Support NeoGAF

[Odothehero]

I totally agree with you.

Also, I don't think friends should be able to serve together, or any sort of bonding should be allowed in the military. They shouldn't be on the front line because:

Seeing a friend get killed/injured fucks up men psychologically more, and they often experience an uncontrollable protective aggression, which can reduce their military effectiveness. So even if they bring all the assets of being a great soldier, they is still bringing in an additional weakness that they can't do anything about.

I mean, even if you assume they are equals physically, friends bring additional weaknesses to the unit and so should only be used as a last resort.

Haha, nice. Yes, it's true that death of a friend is more traumatic than death of a stranger. The military has made the decision that team bonding helps soldiers in combat more than it hurts them psychologically, however.

I was saying that, all things being equal, seeing a female friend get shot would be more damaging than seeing a male friend shot, and would trigger the innate protective impulses in all men MORE than if they were also males.

I submit that this is based on an unproven assumption that men are affected more by women. I'll keep looking for the study, but it makes sense to me in an evolutionary adaptive sense. I'd be open to seeing research that says the effect is the same irregardless of sex, though.

This basically proves my point. We're not cavemen anymore and shouldn’t be acting like it. If there's some basic evolutionary urge for men to act like shitheads when a woman is around, I would hope our mental capacity has developed enough to be able to control them. I get the urge to punch a coworker daily and don’t. I get the urge to hit on almost every attractive woman I see but I have class and a wife so I don't. Men who are too weak minded to control themselves and work hand in hand with a woman simply because she's a woman should probably be reevaluated for the current positions.

I agree that if you can't work hand in hand with a woman simply because she's a woman you should be reassessed. My contention is that the protectiveness men feel when they see an injured woman is innate and subconscious and can't be helped. And thus, why expose our soldiers to an additional unnecessary risk unless as a last resort

 

[Rocket Scientist]

I haven't read much of the conversation here regarding the whole women in the army thing, but one of the things I remember reading about last year was that the ban made it impossible for women to achieve high ranks and the pay associated with a high ranking. That was something that reinforced the unfair aspect of it to me . you can dedicate your whole life to something, but you still have this bug roadblock that you can't pass ever.

 

[codhand]

Republicans retaking Senate in 2014? Yeaah...

 

[Odothehero]

Explains domestic violence and rape.

Rape is definitely explained with Darwinism. One way to get your genes passed down.

I haven't read much of the conversation here regarding the whole women in the army thing, but one of the things I remember reading about last year was that the ban made it impossible for women to achieve high ranks and the pay associated with a high ranking. That was something that reinforced the unfair aspect of it to me . you can dedicate your whole life to something, but you still have this bug roadblock that you can't pass ever.

I didn't know that, and that does sound unfair. But it doesn't make having women on the front lines a better idea. Maybe they can just change some of the requirements around to make it fairer?

 

[Chichikov]

Fixed because now I can appreciate GWB's legacy as it truly is.

The so called stranglehold of the GOP on national security lasted for about 20 years.
For most of the 20th century the Democrats were the party of national security and military intervention.
Things are now coming back to normal, and it makes sense.

 

[RDreamer]

I didn't know that, and that does sound unfair. But it doesn't make having women on the front lines a better idea. Maybe they can just change some of the requirements around to make it fairer?

How would that work? In order to be in command of troops, you should have been a troop at some point. That makes sense, and I'm pretty sure that's a lot of the roadblock. Allowing women to be in command of troops wouldn't really solve that, it would just create a new problem of commanders that haven't experienced what they're commanding.

No, we should just allow the women who have the ability to fight in combat. I don't get why we have to bring out generalizations here. Are men on average maybe stronger? Sure, but that doesn't mean we should bar all women. Men are on average probably better at a good amount of the Olympic games I watch, too. Does that mean I should be picked for a swim team or something over one of the olympic women? Why not? On average I should be better! ...but I'm not. This shit doesn't work on averages. It should work on an individual level. If you have what it takes on the individual level, then your genitals shouldn't bar you from entry. That's shitty, and that's sexist.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Kerry's confirmation speech should have just been his DNC speech

 

[Fenderputty]

I agree that if you can't work hand in hand with a woman simply because she's a woman you should be reassessed. My contention is that the protectiveness men feel when they see an injured woman is innate and subconscious and can't be helped. And thus, why expose our soldiers to an additional unnecessary risk unless as a last resort

Again ... we're a society that's trying to stand up against our primal urges and move past the caveman era. What you're describing isn't enough of a reason to prevent a woman from having the freedom of choice to fight if they want to fight.

 

[KingK]

The electoral college/NPV qurstion raises the very basic issues with democracy. A minority voice is always going to have less influence, even a sizable one, than they might require or deserve on an issue. The electoral college was an attempt to level the imfluence of states, and designed at a time when state identity was more important then it is today. But it still does ensure that low-population states have some greater influence than they might have otherwise.

Today, there's probably more divide between urban/rural than there is among any given states. Reliably Blue states still have a large red population in the rural areas, and relaibly Red states have large a blue population in the cities. Further, many issues divide along rural/urban lines, and policy that makes sense in an urban center doesn't always work in a rural area, and vice versa.

Going to a NPV shifts weight to the urban centers. It's a change from the status quo just as much as the GOP EV-per-district is.

Jesus Christ, no, it really isn't.

A change equivalent to the GOP EV per district thing would be if Democrats were proposing a plan that would give urban voters a larger weight than rural voters. The NPV simply gives everyone's vote the exact same weight in a Presidential election.

The current system is not a level playing field. It systematically gives any given rural voter more representation than any given urban voter. My vote right now is mathematically worth more than the vote of someone in LA.

The GOP's plan is to give rural voters even more weight over urban voters than they already have, while the NPV is simply an attempt to assign equal weight to the vote of a person who lives in LA as one who lives in Bumfuck, Wyoming.

Apologies if this came off as a hostile post. I actually agree with everything you said except that last part.

 

[RDreamer]

Dems starting a big push to flip Texas

 

[Hitokage]

Rape is definitely explained with Darwinism. One way to get your genes passed down.

A moment ago you argued that it promoted protective behavior not exploitative behavior.

 

[PhoenixDark]

So I was right about Reid and the filibuster, who could have guessed

anyway on guns...Manchin supports universal background checks now
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/joe-manchin-supports-expanded-background-checks?ref=fpb

I initially felt he was talking big with no plans on actually supporting any legislation (considering how quickly he dismissed Obama's tame plan) but perhaps he's seeing how safe the background check aspect is. Hopefully the senate bill doesn't include an assault weapons ban

 

[TCKaos]

A moment ago you argued that it promoted protective behavior not exploitative behavior.

In the event that one can't get their genes passed down through natural/traditional means, rape becomes a viable option from a purely evolutional standpoint.

Luckily, most are above that. Most.

 

[gcubed]

So I was right about Reid and the filibuster, who could have guessed

anyway on guns...Manchin supports universal background checks now
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/joe-manchin-supports-expanded-background-checks?ref=fpb

I initially felt he was talking big with no plans on actually supporting any legislation (considering how quickly he dismissed Obama's tame plan) but perhaps he's seeing how safe the background check aspect is. Hopefully the senate bill doesn't include an assault weapons ban

no bill is going to pass the senate if it has the ban in it

 

[KingK]

Dems starting a big push to flip Texas

Damn, if Texas really does turn purple and is able to swing blue, it's over for the GOP. I would be very surprised to see it go purple by 2016, but I don't think it's unreasonable to anticipate it becoming a swing state by 2020.

 

[FLEABttn]

Dems starting a big push to flip Texas

Unsurprised to see, it was a matter of time. Ethnic demographics aside, you can only steal so many jobs from California before you dilute your conservative base. Yeah, people are moving to Texas for jobs, but they're not leaving their coastal values at the state lines when they do that.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Dems starting a big push to flip Texas

Good to see. I had hoped they would do this a bit sooner, but the demographics have only continued to shift in this direction. If they really make a push it could have a sizable impact in the next cycle.

 

[The Librarian]

So I was right about Reid and the filibuster, who could have guessed

You're batting 1/1000!

 

[RDreamer]

Damn, if Texas really does turn purple and is able to swing blue, it's over for the GOP. I would be very surprised to see it go purple by 2016, but I don't think it's unreasonable to anticipate it becoming a swing state by 2020.

Eh, by 2020 anything and everything's up in the air, really. I don't think we can make a prediction like that, especially with one party that will need to reinvent itself by then. If they stay exactly the same, sure it could be a swing state, but I just don't see the party staying that stubborn for that long. That'd be crazy.

That said, it's a good possibility. Even if the Republican party has to evolve, the dems can get a good foothold and credibility since they'd be there on those issues before the Republicans had to evolve to them. And they seem to have a good political bench in Texas already, since it has some good sized liberal cities.

 

[Dan]

Dems starting a big push to flip Texas

Very good. Democrats need to stay on the offensive.

 

[T'Zariah]

Eh, by 2020 anything and everything's up in the air, really. I don't think we can make a prediction like that, especially with one party that will need to reinvent itself by then. If they stay exactly the same, sure it could be a swing state, but I just don't see the party staying that stubborn for that long. That'd be crazy.

That said, it's a good possibility. Even if the Republican party has to evolve, the dems can get a good foothold and credibility since they'd be there on those issues before the Republicans had to evolve to them. And they seem to have a good political bench in Texas already, since it has some good sized liberal cities.

After the actions of the GOP for the past four years, do you REALLY feel comfortable saying that?
Just when you think they hit rock bottom, they find a new shovel to bury themselves in.

 

[FyreWulff]

The Dems could easily flip and hold Nebraska with it's ever growing minority population (especially Hispanic). The issue is every time we almost get them to elect out the Republican stalwarts, they run back to Iowa if it even sniffs danger. And since Omaha's TV stations broadcast into the western half of Iowa, they just put all the money on Iowa-targeted ads and leave Neb Democrats out in the cold.

I'll believe they're actually going to mount an offense in Texas when I see it. They're probably going to pull back to Iowa and other states though when the time comes. There's a reason I registered as non partisan instead of Dem when I left the GOP.

 

[RustyNails]

Dems starting a big push to flip Texas

Dream of Dr. Howard Dean lives on.

 

[RDreamer]

After the actions of the GOP for the past four years, do you REALLY feel comfortable saying that?
Just when you think they hit rock bottom, they find a new shovel to bury themselves in.

I kind of do. At the rate approval for gay marriage is going there's no way they can stay that hardlined into 2020. They'll have to drop it.

Anyway, my larger point is that 2020 is too long down the road to realistically predict.

 

[tranciful]

Reid sure does like to talk like he has balls. Hard to take him seriously.

 

[Suite Pee]

Nominating a defense lawyer for the banking industry? Obviously, she knows her stuff, but I fear she won't be tough on the banks.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Nominating a defense lawyer for the banking industry? Obviously, she knows her stuff, but I fear she won't be tough on the banks.

That's how the legal profession works at those levels.

Work at government, make relative peanuts ----> party out of power ----> make substantial dough as a partner at a white shoe firm ----> party back in power/you are back in power ----> head back to government and burnish those bonafides.

They do what the job demands of them, and drink away any qualms they have about what they are doing at night.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Democrats should vote against filibuster 'reform'. Shit is ridiculous. Fuck Reid. Fuck Obama. No more complaining about obstruction. You chose this you fucking choke on it.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Jesus Christ, no, it really isn't.

A change equivalent to the GOP EV per district thing would be if Democrats were proposing a plan that would give urban voters a larger weight than rural voters. The NPV simply gives everyone's vote the exact same weight in a Presidential election.

The current system is not a level playing field. It systematically gives any given rural voter more representation than any given urban voter. My vote right now is mathematically worth more than the vote of someone in LA.

The GOP's plan is to give rural voters even more weight over urban voters than they already have, while the NPV is simply an attempt to assign equal weight to the vote of a person who lives in LA as one who lives in Bumfuck, Wyoming.

Apologies if this came off as a hostile post. I actually agree with everything you said except that last part.

I didn't comment on its fairness, I commented on it being a shift. NPV would make all votes equal, which is a change in status quo and does make low-population states' citizens worth less than they are today. The GOP's move is a shift in the other direction.

 

[Amir0x]

Filibuster shit is just ridiculous. Harry Reid needs to fucking go at this point

 

[Oblivion]

Did you guys see Stewart take Paul Ryan to the woodshed the other day?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/...hat-takers-vs-makers-sht/#.UQE-3yGGoRE.reddit

Loved the part at the end specifically where Stewart showed how Ryan leeching off of social security growing up didn't prevent him from being a fucking asshole in the future.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Your guys anger at the lack of filibuster reform is silly.

There was really nothing that was gonna get passed this term that needs it. It would be a feel good measure but nothing more. This at least sets the precedent. Its changing.

 

[Amir0x]

If that works out, it'd definitely at least offset the proportional allocation idea in PA, Ohio, etc if those passed

 

[Sirpopopop]

As the great Glenn Beck would say...

Guys let's not lose focus on what really matters - VIRGINIA.

VIRGINIA! VIRGINIA! VIRGINIA! It will be our Benghazi.

 

[ido]

Why wouldn't he stop the filibuster? This is an honest question, what is keeping this from happening? Surely there is a reason other than "he is a pussy" ... Would this even make anyone look bad? I genuinely do not understand why it wouldn't be dealt with.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Dream of Dr. Howard Dean lives on.

One of the worst aspects of the modern DNC has been the reversal of Dean's 50 state strategy. It's expensive but necessary to win as many elections as possible, wherever. I think he would have been a great chairman to have under Obama, who certainly understands the organizing aspects of grassroots politics.

 

[Black Mamba]

Proportional is better than WTA.

Basically with a system where the loser of the PV has any possibility of winning the election is fatally flawed and needs to be reformed. Actually, that might still be possible under proportional (I haven't run any numbers. Math is hard.), but the probability would be drastically less.

I somewhat disagree.

That's why I suggest proportional EC based on the states as the guy described.

Reason being, what would have happened in a NPV and Sandy storm hits literally on election day? Well, the affected areas would be fucked and their vote tallies would be severely depressed. However, by allocation the EC by proportion, you're maintaining their fair representation in the vote whereas the NPV wouldn't.

Of course that can be fixed by allowing for an entire week of voting, but it's not happening. This is a more realistic fix.

 

[empty vessel]

I didn't comment on its fairness, I commented on it being a shift. NPV would make all votes equal, which is a change in status quo and does make low-population states' citizens worth less than they are today. The GOP's move is a shift in the other direction.

I'm not sure I understand this point. The electoral college is already weighted to distribute votes by population. Every ten years, the distribution of electoral votes among the states is changed to match changes in population. Low population states have few electoral votes precisely because they have few citizens. It gets distorted somewhat only because Senators are counted in the electoral college distribution, which they should not be. This means the smallest population states will always have at least 3 electoral college votes (one representative and two Senators) and this can give them a relative advantage. But the principle of the current electoral college system is indeed that all votes are equal. It just misses the mark a slight bit.

 

[Shadow Hog]

VIRGINIA! VIRGINIA! VIRGINIA! It will be our Benghazi.

So due to budget cuts mandated by the Democrats, 4 Americans will die in the state of Virginia, prompting endless hearings berating the Republicans in a desperate attempt to find a flaw with their administration.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

So due to budget cuts mandated by the Democrats, 4 Americans will die in the state of Virginia, prompting endless hearings berating the Republicans in a desperate attempt to find a flaw with their administration.

What

 

[Allard]

Why wouldn't he stop the filibuster? This is an honest question, what is keeping this from happening? Surely there is a reason other than "he is a pussy" ... Would this even make anyone look bad? I genuinely do not understand why it wouldn't be dealt with.

My guess is he didn't have enough votes in his own caucus to pass a nuclear option for 51 vote majority and he has been bluffing this whole time to get McConnell on board for a compromise plan. There are a lot of senate dems and almost all Republicans that sneak 'pork' into bills and use filibuster as a threat to make them satisfied enough with the vote so they can claim they brought something to the state even if in the end they don't vote for the final bill. (like they did with the stimulus/healthcare...). Filibuster is the antithesis of compromise between parties because it puts so much more power to the minorities, even minorities within the majority.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

My guess is he didn't have enough votes in his own caucus to pass a nuclear option for 51 vote majority and he has been bluffing this whole time to get McConnell on board for a compromise plan. There are a lot of senate dems and almost all Republicans that sneak 'pork' into bills and use filibuster as a threat to make them satisfied enough with the vote so they can claim they brought something to the state even if in the end they don't vote for the final bill. (like they did with the stimulus/healthcare...). Filibuster is the antithesis of compromise between parties because it puts so much more power to the minorities, even minorities within the majority.

Insuspect he didnt have the 51 because his caucus knew he wasnt going the 51 route. This was always going to be another deal between he and McConnell. Also, Reid doesnt want to lose the power of the fillibuster threat when Dems are in the minority, I suspect.

 

[RDreamer]

I somewhat disagree.

That's why I suggest proportional EC based on the states as the guy described.

Reason being, what would have happened in a NPV and Sandy storm hits literally on election day? Well, the affected areas would be fucked and their vote tallies would be severely depressed. However, by allocation the EC by proportion, you're maintaining their fair representation in the vote whereas the NPV wouldn't.

Of course that can be fixed by allowing for an entire week of voting, but it's not happening. This is a more realistic fix.

I brought up this exact point about the EC and storms like Sandy when it hit, actually.

I was taught that was always kind of the point of it. Not necessarily for storms, but to maintain proportion so that if one state had less people come and actually vote the ones that do should still vote with the interests of that state, and the proportion to the others stays about the same.

 

[Amir0x]

What

The comparison is to Benghazi

the thread being... the Republicans attacked the Democrats for 4 Americans dying due to poor security even though they requested it...

...but part of the reason that security wasn't there was because the funds the State Department requested for just such a purpose were denied by Republican congressmen

 

[gcubed]

If that works out, it'd definitely at least offset the proportional allocation idea in PA, Ohio, etc if those passed

i would prefer the proportional allocation system over most other methods.

 

[Sirpopopop]

So due to budget cuts mandated by the Democrats, 4 Americans will die in the state of Virginia, prompting endless hearings berating the Republicans in a desperate attempt to find a flaw with their administration.

I get the comparison, acknowledge its wit, but that's not what I was going for...

Here is what I was going for: Much like Republicans don't let up on Benghazi, Dems shouldn't let up on Virginia.

 

[Black Mamba]

I brought up this exact point about the EC and storms like Sandy when it hit, actually.

I was taught that was always kind of the point of it. Not necessarily for storms, but to maintain proportion so that if one state had less people come and actually vote the ones that do should still vote with the interests of that state, and the proportion to the others stays about the same.

Yeah and I think it makes sense. I just wish the state would allocate its EC votes based on percentage of votes, rounded.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I'm not sure I understand this point. The electoral college is already weighted to distribute votes by population. Every ten years, the distribution of electoral votes among the states is changed to match changes in population. Low population states have few electoral votes precisely because they have few citizens. It gets distorted somewhat only because Senators are counted in the electoral college distribution, which they should not be. This means the smallest population states will always have at least 3 electoral college votes (one representative and two Senators) and this can give them a relative advantage. But the principle of the current electoral college system is indeed that all votes are equal. It just misses the mark a slight bit.

Care to back up the bolded?

We have exactly the system that was intended. Changing it in a way that shifts power to one party or the other (or more accurately, from one popuation density to another) is a change in status quo.

Seems like you are arguing that a change to NPV has grounding in the intentions of the establishers of the Electoral College. I don't see it.

 

[The Librarian]

Care to back up the bolded?

We have exactly the system that was intended. Changing it in a way that shifts power to one party or the other (or more accurately, from one popuation density to another) is a change in status quo.

Seems like you are arguing that a change to NPV has grounding in the intentions of the establishers of the Electoral College. I don't see it.

What population densities have the power now? I don't understand this argument of NPV being a shift in power from one party over the other. One party gets more votes. That's how a democracy works.

 

[mckmas8808]

Personally I don't think it matters if they are as good as men. They shouldn't be on the front line because:

1. Seeing a woman get killed/injured fucks up men psychologically more, and they often experience an uncontrollable protective aggression, which can reduce their military effectiveness. So even if she brings all the assets of being a great soldier, she is still bringing in an additional weakness that she can't do anything about.

And 2. having women in the front lines means they are at a much higher risk of getting captured. And women getting captured will probably get raped/molested more than men do. Which would then feed into number 1, as that would mess other soldiers up psychologically.

I mean, even if you assume they are equals physically, women bring additional weaknesses to the unit and so should only be used as a last resort.

1. Then males soldiers need to be trained better to deal with this psychological trauma before and after battle.

2. Refer to number one.

One question I have is do you think the military needs more combat ground forces?