presidential Election but the effect is especially strong in 2020. I'm also consistently surprised by the level of support for Tulsi Gabbard on these boards. She's a random soon-to-be former Democratic Representative back-bencher with an odd assortment of policy views and a very troubling level of accommodation and support for Assad in Syria. She never polled much above 1% in the Democratic primary, she's not very conservative, has little governing experience...honestly other than being hot I see absolutely nothing that is appealing about her at all. I do appreciate that she's a servicemember I guess, more veterans & reservists/Guardsmen should serve in elected office.

President announced a 30% cut to US troops stationed in Germany. Geopolitically, I agree. If Germany literally refuses to live up to it's agreement for all of 2% GDP towards defense, why should we spend so much of our national treasure doing so for them? Personally, bummer. One of the few good deals about being in the military.

No for commissioned officers. A portion may be tax free (up to the monthly CTZE cap allowed for commissioned officers). But if your on the combat zone, your TSP cap goes up to $55K, so that's an option to squirrel away some of the bonus money as well.

I didn't know you were a cyber guy.

Nothing to do with toughen up. America needs to do away with systemic racism. Period. Dot. Things about MLK not rioting are missing the point. Rioters are stupid, but the majority of people are peacefully protesting. White people love to dismiss the actions of racist bigots as not representative of the majority, but are quick to accuse an entire race of being guilty of something when it fits their narrative. I’m a white guy. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

From my understanding, C-130H units are generally hurting for Navs in the ANG/AFRC. You shouldn’t have a tough time landing a slot with a unit, if you choose to go that route.