Your ad hominem trumps all other logical abilities! Simply brilliant, why didn't I think of that? That is your whole argument against Ted, despite the dozens of 2nd amendment interviews which are actually good interviews I can find in less than 2 seconds of web searching.
Here ya go. You are a fucking waste of a human being and debate like a turnip. I WIN!
You mean the fantasy of "The Great Switch" which was exactly 1 person named Strom Thurmond? The rest remained in the Democratic party, including Bird. here or here, but numerous other sites debunk that fairy tale. I'm pretty sure Snopes had something on it too, but Snopes didn't come up first in my search.
You are now attempting to claim that gay and transexual are the same thing and can be treated the same way by society. Yet you are also out there telling everyone that Trans people are different and can't use the same bathrooms as the gender they were born with, need puberty blockers before they are teenagers, need access to hormones and surgery, and have to be treated by what ever gender they decide they are. You further say it can be fluid, so changes based on how a person feels at any given moment so we can't use addresses like Mr., Ms, boy and girl.
So which is it SJW? Can we do away with LGBTAAIQP and replace that with "Gay", or does that only work for _you_ when when it benefits your regressive political positions?
Notice that I did not claim they were the same or have the same needs, or argue anything on my list of demands _you_ make of society in dealing with transgender people. You did.
You can request a waiver to serve with diabetes, high blood pressure, medicated depression, and sleep disorders, etc... but your waiver can be denied. Why not perform a basic web search before spewing stupidity?
This is the hard stance of the military related to Type 1, Type 1.5 and Type 2 diabetes, and generally all branches of the military feel this way about a person with diabetes serving in combat. The general consensus is that you will not be able to make it through tough periods of combat, and that you will be a burden to others that are serving with you. All branches of the military will not allow a Type 1, Type 1.5, or Type 2 diabetic to enlist. You can submit waivers, but you may still get a no.
Emphasis mine.
Sure, not every job in the Military is a combat job but that does not give the military unlimited numbers of non-combat jobs and allow them to ignore the combat roles. If the US Army made everyone a medic we would not be a very effective fighting force now would we?
Wow, you really got me. I gave the minimum for my job from memory, and you found the absolute minimum to stay in the service no matter what your job.
If you want to get promoted you don't aim for minimums, and depending on your job, there are different PFT requirements. Are you attempting to deny despite all facts you can find to the contrary that women and men have the same PT test? Are you going to deny that transgender males taking estrogen see no physical changes and can pass the same PT test as a male without estrogen? Who exactly is the liar? YOU!
While women can become much stronger than other women by taking hormones, there are other effects such as uncontrollable rage that come with those treatments often enough that it should not be encouraged. If it was controllable rage, maybe.
The overwhelming majority of roles, front-line combat included, in a modern, professional military are largely technical. Correct usage of equipment and tactics wins battles not the hand-to-hand, strength-based stuff that you seem to over index on.
Right button, right time - boat, plane, tank.
Tell that to the people carrying 100lbs of ammo, food, water, weapons, clothing, utility gear, and communications who are in combat missions. Oh yeah, during a firefight/threat situation you may unload some gear for maneuvering, but you pick it back up and get back to duty asap.
Stop watching movies for your military knowledge and talk to actual veterans or enlist yourself you fucking coward! _ENTRY_ into Air Assault school has rigorous PT requirements including a 12 mile force march with 80lbs in your ruck in under 3 hours. Airborne school, dive school, Ranger school do too, and they are all nasty physically. Don't you think it would be cheaper to just let anyone train whatever they want based on your asinine view of the world? We can just "feel" like gear weighs nothing and it must be true right?
Yeah, correct usage of gear is essential but you have to have gear to fight with. Ammunition is extremely heavy and if you don't have food and water you drop dead from dehydration and starvation. A small would will _KILL_ without medical gear. Helicopters can't just be Star-Trek teleported into zones, and that hour flight in may be cut off if the zone is too hot for a landing. Calling in dustoff or air support requires radios powerful and durable enough to reach support.
You still haven't learned that TV and movies are not real. Very sad.
Your rant against my Ted comments makes no sense. Ted is from Michigan, has a long history of protecting the 2nd amendment and speaking out against the Democratic party. Dale Jr. is from NC and has no such history. We don't have to worry because Ted isn't running, but try to do a bit of thinking and researching before going on stupid rants.
The problem here is that you need to get over your false dichotomy of Left/Right political axis
Context is everything. When discussing political leanings (left vs. right), the meaning is and has been Democrat vs. Republican or Big Government vs. Conservative. Your false premise is not my false dichotomy.
I wish I could say it was nothing like all the others, but there are enough people who want to just "repeal" without thinking about what's next, that I can't quite do that, but I can say it isn't all of the others who think like that. They just rejected that idea yesterday.
Since it was rejected there really are _not_ enough people who want to just repeal without thinking what's next. Most of those "no" votes were from people who claimed they would repeal and voted "yes" when they had a President they knew would veto the bill. This is where it's going to be very interesting to see what happens with incumbents overall, not just the Democrats.
The retention rate will be over 95%, there won't be hardly any changes at all.
Yeah, and Hillary had a 99% chance of winning too. As I said, if the right people start to get on ballots incumbents on both sides are in trouble.
Your last statement is your 2nd use of the same false premise. "Incumbents on both sides" has nothing to do with a political axis. Did you just learn a new term and feel the need to toss it around so that you can think you are smart?
But the violence at Donald's inauguration was stupid and counterproductive. Conservatives already view liberals as entitled elitists who refuse to play by the rules. In the eyes of the right, this rioting confirmed all the worst stereotypes of the left. This is not the way to win people over.
It also confirmed these issues to the undecided voters and youngsters, who are the ones to look out for in the next election cycle.
Before I say it.. hold that thought until the next paragraph. Okay, that said: Now that people are paying attention, it's become obvious that that same crowd that a whole lot of people in the Republican party really aren't the Liberty minded conservatives but behave just like Democrats. Some of these long time incumbents are going to have a very hard time in primaries if the right people run against them. Think about it for a minute, if Kid Rock and Ted Nugent both ran for office, Michigan would be farther right than any State in the Union with very vocal representation. While Terrible Ted isn't running, he could and would probably win with little effort. That thought should give the incumbents on both sides nightmares.
Trump isn't far Right either (which is why I said hold that thought) and quite frankly, barely peeks into the Right. He has a few ideas that are Right leaning, but a whole lot of his platform is far Left "Grow the Government and it's Power" politics with lots of deficit spending. His leadership on ACA repeal shows exactly what he thinks, and it's just like all the others claiming that the Government can solve all of our problems and cure all of our ills. The up and comers won't be very forgiving next election.
The difference between today and 30/40 years ago is that companies are no longer loyal to employees. Hence, the logical step of employees no longer being loyal to companies.
Where I disagree with TFA is in the suggestion that you don't want certain types of experience, and he rattles off quite a bit. Much of which I would say is good experience and can look good on a resume as long as you were successful in that job.
When you think about it, it's no different from men showering next to gay men.
Absolute BS! The overwhelming majority of people are not attracted to their own gender. Being in an open setting with people of the same gender is not an issue, regardless of an individuals sexual preference. Men being in the woman's area, or women in the men's area is quite different.
No, we don't want people to lack self control but we are human and not always in full control. That does not mean we hop on the first naked person we see, but could be humiliated by things we can't always control. Why would you want that pressure on people, and why would you willingly put anyone into that position? Because you have a political agenda that ignores science like biology?
Also remember, Turkish/Roman baths had a reputation for a reason. Virtuous people avoided them.
I always find it odd when vets bring up the shower argument. After boot camp, when were you ever subjected to group showers?
I won't and can't list all of them, but outside of permanent barracks most facilities were group or open. You make it sound like group showers are where everyone is under the same shower head all capable of scrubbing each other, which is not what the actual reference is. As a former Marine you should know better (so I'm skeptical). On the civilian side, it's more comparable to a Locker room.
And Estrogen reduces the Testosterone necessary to maintain muscles required to perform. Testosterone in females does increase their physical performance, but we can't discuss only 1/2 of the issues.
You don't think you can be medically discharged for an inability to perform duties for _any_ reason in the Military? You don't know jack about the Military. I'm a US Army vet, and have zero problems with this ruling but not simply because of the medication. I'll give two easy examples.
First, as GP stated above, the Military has to be a very cohesive bunch. In back line situations you have communal showers and bathrooms with little privacy. In front line situations, you have a canteen and hole that you dig. You put the majority of the military at a very compromising position with transgender soldiers. The twig and berries don't vanish because a person believes they are a woman, any more than breasts and bush vanish when a women believes they are man. So should the women in the military be forced to look at a twig and berries in the showers? Do you think it's fair to the men to stick a naked women who thinks they are man into a shower with them? Not that people want things to happen in either of those circumstances, but you are providing a very high risk and completely unnecessary situation for soldiers.
Next, you have PT rules by gender because _biology_ differences give us different limitations and abilities. The military loses effectiveness due to some of those differences already but has learned to cope. What they can't cope with is a completely arbitrary set of restrictions for every potential soldier. How do you cope with a guy who claims to be a woman? Do they get to do PT based on woman's rules or men's rules? Can the woman be medically discharged because the believe they are a man but can't do 80 pushups in under 2 minutes? Don't you believe more and more soldiers would not just try to drop out medically, but claim to be a more convenient gender for things like PT testing and promotion consideration?
The Military is not about "me", it's about "the force". Since we do not force service people who want "me" don't have to serve.
For the person who claimed not all jobs in the Military are combat, I say bullshit! Every soldier is trained on how to kill the enemy and defend against attacks. Even if your job isn't going out on patrol looking for enemies, you are at risk simply by being a soldier. Your first job and first responsibility in the Military is to be a Soldier. Your secondary job is to be a medic, mechanic, etc... (See Jessica Lynch, or any of the other people attacked, wounded, killed, or captured away from the front lines.)
Risks are, and have been covered, very heavily in all junior level sports for decades. Parents don't need to tell their kids about risk, because everyone involved in the sports organization does. Okay, if you grow up in the bayou without any organized sports parents would be required. Chances are those kids will be eaten by gators or drown noodling before they ever get drafted to college...
If I could be paid millions of dollars a year to exercise for hours every day, travel the country, and play a game a weekend for a few months a year, and I knew the paycheck came with the risk of brain damage, would I? Yeah, probably. Would you? I'm guessing you have would have a price not much different that what NFL players make.
As long as players are aware of risks, it should be their decision to accept or turn down contracts. I think the problem many have with the current situation is that the NFL and other agencies (allegedly) attempted to hide the risks from players.
The "allegedly" means that I don't know for fact, and don't care to debate the allegation. If they did, it's wrong but I believe it has been since corrected.
Just because they are not all moving immediately, or all at once, does not mean it's not happening. Detroit was the Technical center of automotive for a very long time, and the crash took a couple decades. It happened, despite all of the politicians and unions claiming it was impossible. Those wheels were turning for a very long time and Detroit and Michigan ignored the warning signs. More and more taxes, more and more regulations and fees. Once the automotive companies established outside of Michigan, it took only a few years to evacuate everything.
If you don't like the Detroit example, try Pennsylvania or West Virginia.
The majority of growth in the big tech companies is not happening in SV. Much is going to Texas and other southern states with lower taxes and as with most IT a lot is going overseas. Jobs here are not growing much if at all (depends on who's reports you read) and that stagnation isn't a good sign.
Your argument is fallacious logic, relying on an untruth that there are only two options. Dying Rust Belt|East Bumfuck or Massively taxed regions like Seattle or Silicon valley. I refuse to list the myriad of cities in the US in between those extremes.
Silicon Valley is on the decline because property is too expensive, taxes are too high, and the overall cost of living is higher than anywhere else in the US. Rent on a 1bdr apartment in SF will cost you 60K/yr, which is why you will find 1bdr apartments housing 6-8 adults regularly.
Seattle isn't far behind in terms all the down sides of Silicon Valley.
When companies can't hire people or pay too much in taxes themselves, they move to locations where they can do better. Nothing new here. Politicians still don't recognize the failures of their policies, and people still vote in the same ole crap politicians.
Something that both offical parties and the republican supporters ignore. His "better message for Middle Class Americans" *** WAS A PROGRESSIVE MESSAGE ***
No, it was a Nationalist message. Addressing illegal immigration probably being the number one issue with many voters, an issue dating back to the 70s. Most candidates claimed they would fix the issue (Clinton gave some good speeches on the topic) but no politician has dared to actually work on it. Trump was seen as the _only_ candidate who would have addressed that issue.
We could say the same for fixing our tax system, addressing political corruption, and a few other hot button topics.
The "Trillion dollar infrastructure" came pretty late and was not an issue for his base, but trying to get progressives under the tent. Same with a couple other more progressive items which his base voter does not like. But a partial win is better than no win to people ignored over the last 30 years of politics.
And, no, he wasn't cleaner than Clinton, not even appearing to be so. Clinton lost her voters because they cared about the clean stature of their candidate whilst Trump lost very few voters because they *don't* care about the clean stature of their candidate.
I don't believe Trump is virtuous or of high morals and would never pretend as much, but Clinton is and was downright sleazy in terms of corruption. Your statement is not true, at any level. The whole NeverTrump movement out of the R side is because of his lack of morals and virtue. Clinton was seen as worse, and all you have to do is look at the red/blue map for proof. Compare 2016 to 2008.
Certainly this is not a single item selection and many factors went into the votes. None of those factors are what the Dems have been claiming for the last year.
I already said that History is not on your side, and you are simply attempting to deny facts to support your political leanings/agenda.
The Founders had among themselves International business people. If the concern was as you are attempting to claim, they would have forbade people like Ben Franklin from running because of their International businesses and connections. They would have forbade people, and their families, in office from selling to foreigners anything they produced.
There are no such bans on people running for office or having a family business or holdings. There is a birth requirement and protection to stop people from gaining foreign titles of Nobility and personal gains that could subvert "The People" and their right to self-govern. This is why there are laws prohibiting foreign campaign donations.
What a troll. I don't think I've ever seen a better one. You tick all the boxes, referencing my post while ignoring it to make a nonsensical point that passes the truthiness test (Leftist gave us Trump, which is so silly I'm not going to bother).
You don't believe that if the Democrats ran a better candidate Trump would have lost? You can't run a basic Google search and find all of the Presidents, Senators, and Congress people and find their ideologies and influences? Oh, I get it. You just don't like facts.
You should go work for one of those Russian outfits that engineered the Trump presidency. Shoot Jared and email, I'm sure he'll meet with you (he meets with _everybody_). Say hi to Paul Manafort for me.
Oh, I see. It wasn't that Trump won the Electoral college with a better message for Middle Class Americans and looked cleaner than Clinton. It was all those damn Russians who did it.
You do realize that that narrative lacks any facts, and was completely dismissed by the Obama Administration's head officials right? Oh noes, more of those things called "facts"! Show me one single fact of Russia hacking the election. I will personally write my Senator, Congressional Rep, the AG, and President and demand that Comey, Kerry, and Clapper be tried for Contempt of Congress since they lied.
I'm pushing back against the Marxist tactics the far left has engaged in since Trump won the election, you are promoting them. Who exactly works for the Russians between the two of us? If you are lost on the "Marxist tactics", see how other totalitarian governments attack opponents and their families.
We can debate facts, but facts in political threads tend to be moderated "troll" on Slashdot. While your allergy to facts is bothersome to rational debate, it's actually sensible on Slashdot. FWIW, I'm not pro-Trump at all. That does not make me for the BS that the far left and media have been spreading for the last year.
Except nobody is proposing that (so far). If politicians or corporations were pushing that, I would push back and be "MUCH" more concerned. I can only react to what happens though, not what "could" happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Your ad hominem trumps all other logical abilities! Simply brilliant, why didn't I think of that? That is your whole argument against Ted, despite the dozens of 2nd amendment interviews which are actually good interviews I can find in less than 2 seconds of web searching.
Here ya go. You are a fucking waste of a human being and debate like a turnip. I WIN!
You mean the fantasy of "The Great Switch" which was exactly 1 person named Strom Thurmond? The rest remained in the Democratic party, including Bird. here or here, but numerous other sites debunk that fairy tale. I'm pretty sure Snopes had something on it too, but Snopes didn't come up first in my search.
You are now attempting to claim that gay and transexual are the same thing and can be treated the same way by society. Yet you are also out there telling everyone that Trans people are different and can't use the same bathrooms as the gender they were born with, need puberty blockers before they are teenagers, need access to hormones and surgery, and have to be treated by what ever gender they decide they are. You further say it can be fluid, so changes based on how a person feels at any given moment so we can't use addresses like Mr., Ms, boy and girl.
So which is it SJW? Can we do away with LGBTAAIQP and replace that with "Gay", or does that only work for _you_ when when it benefits your regressive political positions?
Notice that I did not claim they were the same or have the same needs, or argue anything on my list of demands _you_ make of society in dealing with transgender people. You did.
You can request a waiver to serve with diabetes, high blood pressure, medicated depression, and sleep disorders, etc... but your waiver can be denied. Why not perform a basic web search before spewing stupidity?
https://www.thediabetescouncil...>From:
This is the hard stance of the military related to Type 1, Type 1.5 and Type 2 diabetes, and generally all branches of the military feel this way about a person with diabetes serving in combat. The general consensus is that you will not be able to make it through tough periods of combat, and that you will be a burden to others that are serving with you. All branches of the military will not allow a Type 1, Type 1.5, or Type 2 diabetic to enlist. You can submit waivers, but you may still get a no .
Emphasis mine.
Sure, not every job in the Military is a combat job but that does not give the military unlimited numbers of non-combat jobs and allow them to ignore the combat roles. If the US Army made everyone a medic we would not be a very effective fighting force now would we?
Wow, you really got me. I gave the minimum for my job from memory, and you found the absolute minimum to stay in the service no matter what your job.
If you want to get promoted you don't aim for minimums, and depending on your job, there are different PFT requirements. Are you attempting to deny despite all facts you can find to the contrary that women and men have the same PT test? Are you going to deny that transgender males taking estrogen see no physical changes and can pass the same PT test as a male without estrogen? Who exactly is the liar? YOU!
While women can become much stronger than other women by taking hormones, there are other effects such as uncontrollable rage that come with those treatments often enough that it should not be encouraged. If it was controllable rage, maybe.
The overwhelming majority of roles, front-line combat included, in a modern, professional military are largely technical. Correct usage of equipment and tactics wins battles not the hand-to-hand, strength-based stuff that you seem to over index on.
Right button, right time - boat, plane, tank.
Tell that to the people carrying 100lbs of ammo, food, water, weapons, clothing, utility gear, and communications who are in combat missions. Oh yeah, during a firefight/threat situation you may unload some gear for maneuvering, but you pick it back up and get back to duty asap.
Stop watching movies for your military knowledge and talk to actual veterans or enlist yourself you fucking coward! _ENTRY_ into Air Assault school has rigorous PT requirements including a 12 mile force march with 80lbs in your ruck in under 3 hours. Airborne school, dive school, Ranger school do too, and they are all nasty physically. Don't you think it would be cheaper to just let anyone train whatever they want based on your asinine view of the world? We can just "feel" like gear weighs nothing and it must be true right?
Yeah, correct usage of gear is essential but you have to have gear to fight with. Ammunition is extremely heavy and if you don't have food and water you drop dead from dehydration and starvation. A small would will _KILL_ without medical gear. Helicopters can't just be Star-Trek teleported into zones, and that hour flight in may be cut off if the zone is too hot for a landing. Calling in dustoff or air support requires radios powerful and durable enough to reach support.
You still haven't learned that TV and movies are not real. Very sad.
Your rant against my Ted comments makes no sense. Ted is from Michigan, has a long history of protecting the 2nd amendment and speaking out against the Democratic party. Dale Jr. is from NC and has no such history. We don't have to worry because Ted isn't running, but try to do a bit of thinking and researching before going on stupid rants.
The problem here is that you need to get over your false dichotomy of Left/Right political axis
Context is everything. When discussing political leanings (left vs. right), the meaning is and has been Democrat vs. Republican or Big Government vs. Conservative. Your false premise is not my false dichotomy.
I wish I could say it was nothing like all the others, but there are enough people who want to just "repeal" without thinking about what's next, that I can't quite do that, but I can say it isn't all of the others who think like that. They just rejected that idea yesterday.
Since it was rejected there really are _not_ enough people who want to just repeal without thinking what's next. Most of those "no" votes were from people who claimed they would repeal and voted "yes" when they had a President they knew would veto the bill. This is where it's going to be very interesting to see what happens with incumbents overall, not just the Democrats.
The retention rate will be over 95%, there won't be hardly any changes at all.
Yeah, and Hillary had a 99% chance of winning too. As I said, if the right people start to get on ballots incumbents on both sides are in trouble.
Your last statement is your 2nd use of the same false premise. "Incumbents on both sides" has nothing to do with a political axis. Did you just learn a new term and feel the need to toss it around so that you can think you are smart?
But the violence at Donald's inauguration was stupid and counterproductive. Conservatives already view liberals as entitled elitists who refuse to play by the rules. In the eyes of the right, this rioting confirmed all the worst stereotypes of the left. This is not the way to win people over.
It also confirmed these issues to the undecided voters and youngsters, who are the ones to look out for in the next election cycle.
Before I say it.. hold that thought until the next paragraph. Okay, that said: Now that people are paying attention, it's become obvious that that same crowd that a whole lot of people in the Republican party really aren't the Liberty minded conservatives but behave just like Democrats. Some of these long time incumbents are going to have a very hard time in primaries if the right people run against them. Think about it for a minute, if Kid Rock and Ted Nugent both ran for office, Michigan would be farther right than any State in the Union with very vocal representation. While Terrible Ted isn't running, he could and would probably win with little effort. That thought should give the incumbents on both sides nightmares.
Trump isn't far Right either (which is why I said hold that thought) and quite frankly, barely peeks into the Right. He has a few ideas that are Right leaning, but a whole lot of his platform is far Left "Grow the Government and it's Power" politics with lots of deficit spending. His leadership on ACA repeal shows exactly what he thinks, and it's just like all the others claiming that the Government can solve all of our problems and cure all of our ills. The up and comers won't be very forgiving next election.
The difference between today and 30/40 years ago is that companies are no longer loyal to employees. Hence, the logical step of employees no longer being loyal to companies.
Where I disagree with TFA is in the suggestion that you don't want certain types of experience, and he rattles off quite a bit. Much of which I would say is good experience and can look good on a resume as long as you were successful in that job.
When you think about it, it's no different from men showering next to gay men.
Absolute BS! The overwhelming majority of people are not attracted to their own gender. Being in an open setting with people of the same gender is not an issue, regardless of an individuals sexual preference. Men being in the woman's area, or women in the men's area is quite different.
No, we don't want people to lack self control but we are human and not always in full control. That does not mean we hop on the first naked person we see, but could be humiliated by things we can't always control. Why would you want that pressure on people, and why would you willingly put anyone into that position? Because you have a political agenda that ignores science like biology?
Also remember, Turkish/Roman baths had a reputation for a reason. Virtuous people avoided them.
Should you go soft on him?
I always find it odd when vets bring up the shower argument. After boot camp, when were you ever subjected to group showers?
I won't and can't list all of them, but outside of permanent barracks most facilities were group or open. You make it sound like group showers are where everyone is under the same shower head all capable of scrubbing each other, which is not what the actual reference is. As a former Marine you should know better (so I'm skeptical). On the civilian side, it's more comparable to a Locker room.
Come from Detroit like I did, and then talk. The Metro Detroit area has about 5% of the tech jobs it had in the late 80s early 90s.
And Estrogen reduces the Testosterone necessary to maintain muscles required to perform. Testosterone in females does increase their physical performance, but we can't discuss only 1/2 of the issues.
You don't think you can be medically discharged for an inability to perform duties for _any_ reason in the Military? You don't know jack about the Military. I'm a US Army vet, and have zero problems with this ruling but not simply because of the medication. I'll give two easy examples.
First, as GP stated above, the Military has to be a very cohesive bunch. In back line situations you have communal showers and bathrooms with little privacy. In front line situations, you have a canteen and hole that you dig. You put the majority of the military at a very compromising position with transgender soldiers. The twig and berries don't vanish because a person believes they are a woman, any more than breasts and bush vanish when a women believes they are man. So should the women in the military be forced to look at a twig and berries in the showers? Do you think it's fair to the men to stick a naked women who thinks they are man into a shower with them? Not that people want things to happen in either of those circumstances, but you are providing a very high risk and completely unnecessary situation for soldiers.
Next, you have PT rules by gender because _biology_ differences give us different limitations and abilities. The military loses effectiveness due to some of those differences already but has learned to cope. What they can't cope with is a completely arbitrary set of restrictions for every potential soldier. How do you cope with a guy who claims to be a woman? Do they get to do PT based on woman's rules or men's rules? Can the woman be medically discharged because the believe they are a man but can't do 80 pushups in under 2 minutes? Don't you believe more and more soldiers would not just try to drop out medically, but claim to be a more convenient gender for things like PT testing and promotion consideration?
The Military is not about "me", it's about "the force". Since we do not force service people who want "me" don't have to serve.
For the person who claimed not all jobs in the Military are combat, I say bullshit! Every soldier is trained on how to kill the enemy and defend against attacks. Even if your job isn't going out on patrol looking for enemies, you are at risk simply by being a soldier. Your first job and first responsibility in the Military is to be a Soldier. Your secondary job is to be a medic, mechanic, etc... (See Jessica Lynch, or any of the other people attacked, wounded, killed, or captured away from the front lines.)
Risks are, and have been covered, very heavily in all junior level sports for decades. Parents don't need to tell their kids about risk, because everyone involved in the sports organization does. Okay, if you grow up in the bayou without any organized sports parents would be required. Chances are those kids will be eaten by gators or drown noodling before they ever get drafted to college...
If I could be paid millions of dollars a year to exercise for hours every day, travel the country, and play a game a weekend for a few months a year, and I knew the paycheck came with the risk of brain damage, would I? Yeah, probably. Would you? I'm guessing you have would have a price not much different that what NFL players make.
As long as players are aware of risks, it should be their decision to accept or turn down contracts. I think the problem many have with the current situation is that the NFL and other agencies (allegedly) attempted to hide the risks from players.
The "allegedly" means that I don't know for fact, and don't care to debate the allegation. If they did, it's wrong but I believe it has been since corrected.
Just because they are not all moving immediately, or all at once, does not mean it's not happening. Detroit was the Technical center of automotive for a very long time, and the crash took a couple decades. It happened, despite all of the politicians and unions claiming it was impossible. Those wheels were turning for a very long time and Detroit and Michigan ignored the warning signs. More and more taxes, more and more regulations and fees. Once the automotive companies established outside of Michigan, it took only a few years to evacuate everything.
If you don't like the Detroit example, try Pennsylvania or West Virginia.
The majority of growth in the big tech companies is not happening in SV. Much is going to Texas and other southern states with lower taxes and as with most IT a lot is going overseas. Jobs here are not growing much if at all (depends on who's reports you read) and that stagnation isn't a good sign.
Your argument is fallacious logic, relying on an untruth that there are only two options. Dying Rust Belt|East Bumfuck or Massively taxed regions like Seattle or Silicon valley. I refuse to list the myriad of cities in the US in between those extremes.
Silicon Valley is on the decline because property is too expensive, taxes are too high, and the overall cost of living is higher than anywhere else in the US. Rent on a 1bdr apartment in SF will cost you 60K/yr, which is why you will find 1bdr apartments housing 6-8 adults regularly.
Seattle isn't far behind in terms all the down sides of Silicon Valley.
When companies can't hire people or pay too much in taxes themselves, they move to locations where they can do better. Nothing new here. Politicians still don't recognize the failures of their policies, and people still vote in the same ole crap politicians.
Something that both offical parties and the republican supporters ignore. His "better message for Middle Class Americans" *** WAS A PROGRESSIVE MESSAGE ***
No, it was a Nationalist message. Addressing illegal immigration probably being the number one issue with many voters, an issue dating back to the 70s. Most candidates claimed they would fix the issue (Clinton gave some good speeches on the topic) but no politician has dared to actually work on it. Trump was seen as the _only_ candidate who would have addressed that issue.
We could say the same for fixing our tax system, addressing political corruption, and a few other hot button topics.
The "Trillion dollar infrastructure" came pretty late and was not an issue for his base, but trying to get progressives under the tent. Same with a couple other more progressive items which his base voter does not like. But a partial win is better than no win to people ignored over the last 30 years of politics.
And, no, he wasn't cleaner than Clinton, not even appearing to be so. Clinton lost her voters because they cared about the clean stature of their candidate whilst Trump lost very few voters because they *don't* care about the clean stature of their candidate.
I don't believe Trump is virtuous or of high morals and would never pretend as much, but Clinton is and was downright sleazy in terms of corruption. Your statement is not true, at any level. The whole NeverTrump movement out of the R side is because of his lack of morals and virtue. Clinton was seen as worse, and all you have to do is look at the red/blue map for proof. Compare 2016 to 2008.
Certainly this is not a single item selection and many factors went into the votes. None of those factors are what the Dems have been claiming for the last year.
Mine doesn't. Change your financial institution if you are worried.
I already said that History is not on your side, and you are simply attempting to deny facts to support your political leanings/agenda.
The Founders had among themselves International business people. If the concern was as you are attempting to claim, they would have forbade people like Ben Franklin from running because of their International businesses and connections. They would have forbade people, and their families, in office from selling to foreigners anything they produced.
There are no such bans on people running for office or having a family business or holdings. There is a birth requirement and protection to stop people from gaining foreign titles of Nobility and personal gains that could subvert "The People" and their right to self-govern. This is why there are laws prohibiting foreign campaign donations.
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/articles/1/essays/68/emoluments-clause
What a troll. I don't think I've ever seen a better one. You tick all the boxes, referencing my post while ignoring it to make a nonsensical point that passes the truthiness test (Leftist gave us Trump, which is so silly I'm not going to bother).
You don't believe that if the Democrats ran a better candidate Trump would have lost? You can't run a basic Google search and find all of the Presidents, Senators, and Congress people and find their ideologies and influences? Oh, I get it. You just don't like facts.
You should go work for one of those Russian outfits that engineered the Trump presidency. Shoot Jared and email, I'm sure he'll meet with you (he meets with _everybody_). Say hi to Paul Manafort for me.
Oh, I see. It wasn't that Trump won the Electoral college with a better message for Middle Class Americans and looked cleaner than Clinton. It was all those damn Russians who did it.
You do realize that that narrative lacks any facts, and was completely dismissed by the Obama Administration's head officials right? Oh noes, more of those things called "facts"! Show me one single fact of Russia hacking the election. I will personally write my Senator, Congressional Rep, the AG, and President and demand that Comey, Kerry, and Clapper be tried for Contempt of Congress since they lied.
I'm pushing back against the Marxist tactics the far left has engaged in since Trump won the election, you are promoting them. Who exactly works for the Russians between the two of us? If you are lost on the "Marxist tactics", see how other totalitarian governments attack opponents and their families.
We can debate facts, but facts in political threads tend to be moderated "troll" on Slashdot. While your allergy to facts is bothersome to rational debate, it's actually sensible on Slashdot. FWIW, I'm not pro-Trump at all. That does not make me for the BS that the far left and media have been spreading for the last year.
Except nobody is proposing that (so far). If politicians or corporations were pushing that, I would push back and be "MUCH" more concerned. I can only react to what happens though, not what "could" happen.