Trump's Cabinet

[brabus]

3 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Have you watched the actual video Hegseth posted?  Go to 3:26, the executive pastor in that video calls for the 19th amendment to be repealed.

I did, twice. The one guy (not the main pastor) said he would support the repeal. The other guy (not the main pastor) gave an interesting take on one vote per household, which is in line with our representative form of gov. Interesting thought, not saying I support it, would have to think on that more. The interviewer was also very hostile towards them and tried to put words in their mouth constantly (shocking), and those “words” are being portrayed in media as the dudes’ words without any context/what their responses to correct those words were.

On a quick voting tangent, I do think we need to put some better guardrails up. I’m not talking 19A repeal or only “white male landowners,” but things like you have to pay taxes and pay  mortgage or rent could be good requirements (in addition to passing a basic civics test).

Personally I think everything you quoted from Hegseth regarding dads vs moms and women in combat roles has merit. He’s not wrong about men and women being equally important humans, but with different strengths and roles. The real question is if he truly doesn’t support women even being in finance, ARMS, AFE, etc. That does not make sense, but he has not directly stated that - someone should ask him at a press conference.  

 

[ClearedHot]

21 minutes ago, brabus said:

I did, twice. The one guy (not the main pastor) said he would support the repeal. The other guy (not the main pastor) gave an interesting take on one vote per household, which is in line with our representative form of gov. Interesting thought, not saying I support it, would have to think on that more. The interviewer was also very hostile towards them and tried to put words in their mouth constantly (shocking), and those “words” are being portrayed in media as the dudes’ words without any context/what their responses to correct those words were.

On a quick voting tangent, I do think we need to put some better guardrails up. I’m not talking 19A repeal or only “white male landowners,” but things like you have to pay taxes and pay  mortgage or rent could be good requirements (in addition to passing a basic civics test).

Personally I think everything you quoted from Hegseth regarding dads vs moms and women in combat roles has merit. He’s not wrong about men and women being equally important humans, but with different strengths and roles. The real question is if he truly doesn’t support women even being in finance, ARMS, AFE, etc. That does not make sense, but he has not directly stated that - someone should ask him at a press conference.  

 

The great thing about our country, we all get to disagree and still be friends.  Also, we all get a voice....well unless as you believe you are poor and don't pay taxes.

As far as women versus men in combat roles...two of the three best IPs I ever flew with were women and could fly circles around a lot of men.  I prefer to have a standard rather than a gender test.

[Boomer6]

What about allowing devout Muslims or Mormons in command positions? Both of those religions view women (and non-whites for Mormons) in a way that is contrary to modern western thinking. I don't think the DoD is barring followers of those faiths from leadership positions.

[Day Man]

17 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

could fly circles around a lot of men. 

[disgruntledemployee]

13 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Gender differences ≠ Racial differences. So let's just skip that diversion. 

 

We already discriminate based on gender in the military. And we should. The extent to which we do so is a valid debate. Also, reposting something does not equal endorsing every word of an interview. As I said, I wish our leaders wouldn't post/repost/share anything, but they do. 

 

If Hegseth says he believes women should not serve, then you have a point. Hell, if he refuses to answer, even then you have a point. Right now you do not.

It's time to change this bullshit idea that reposting something gets you out of not actually saying it.  You post it, own it. 

And the rest of your post is chaff/flare.

[ClearedHot]

1 hour ago, Boomer6 said:

What about allowing devout Muslims or Mormons in command positions? Both of those religions view women (and non-whites for Mormons) in a way that is contrary to modern western thinking. I don't think the DoD is barring followers of those faiths from leadership positions.

I believe it is a bit more nuanced.  

Summarize it this way, believe what you want but obey the law.  If in a position of authority or command and you openly express that tripe advocating to discriminate...you should be removed.  Our system is not perfect and obviously hard to say what is in their heart.

We had a pilot in the gunship community who was a devout Mormon.  He made a big deal about flying with women a few times in training and they body checked him.  He refused to fly with a female co-pilot in combat so he got sent home and was removed from the community with an LOR.  Big Blue USAF of course kept him and sent him to be a UPT IP (I am sure the women that flew with him loved that).

[Lord Ratner]

19 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

It's time to change this bullshit idea that reposting something gets you out of not actually saying it.  You post it, own it. 

And the rest of your post is chaff/flare.

Yeah but here's the thing, no one gives a shit what you think it's time for. Or what I think it's time for. 

 

The simple reality is that people do not use social media that way. And the busier the person is, the more likely they are to repost something that they only watched or read 5% of.

 

I don't have to like it, I just have to be intelligent enough to realize it. Or conversely, you can spend all day thinking that you're superior to everyone in power simply because no one deemed you worthy of the amount of attention or responsibility our leaders have. You of all people should be grateful that our internet lives are not the exclusive basis by which we are judged. I sure am.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 04:41 PM by Lord Ratner

[Boomer6]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

I believe it is a bit more nuanced.  

Summarize it this way, believe what you want but obey the law. 

This is why I don't think it's more nuanced. Has he broken the law in relation to women in the military, no? Does he hold an opinion contrary to common Western values, yes.

Your Mormon example is apples to oranges. I'm talking about a leader that holds beliefs contrary to common western values. In your example an individual wouldn't do the job, easy kill. I'm talking about a commander with a specific set of values that doesn't align with common Western beliefs.

 

[brabus]

4 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

well unless as you believe you are poor and don't pay taxes.

Point of order - financial status has nothing to do with my proposition, having a job does. If you don’t work/pay taxes, I’m fine with you not having a say. Get a job at McDs if you want to vote, not too much to ask. Also to get ahead of the follow up question, it’s reasonable that your spouse can vote if you work (gender neutral statement). If you’re 20 and living in your parents basement without a job, you don’t get to vote.

[brabus]

5 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

As far as women versus men in combat roles...two of the three best IPs I ever flew with were women and could fly circles around a lot of men.  I prefer to have a standard rather than a gender test.

I agree. Just saying it is not invalid to say the vast majority of women are not going to handle combat in the way men can. That’s not sexist, it’s a biological-driven fact. I’ve also flown with good female pilots and have a positive view of them.

[Day Man]

so only people that are employed get to vote? retired people? full-time students? disabled? what if you are laid off a month before elections? 

[disgruntledemployee]

3 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Yeah but here's the thing, no one gives a shit what you think it's time for. Or what I think it's time for. 

 

The simple reality is that people do not use social media that way. And the busier the person is, the more likely they are to repost something that they only watched or read 5% of.

 

I don't have to like it, I just have to be intelligent enough to realize it. Or conversely, you can spend all day thinking that you're superior to everyone in power simply because no one deemed you worthy of the amount of attention or responsibility our leaders have. You of all people should be grateful that our internet lives are not the exclusive basis by which we are judged. I sure am.

You know, you could have just agreed.  It ain't that hard.

As for my internet life, judge away.

Edited 22 hours ago by disgruntledemployee
for

[Lord Ratner]

5 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

As far as women versus men in combat roles...two of the three best IPs I ever flew with were women and could fly circles around a lot of men.  I prefer to have a standard rather than a gender test.

[ClearedHot]

50 minutes ago, brabus said:

Point of order - financial status has nothing to do with my proposition, having a job does. If you don’t work/pay taxes, I’m fine with you not having a say. Get a job at McDs if you want to vote, not too much to ask. Also to get ahead of the follow up question, it’s reasonable that your spouse can vote if you work (gender neutral statement). If you’re 20 and living in your parents basement without a job, you don’t get to vote.

God forbid you ever fall on hard times and lose a job...seriously we need to move this answer to the WTF thread.

[Lord Ratner]

32 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

God forbid you ever fall on hard times and lose a job...seriously we need to move this answer to the WTF thread.

Lol, what, do they give you dinner where you vote?

The pearl clutching in this thread is getting out of control. 

[disgruntledemployee]

You call it pearl clutching, we call it standards of leadership.  Know the difference or be rendered an eternal asshat.

[jonlbs]

Think of how much better everything is without chicks. What good group chat has a chick in it?! Just boys being boys…

 

and if we get rid of women’s right to vote. It would decimate the dems.

 

I rest my case.

[brabus]

6 hours ago, Day Man said:

so only people that are employed get to vote? retired people? full-time students? disabled? what if you are laid off a month before elections? 

Obviously you and @ClearedHot have let your imaginations run away to the extreme with my musings. That subject is a full blown, separate discussion, and I was trying to minimize the thread derail. Obviously there’d have to be carve outs for those groups (and more). The main point is if you’re a lazy ass bag who has no reason to not work, but chooses to produce zero for society while freeloading off taxpayers/your parents, you shouldn’t have a say. You need to have some skin in the game before you get a say (excluding carve out groups). More nuanced than that, but that’s the gist. 

Edited 16 hours ago by brabus

[ClearedHot]

7 hours ago, brabus said:

Obviously you and @ClearedHot have let your imaginations run away to the extreme with my musings. That subject is a full blown, separate discussion, and I was trying to minimize the thread derail. Obviously there’d have to be carve outs for those groups (and more). The main point is if you’re a lazy ass bag who has no reason to not work, but chooses to produce zero for society while freeloading off taxpayers/your parents, you shouldn’t have a say. You need to have some skin in the game before you get a say (excluding carve out groups). More nuanced than that, but that’s the gist. 

What other carve outs are there?  Is it a sliding scale of citizenship, I think I missed that part in the Constitution? 

So if you have a job you get your 15th amendment.  You need to make $25K to get your 1st and 2nd...you don't get the 4th until you make $100K?

[JBueno]

22 hours ago, Day Man said:

Is there a deeper meaning in the fact that he has an extra half finger? 

Edited 5 hours ago by JBueno

[brabus]

@ClearedHot You’re WAY off the path and massively misrepresenting anything I’d personally consider. Moving on…

[O Face]

[Day Man]

1 hour ago, JBueno said:

Is there a deeper meaning in the fact that he has an extra half finger? 

think about @ClearedHot's MWS...

[ViperMan]

Instead of limiting who can vote, a better solution would be a government that couldn't tax our productivity in an uneven manner, thereby redistributing my precious and limited time on this Earth to other people. In lieu of that, however, the next best solution is to limit voting to those who materially participate - and to strip it from those who are merely along for the ride. What that looks like specifically can be debated, but the philosophical point some have made on this board is pretty clear.

I admit it's a re-imagining of our idea of "democracy," but then again, so is the fact that 40+% (nearly 50%) of my time is stolen from me in some form or another and "redistributed" to other people. That's not the system any of us signed up for either. Rather, it's the end result of a perpetual creep from our originally envisioned government instituted to help us secure our life, liberty, and happiness. For a long time, voting was the best means to guarantee everyone's collective, long-term goals. Now it's become a means by which certain groups use the government to disenfranchise other groups. Voting ain't it anymore. Voting is a nice-to-have. Voting is a mechanism, it's not fundamental to a good life. A good life is me being able to keep what I produce. As soon as voting has become the way whereby I'm made a slave to other members of society, it has ceased being a necessary part of our society. We're all familiar with the meme about two wolfs and a sheep voting on who's for dinner...that's where we are and where we've been for some time.

You have millionaire SS recipients who take 12.4% of my wages and spend it on whatever, instead of selling their million-dollar homes. Instead, they're going to deed their estates to their heirs, and use my wages to bridge the gap to their end-of-life. 12.4% of my time enables old people to make choices they otherwise couldn't (or wouldn't) make. In a two-week period of Mondays through Fridays, that's (more than) one whole day of my time. My commute. My gas money. My wear and tear on my vehicle. My time I could spend doing whatever else I want to do. Instead, my time is spent going to work for the retired. 30% of my income to income taxes? Well, you can do the math on how many days that takes up.

You have EBT recipients who use their benefits to purchase luxury goods. You have school lunch recipients who throw away literally 100% of the food they receive into the trash. Every. Single. Day. Again, that's my time being thrown into the (literal) garbage can.

The examples go on and on and on.

I don't lament people's shock and disbelief that people could advocate for something as seemingly undemocratic as taking away people's right to vote. I understand those beliefs rest upon a hopeful, childish, but ultimately naive view of how our government and society function. i.e. a view grounded in a high-school-civics-level conception of our society. It only seems gross when it's juxtaposed against the cartoonish view of what we're programmed to think. When it's held up to a holistic view that encompasses how money, time, and productivity are actually redistributed throughout our society, it's the obvious answer.