2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

walshyn93

oscarBravo wrote: »

You've got to admit that, at the very least, that demonstrates that his supporters are easily manipulated.

One question I've never seen Trump or his supporters answer: when did America stop being great?

People in general are easily manipulated. So if you focus on one campaign you'll find a lot of that. You might not remember but in 2008 it was all about Hope and Change. There was very little emphasis on policy and many remarked on it at the time. Could it be that people follow those with vision even though they might not know the details?

It's a gradual decline. How can you expect to pinpoint a point in history like that. Its not that people dont want to answer you're just not asking the right questions.

oscarBravo

walshyn93 wrote: »

It's a gradual decline. How can you expect to pinpoint a point in history like that. Its not that people dont want to answer you're just not asking the right questions.

But you do accept that America isn't great?

walshyn93

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not really.

Half true means half false.

Trump is 100% correct when he remarks that they cannot vet refugees, and that refugees have been infiltrate by isis. You won't see politifact give him any credit for being right on that.

walshyn93

oscarBravo wrote: »

But you do accept that America isn't great?

What are you getting at?

BoJack Horseman

K-9 wrote: »

I'm not sure how anybody could argue the US has declined politically and militarily

It absolutely has.... however it absolutely a self inflicted weakening.

By 2018 the US Army will have fewer combat brigades than either China or Russia (down to 30)
Only 10 of these will be actually combat effective.

Navy down to 270 vessels, all of them working for longer than desired thus increasing fatigue & maintenance.
Fewer naval aviation squadrons, essentially 1 cut from every carrier.

Marine Corps down about 1/4 from peak, will be dropping further to 160k

Meanwhile, the burden is still considerable.
As of 2015 the US has 175,000 troops deployed abroad.

Mostly down to Sequestration cuts, and to that end, justifiable for a DOD not on the ball.... but certainly capabilities are dwindling.

walshyn93

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

It absolutely has.... however it absolutely a self inflicted weakening.

By 2018 the US Army will have fewer combat brigades than either China or Russia (down to 30)
Only 10 of these will be actually combat effective.

Navy down to 270 vessels, all of them working for longer than desired thus increasing fatigue & maintenance.
Fewer naval aviation squadrons, essentially 1 cut from every carrier.

Marine Corps down about 1/4 from peak, will be dropping further to 160k

Meanwhile, the burden is still considerable.
As of 2015 the US has 175,000 troops deployed abroad.

Mostly down to Sequestration cuts, and to that end, justifiable for a DOD not on the ball.... but certainly capabilities are dwindling.

They're also wasting their time trying to get women into every area of the army where they just aren't suitable. It's not a big deal in theory but in practice it shows the military is getting away from being a pure meritocracy and serious fighting force and becoming just another dysfunctional government agency.

Black Swan

walshyn93 wrote: »

It's a gradual decline.

America declining how? Not in terms of historic real GDP per capita growth. There has been some expected variation over time (e.g., business cycles), but the historic tread has been a geometrically upward trending curve which has been quite extraordinary when compared with most nations of the world. I hear this America in decline spouted during every presidential election, more so by Trump and Sanders in 2016, and such political podium polemics have been used to inflame Gustave Le Bon's unthinking Crowd, and deserves no more merit than the old cliché protester walking about with sign posting "The End Is Near!"

oscarBravo

walshyn93 wrote: »

Trump is 100% correct when he remarks that they cannot vet refugees, and that refugees have been infiltrate by isis. You won't see politifact give him any credit for being right on that.

I've seen him express the opinion that it's possible that refugees will be infiltrated by ISIS. I haven't seen any actual evidence that it has happened, so I'm not sure where the 100% correct claim is coming from.

walshyn93 wrote: »

What are you getting at?

It's simple logic: you can't make America great again unless it's not great now. Is America a great country? If so, isn't the slogan meaningless?

walshyn93 wrote: »

They're also wasting their time trying to get women into every area of the army where they just aren't suitable.

No misogyny among Trump supporters; no sirree bob.

K-9

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

It absolutely has.... however it absolutely a self inflicted weakening.

By 2018 the US Army will have fewer combat brigades than either China or Russia (down to 30)
Only 10 of these will be actually combat effective.

Navy down to 270 vessels, all of them working for longer than desired thus increasing fatigue & maintenance.
Fewer naval aviation squadrons, essentially 1 cut from every carrier.

Marine Corps down about 1/4 from peak, will be dropping further to 160k

Meanwhile, the burden is still considerable.
As of 2015 the US has 175,000 troops deployed abroad.

Mostly down to Sequestration cuts, and to that end, UK a DOD not on the ball.... but certainly capabilities are dwindling.

The Russian military budget is about 14% of the US's according to Wiki.

54% of discretionary spending goes on defence:


US spending is larger than the next 9 put together:

Black Swan

walshyn93 wrote: »

They're also wasting their time trying to get women into every area of the army where they just aren't suitable. It's not a big deal in theory but in practice it shows the military is getting away from being a pure meritocracy and serious fighting force and becoming just another dysfunctional government agency.

What? Is this YOUR position or the TRUMP position, or both? Any empirical evidence to support YOUR position that claims "trying to get women into every area of the army where they aren't suitable" is "wasting their time," or suggesting in the same paragraph that the army would be less of a meritocracy by recruiting women into "every area?" Do other Trump supporters think this, suggesting that anatomy or whatever disqualifies women from serving their country in every capacity? It cannot be based upon knowledge, as more women than men are currently enrolled and graduating from colleges, universities, and business schools in the USA per The Chronicle of Higher Education. So what do you base your conclusions upon regarding women? Anatomy? What?

K-9

Perfectly logical really, if John McCain was a failed soldier women and homosexuals obviously wouldn't pass "the test" either.

I don't what the test would be, if any. I'd say it's a case that if feminists or LGBT groups or for something the default setting goes to No.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

AbusesToilets

Black Swan wrote: »

What? Is this YOUR position or the TRUMP position, or both? Any empirical evidence to support YOUR position that claims "trying to get women into every area of the army where they aren't suitable" is "wasting their time," or suggesting in the same paragraph that the army would be less of a meritocracy by recruiting women into "every area?" Do other Trump supporters think this, suggesting that anatomy or whatever disqualifies women from serving their country in every capacity? It cannot be based upon knowledge, as more women than men are currently enrolled and graduating from colleges, universities, and business schools in the USA per The Chronicle of Higher Education. So what do you base your conclusions upon regarding women? Anatomy? What?

Not a follower of Trump, but the current effort to open up combats roles to women is not based on any need or backed up by extensive research. Women should not be in combat arms roles, such as Infantry, Special Operations and the like. This is being pushed by legislators over the objections of the military, from top to bottom and ignores the military's own research.

LuckyLloyd

Wibbs wrote: »

Very much so. It has puzzled me the level of support for Trump. I can understand the hard of thinking brigade, but this is even among folks I know to be pretty clever people. My take now is that on top of the self deception there is a large amount of projection. It seems a large enough segment of the electorate are jaded with the current political setup so are looking for alternatives. Along comes Trump. For me his real masterclass is not saying anything of policy substance at all. The headline grabbing outrageous stuff is advertising and as you say appeals to the racists et al. He's otherwise a constantly shifting blank canvas that the otherwise not daft, but politically jaded can project what they want a candidate to be.

On Trump's support base being broader than initially suspected:

"Actually, I think it's important to point out I'm not quite talking about poor whites. I think poor whites are generally racist and protectionist and insofar as Trump has political points ("GTFO Mexicans, I will crush China. Make America Great Again") -- those poor whites are at least engaged in the conventional political process of you know, have some issues they care about and voting for their self interest. It's crude and despicable but I get it, fundamentally. They are competing with immigrant and Chinese labor and generally are agitated by brown people to begin with. Their Trump support makes sense.

We're talking about a different class of people here: the otherwise well-off and probably reasonable educated and smarter white guy Trump fans who aren't economically insecure and are generally making out OK with free trade keeping the costs of tech toys down and cheaper lawn mowing.

By their own admission, Trump isn't even saying anything particularly political to them. He doesn't have any real solutions to problems they have, largely because hey, let's face it, these are nice privileged white guys, they don't have problems. What I'm arguing is that these guys have basically channeled their political agency into misanthropy, or the mentality of an angry teenage dudebro who is amused by Adam Sandler movies or whatever.

Black Swan

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Women should not be in combat arms roles, such as Infantry, Special Operations and the like. This is being pushed by legislators over the objections of the military, from top to bottom and ignores the military's own research.

What research? Based upon what? Not intelligence or knowledge or learning potential, so what? Anatomy? Please site sources to support this point, because I find it completely without substance, and nothing more than mere hearsay that is consistent with the unsubstantiated earlier post by a Trump supporter.

AbusesToilets

Black Swan wrote: »

What research? Based upon what? Not intelligence or knowledge or learning potential, so what? Anatomy? Please site sources to support this point, because I find it completely without substance, and nothing more than mere hearsay that is consistent with the unsubstantiated earlier post by a Trump supporter.

The Marine Corps conducted a study with an integrated unit, which conducted standard tasks and activities for a combat unit. It showed that the units with female soldiers were consistently the lowest performers and less capable at completing assigned tasks.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/09/11/marine-study-women-in-combat-injured-more-often-than-men.html
http://www.npr.org/2015/09/10/439246978/marine-corps-release-results-of-study-on-women-in-combat-units
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/24/marine-corps-study-finds-few-women-in-combat-in-ot/?page=all

Women are physically weaker, less durable and more prone to injury. That's basic biology, no matter what your personal beliefs are. The military's job is to fight and win wars and every decision made should serve that goal. This initiative does not meet some glaring need and is likely to have a negative impact on those units affected. Standards will be lowered, unit morale will be affected and overall combat effectiveness would be diminished.

Overheal

walshyn93 wrote: »

First of all Ive barely referred to his business record at all so don't misrepresent.

Criticising him for Atlantic City is like criticizing him for the recession in 2008. Atlantic City was the next Vegas until it wasn't. Not everything will always go right for you in business. Macro economic factors dont say a lot aboutsomeones business acumen or the ability to work with people. In this day and age we see nothing but tech billionaires who made one website and it took off. Building a real estate and golf club empire is hard and takes decades of work day in day out. And don't give me that inheritance stuff. Most of his inheritance came from the business he had been running for decades.

There's no such thing as a stupid or lazy billionaire real estate mogul. It's pretty funny that this self delusion is still so prevelant when it comes to dismissing others achievements.

I suggest you read the article, he had incredible hubris and no plan. He told regulators he would have banks "calling him" begging to loan him money for the new casino. His delusion fell through and he was forced to use junk bonds, his empire crumbled under debt repayments. It's that kind of overconfidence that would beget another moment, where "we will be greeted as liberators" and there everything will be great again etc.

As for barely referring to his business skills, I'm on touch, but ya did.

eire4

walshyn93 wrote: »

It doesn't have to be a "major" problem for voter ID laws to be a common sense way to protect the most important civil activity from abuse. I would like to know what you would consider to be a "major problem". Because 300 fraudulent ballots being decide a district which decides a state which decides an election. If every vote counts then take it seriously and demand transparency.

You're against voter ID laws because you want the most uneducated, uninformed people to be dragged out to vote for your favourite party. That sums up the Democrats.

If being well educated and well informed was a requirement to vote the already embarrassing low voter turnout in the US would be even lower. Are you calling for testing now to see if potential voters are well educated or well informed enough before they can vote? Plus who gets to decide what is well informed and well educated enough?

Black Swan

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The Marine Corps conducted a study with an integrated unit, which conducted standard tasks and activities for a combat unit. It showed that the units with female soldiers were consistently the lowest performers and less capable at completing assigned tasks.

Thanks for the citation. Upon quick review I noted that the Marine Corps study methodology appeared to be prescientific, lacking a rigourous experimental design, controls, and evidencing purposive convenience sampling, which may have allowed the study results to be confounded by variables not measured, random and systematic errors, confirmation bias, etc. At best this Marine Corp study was at the comparative case study level, with all the limitations associated, suggesting that caution should be exercised when reviewing its results and conclusions.

Regarding the Iowa caucus, which appears now to be a combination of Republican primary and Democrat caucus, it will not officially begin until 8PM EST or 5PM Pacific Time Monday (or 1AM Tuesday Eire time).

eire4

walshyn93 wrote: »

Solving voter fraud doesn't come at the expense of those other problems.

Easy solution the US government pays for and issues everyone a voter ID card.

AbusesToilets

Black Swan wrote: »

Thanks for the citation. Upon quick review I noted that the Marine Corps study methodology appeared to be prescientific, lacking a rigourous experimental design, controls, and evidencing purposive convenience sampling, which may have allowed the study results to be confounded by variables not measured, random and systematic errors, confirmation bias, etc. At best this Marine Corp study was at the comparative case study level, with all the limitations associated, suggesting that caution should be exercised when reviewing its results and conclusions.

Regarding the Iowa caucus, which appears now to be a combination of Republican primary and Democrat caucus, it will not officially begin until 8PM EST or 5PM Pacific Time Monday (or 1AM Tuesday Eire time).

Are you arguing the conclusions as they relate to women's physical abilities? Do you feel that the points made about the effects upon standards and unit morale and cohesion are erroneous? What part of the study are you contesting?

eire4

walshyn93 wrote: »

They should apply for a photo ID and be done with it and stop whining. Why isn't this a problem in Ireland? Not everyone has been abroad, not everyone drives a car (in fact fewer people do), not everyone goes to college, yet we never hear complaints? It's because we have respect for democracy and don't tolerate any potential for abuse of the electoral system. Democrats don't so they allow the DOJ to adopt a discriminatory policy for voter intimidation and they leave the polls open to tampering because they know the tampering and the intimidation is in their favour.

The US is a vastly bigger country physically and has little or no public transportation throughout much of the country, those are certainly 2 issues in the US. If voter fraud is such a big deal then simply have the federal government make and pay for ID's for all voters so that those people without things like passports or drivers licences and who should not have to pay what would in effect be a poll tax to get them can have them and can vote.
I would also say making election day a national holiday would be a good step forward.

oscarBravo

AbusesToilets wrote: »

...unit morale and cohesion...

That's a familiar dog whistle.

AbusesToilets

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a familiar dog whistle.

Do you have a rebuttal to that reasoning beyond a pithy remark?

eire4

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

To be fair a lot of the opposition is not to free trade its to turning over national sovereignty to multi national corporations who can in these treaties sue governments say such as Trans Canada who started a $15B lawsuit against the US for lost profits due to the keystone pipeline not being built. It is these kinds of situations which have many people very much against trade agreements which seemed designed to give more and more power to major corporations.

oscarBravo

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Do you have a rebuttal to that reasoning beyond a pithy remark?

The "reasoning" was the same as that advanced for discriminating against gay soldiers. I'll take it with a pinch of salt, thanks.

AbusesToilets

oscarBravo wrote: »

The "reasoning" was the same as that advanced for discriminating against gay soldiers. I'll take it with a pinch of salt, thanks.

Well, no it isn't. There are consistent issues that arise in integrated units. Fraternisation is a persistent issue, with all the attendant problems that come from it. A female soldier missing a deployment because of pregnancy is going to be disruptive, more so in smaller units in Special Operations. Telling a wife that you are getting ready to deploy in an isolated, stressful environment with a woman for months at a time is going to cause issues.

Gay soldiers also don't require different standards to conduct their duties, nor are they inherently less physically capable.

Black Swan

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Are you arguing the conclusions as they relate to women's physical abilities? Do you feel that the points made about the effects upon standards and unit morale and cohesion are erroneous? What part of the study are you contesting?

From the journalistic reports provide by you, and not reviewing the original study, in summary I'm suggesting that the Marine Corps study appeared to be prescientific, lacking scientific method rigour, and that caution should be exercised when reviewing the results; i.e., validity and reliability may be problematic.

For example, it appears that they used a convenience, purposive sample, not a random sampling design to assign subjects to groups; further, the statistical size of the small number of females used in the study may have greatly influenced the results. There did not appear to be any controls in the study design, only the comparison of two case types (all-men vs mixed), and there are serious limitations in comparative case study design; e.g. are the results representative of female and male Marine Corps populations, or are there problems of attempting to generalize from case to population, which may result in an ecological fallacy? Because this was a self-study by the Marine Corps, what measures were taken to avoid confirmation bias? There are far too many unanswered questions, along with comparative case study limitations that suggest caution when reviewing this study's results.

The across the pond telly news is continuing their build-up of the Iowa caucus today, without mentioning that the state only has 6 ECs when 270 are needed to win November 2016.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

AbusesToilets

Black Swan wrote: »

From the journalistic reports provide by you, and not reviewing the original study, in summary I'm suggesting that the Marine Corps study appeared to be prescientific, lacking scientific method rigour, and that caution should be exercised when reviewing the results; i.e., validity and reliability may be problematic.

For example, it appears that they used a convenience, purposive sample, not a random sampling design to assign subjects to groups; further, the statistical size of the small number of females used in the study may have greatly influenced the results. There did not appear to be any controls in the study design, only the comparison of two case types (all-men vs mixed), and there are serious limitations in comparative case study design; e.g. are the results representative of female and male Marine Corps populations, or are there problems of attempting to generalize from case to population, which may result in an ecological fallacy? Because this was a self-study by the Marine Corps, what measures were taken to avoid confirmation bias? There are far too many unanswered questions, along with comparative case study limitations that suggest caution when reviewing this study's results.

The across the pond telly news is continuing their build-up of the Iowa caucus today, without mentioning that the state only has 6 ECs when 270 are needed to win November 2016.

I can't attest to the rigor involved in the study, as like you, I have only read the published conclusions. I am no scientist, so would happily admit you seem to have the greater knowledge of proper measures for research and study.

That being said, you still didn't answer the basic question as to whether you think that woman are less capable physically than men and following from that, the impact on combat effectiveness. Other countries beyond the US have had experience with women in combat roles, as mentioned in the posted links. Their experiences seem to track the concerns expressed by the Marine Corps and elsewhere, in lowered standards and reduced capability in those units.