Trump just won the election

[NeuroTypical]

Tick tick tick tick

 

The abortion question is funny, because of the widespread ignorance about what Roe v. Wade actually did, and what overturning it actually means.   The subject matter is so emotionally impactful, a lot of people simply refuse to or can't learn about the states rights aspect of it.   Even the ~38% of people who said Trump probably don't get it.   

A better way to poll on Abortion would look like this: 
"Would you rather have the federal government dictate the laws regarding abortion, or do you think each individual state should be able to decide?"

 

[mordorbund]

On 10/21/2024 at 4:31 PM, Carborendum said:

I just saw this and had to share:

Deport politicians. THEY’RE TAKING OUR JERBS!!!!!!

[LDSGator]

 

34 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Deport politicians. THEY’RE TAKING OUR JERBS!!!!!!

[Ironhold]

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Tick tick tick tick

 

The abortion question is funny, because of the widespread ignorance about what Roe v. Wade actually did, and what overturning it actually means.   The subject matter is so emotionally impactful, a lot of people simply refuse to or can't learn about the states rights aspect of it.   Even the ~38% of people who said Trump probably don't get it.   

A better way to poll on Abortion would look like this: 
"Would you rather have the federal government dictate the laws regarding abortion, or do you think each individual state should be able to decide?"

 

I'm literally seeing ads in my area claiming that "Trump got rid of Roe v. Wade", ignoring the fact that it was SCOTUS who ruled that RvW was decided in a fashion that wasn't legally justifiable and that instead of just yeeting it entirely they said it should have been sent to the legislature. 

[LDSGator]

43 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

I'm literally seeing ads in my area claiming that "Trump got rid of Roe v. Wade", ignoring the fact that it was SCOTUS who ruled that RvW was decided in a fashion that wasn't legally justifiable and that instead of just yeeting it entirely they said it should have been sent to the legislature. 

Yup, same down here. I’m in the reddest county in the state (outside the panhandle) so they are only on a few lawns. 
 

I think abortion will draw the left out like a Ric Flair-Harley Race main event in 1977 bro.  

Edited October 24, 2024 by LDSGator

[Phoenix_person]

7 hours ago, Ironhold said:

https://kdhnews.com/military/slain-soldier-re-enters-political-conversation-after-trump-comments-revealed/article_2163627c-9197-11ef-83ba-1ba26c796b81.html

A few days ago, The Atlantic published an article making all sorts of sensational claims about Trump. 

Various people who were in a position to do so took to social media to deny those claims, something that The Atlantic tried to spin and a number of Harris supporters tried to ignore. 

Well, the Killeen Daily Herald is the regional daily newspaper serving the Fort Hood / Fort Cavazos region, and they're repeating a number of those denials in print. So it's now official that at least one mainstream media outlet is challenging The Atlantic's take on matters. 

I actually hadn't heard or seen anything about SPC Guillen prior to your post. The Harris campaign seems far more preoccupied with the Nazi-praising aspect of the Atlantic article (which I haven't read). I think that's a waste of time, honestly. No one who wasn't repulsed by the Stormy Daniels story, J6, $3 Bibles being sold for $60, or Trump's numerous SH/SA accusations is going to be repulsed by him praising Nazi generals. 

[Ironhold]

16 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I actually hadn't heard or seen anything about SPC Guillen prior to your post. The Harris campaign seems far more preoccupied with the Nazi-praising aspect of the Atlantic article (which I haven't read). I think that's a waste of time, honestly. No one who wasn't repulsed by the Stormy Daniels story, J6, $3 Bibles being sold for $60, or Trump's numerous SH/SA accusations is going to be repulsed by him praising Nazi generals. 

The unfortunate truth of the matter is that Rommel was one of the most brilliant tactical minds in military history, with Patton perhaps being his only equal among the Allies. 

Rommel's downfall was due to the fact that he was a general rather than a politician, and so was unable to protect himself from the political backlash that followed the failed Operation: Valkyrie plot against Hitler. 

Yeah, military history is *full* of various grey areas. 

[Carborendum]

17 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

No one who wasn't repulsed by ...  is going to be repulsed by him praising Nazi generals. 

Not so.

I specifically base my votes on Liberty as outlined in the Constitution and Declaration.  Whether you agree with my evidence or reasoning on who does it better/worse, I would definitely be repulsed by a candidate saying he wanted Nazi generals to be his joint chiefs of staff.

That said (and I have not heard the purported exact quote) if he was simply saying (as Ironhold said) that Rommel was a very effective general, that is simply a statement of fact.  Doesn't mean he liked the fact.  But he'd like to have generals who were as effective in battle as such a historical general, then I don't see the problem.

Example.  I really don't like Bill Maher as a human being.  But I appreciate his thought-out process in approaching his positions.  He at least tries to look at facts (sometimes he gets bad information).  And he does things based on a reasonable rationale with some level of consistency.  He's not shifting judgments based on whether it is politically expedient.  And he doesn't do it out of an abundance of ignorance.  He at least tries to research stuff.

Do I wish we should all try to be like him?  Heck no. I think he's a jerk.  But do I wish more leftists would have some of his characteristics when engaging in political dialogue?  Absolutely.

[Phoenix_person]

3 hours ago, Ironhold said:

The unfortunate truth of the matter is that Rommel was one of the most brilliant tactical minds in military history, with Patton perhaps being his only equal among the Allies. 

Rommel's downfall was due to the fact that he was a general rather than a politician, and so was unable to protect himself from the political backlash that followed the failed Operation: Valkyrie plot against Hitler. 

Yeah, military history is *full* of various grey areas. 

I'm not arguing that Rommel wasn't a brilliant strategist. He definitely was. The quote credited to Trump (which I'm not taking as fact just because the Atlantic published it, FWIW) is that he admired how loyal the Nazi leadership was to Hitler, a stance that likely underestimates the level of fear Hitler instilled in his subordinates. I don't want Trump, Kamala, Jill Stein, or ANYONE to have that kind of "loyalty" from the US military leadership. Military loyalty to politicians is the first big step towards fascism. The oath of service is to the Constitution, not the Commander in Chief. The oath swears servicemembers to obedience to orders from the president in accordance to the regulations set forth by the UCMJ, meaning that "I was just following orders" doesn't excuse treason or other acts ordered by the president that could harm the integrity of our democratic republic. I left the Army at the beginning of Obama's second term. I liked Obama a lot, and still do. As a servicemember, I never felt that I owed him any loyalty beyond what my oath bound me to.

Trump's demand for personal loyalty from people who don't owe it to him isn't new, btw. The Nazi thing is unverified, as far as I know, but it's well-established that Trump expects loyalty TO TRUMP from his cabinet and military advisors. That doesn't sit well with me at all.

Edited October 25, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[LDSGator]

27 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

The oath of service is to the Constitution

Would most soldiers agree with you?  

[NeuroTypical]

Whenever I get worried about a 2nd Trump presidency, I remember Mitch McConnell & Pence taking care of business. 

 

 

[Phoenix_person]

29 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Would most soldiers agree with you?  

When I got out in 2013, probably. 

In 2024, ???

[LDSGator]

21 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

When I got out in 2013, probably. 

In 2024, ???

The only one of my friends (aside from some dude named @Phoenix_person)who served was a marine who got out in 2004. He’d absolutely be more loyal to the constitution than to the commander in chief. 

[LDSGator]

10 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Do I wish we should all try to be like him?  Heck no.

This is yet another reason why this forum Is such a great place to discuss politics. Even those who support Trump politically don’t approve of his behavior. In other forums I’ve seen people downplay, dismiss, or even defend his behavior just because they agree with his politics 

[NeuroTypical]

 

3 family members sat there and went through the ballot, including the dozen or so ballot measures and colorado constitution amendments and whatnot.   We did not vote the same on everything.  

I notice the signature gatherers who were trying to ban biological males from girl's sports did not gather enough signatures to get onto the ballot.  I saw those guys at the grocery store just like I saw all the other signature gatherers, but this particular measure was riling up people and generating complaints to the store manager.  Accusations of hate speech and trying to cause a trans genocide and whatnot.

Edited October 26, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[Ironhold]

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Accusations of hate speech and trying to cause a trans genocide and whatnot.

Yeah, a lot of trans rights activists are quick to scream "genocide!" when confronted with opinions and political sentiments that they don't like. 

This has, from what I understand, started to get on the nerves of a segment of transgender individuals who don't want the added negative attention the screamers draw to them. 

The real, unfortunate, truth of the matter is that there have been a small number of people who weren't legitimately transgender but have falsely claimed that they are so that they can access the bathrooms and locker rooms of the opposite gender for prurient purposes. As a result, we're now looking at a widespread panic of sorts over the matter.  

[NeuroTypical]

51 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

The real, unfortunate, truth of the matter is that there have been a small number of people who weren't legitimately transgender but have falsely claimed that they are so that they can access the bathrooms and locker rooms of the opposite gender for prurient purposes. As a result, we're now looking at a widespread panic of sorts over the matter.  

You can find predators in every segment of society.  From churches to political parties to neighborhoods to bitcoin miners to sports enthusiasts.  Various rainbow communities are certainly not immune.  That said, anything new is an immediate target for nefarious people willing to hurt or kill someone for what they have.  And the "trans community" (to the extent that there is such a thing) has more than it's share of bad actors.  Too many Americans trying to claw over their own grandmothers to adopt the new way to be inclusive and loving.  Dude wants in to girls' and women's sports spaces?  But it's ok because trans?  Ok then.  A little nervous laughter, a little fear of signaling the wrong virtue, and suddenly you end up on the wrong side of history.  

Even the United Nations gets it to a certain extent [bolding mine]: 

Quote

Violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences

III. Manifestations of violence against women and girls in sports

C. Opportunity for fair and safe competition

11. Policies implemented by international federations and national governing bodies, along with national legislation in some countries, allow males who identify as women to compete in female sports categories. 28 In other cases, this practice is not explicitly prohibited and is thus tolerated in practice. The replacement of the female sports category with a mixed-sex category has resulted in an increasing number of female athletes losing opportunities, including medals, when competing against males. According to information received, by 30 March 2024, over 600 female athletes in more than 400 competitions have lost more than 890 medals in 29 different sports.29

12. Male athletes have specific attributes considered advantageous in certain sports, such as strength and testosterone levels that are higher than those of the average range for females, even before puberty,30 thereby resulting in the loss of fair opportunity. Some sports federations mandate testosterone suppression for athletes in order to qualify for female categories in elite sports. However, pharmaceutical testosterone suppression for genetically male athletes – irrespective of how they identify – will not eliminate the set of comparative performance advantages they have already acquired.31 This approach may not only harm the health of the athlete concerned, but it also fails to achieve its stated objective. Therefore, the testosterone levels deemed acceptable by any sporting body are, at best, not evidence-based, arbitrary32 and asymmetrically favour males.33 Females are usually tested randomly to ensure that they are not using performance-enhancing drugs, while males are often not monitored to ensure that they are taking testosterone suppression drugs. 34 To avoid the loss of a fair opportunity, males must not compete in the female categories of sport. 35

 

[JohnsonJones]

On 10/26/2024 at 3:03 PM, Ironhold said:

Yeah, a lot of trans rights activists are quick to scream "genocide!" when confronted with opinions and political sentiments that they don't like. 

This has, from what I understand, started to get on the nerves of a segment of transgender individuals who don't want the added negative attention the screamers draw to them. 

The real, unfortunate, truth of the matter is that there have been a small number of people who weren't legitimately transgender but have falsely claimed that they are so that they can access the bathrooms and locker rooms of the opposite gender for prurient purposes. As a result, we're now looking at a widespread panic of sorts over the matter.  

I think it's more complex than that.  It's not just the small number that are accessing locker rooms for their own perverted measures, but the larger issue of whether mtf should even be competing in primarily women's sports with the biological advantages that they have already gained just by being male, despite any genetic formulas or medicines they are taking to reduce their testosterone levels.

A physically disabled individual many times is unable to particpate in certain sports due to physical factors.  We normally do not say or try to enable them to participate in sports with other ably bodied individuals and we do not give them advantages in order to allow them to do so.  This applies almost universally except when dealing with those who are Transgendered. 

I have on problem allowing ftm to compete in men's sports.  Normally the physical disadvantages they have gained in life will prevent them from doing well, but if they can do well (just like occasionally someone who is physically disabled can do well in a sport) then good for them.  It is the other way around (mtf) in which I think we should not allow transgendered to compete in general unless there are extenuating circumstances (for example, they went on puberty blockers and never got the advantages a male body gets from puberty, etc...though allowing children to take these is another issue in and of itself regarding the medical ramifications...etc). 

In general I can support transgendered individuals opportunity to live their lives as they wish, but in regards to mtf specifically participating in women's sports I am opposed. 

Edited October 28, 2024 by JohnsonJones
clarity

[JohnsonJones]

On 10/25/2024 at 1:19 PM, Phoenix_person said:

I'm not arguing that Rommel wasn't a brilliant strategist.

Not aimed necessarily at you, but in general for all who feel this way...

Our perceptions of history change at times, and the Rommel myth is slowly changing in our modern times.  Though Rommel still holds the idea that he was a brilliant military strategist and tactician, some historians today are questioning how much of this is actually true.

Rommel's poor grasp of logistics may have done far worse at weakening the German armies in the North as well as dooming his own actions in Africa far more than Patton's doing over the long haul.  In addition, many question Rommels choice to return and leave the Western lines right before Normandy when he knew invasion was imminent. 

Rommel Myth

Quote

The historian Geoffrey P. Megargee refers to Rommel as a "talented tactical leader", but points out his playing the German and Italian command structures against each other to his advantage. Rommel used the confused structure of the OKW (Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht), the OKH (Supreme High Command of the Army) and the Comando Supremo (Italian Supreme Command) to disregard orders that he disagreed with or to appeal to whatever authority he felt would be most sympathetic to his requests.^[124] Rommel often went directly to Hitler with his needs and concerns, taking advantage of the favoritism that the Führer displayed towards him and adding to the German High Command's distrust of him.^[125]

Military practitioners have also questioned Rommel's abilities at the operational level. While nearly all acknowledge Rommel's excellent tactical skills and personal bravery, many officers came to accept that Rommel was "possibly the most overrated commander of an army in world history", writes U.S. major general and military historian David T. Zabecki of the United States Naval Institute, quoting the opinion of Wolf Heckmann. Zabecki notes that Rommel's brilliant tactical moves were logistically unsustainable, which eventually led to a strategic defeat.^{[101][n 14]} General Klaus Naumann, who served as Chief of Staff of the Bundeswehr, agrees with Charles Messenger that Rommel had challenges on the operational level, and states that Rommel's violation of the unity of command principle, bypassing the chain of command in Africa, was unacceptable.^{[126][n 15]}

Some historians, such as Zabecki and Peter Lieb, also take issue with Rommel's absence from Normandy on the day of the Allied invasion, 6 June 1944. He had left France on 5 June and was at home on the 6th celebrating his wife's birthday. Rommel planned to proceed to see Hitler the next day to discuss the situation in Normandy.^{[101][127][128]} Zabecki calls his decision to leave the theatre in view of an imminent invasion "an incredible lapse of command responsibility".^[101]

Obviously, those who feel Rommel was not brilliant are the minority, but the sea of wanting to make a mark on history (as well as get your PhD) is pressing some to question the original premises of Rommel's genius. 

 

PS:  Me, I'm not a huge fan of revisionist history, but for several decades now it seems revisionist history is all the rage.  It's not that I agree with the idea that Rommel wasn't brilliant, I just thought I'd post an opposing opinion to make us think and ponder what we accept as given fact vs. what may or may not be true. 

Edited October 28, 2024 by JohnsonJones

[NeuroTypical]

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I have on problem allowing ftm to compete in men's sports.

Pretty much nobody does, especially in adult sports.  And pretty much there are near zero biological women even trying to compete with males in sports.   Maybe in some of the track and field things, where there is little to no difference in men v. women.  Sometimes you'll hear a story about an adult female trying to access the boys locker room, but you could probably count on both hands how often that has made the news in the last 5 years.

Yeah, by far the biggest issue when thinking about predators seeking prey or mediocre males seeking sports medals, are men taking advantage of rules and policy changes to gain access to women's spaces and sports.

(Full disclosure - when it comes to sports, I'm the dictionary definition of a 'mediocre male'.  I once got stood on my head and soundly defeated by a lady in a beginners class MMA.  But I have no desire to compete against any females.)

Edited October 28, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[LDSGator]

27 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yeah, by far the biggest issue when thinking about predators seeking prey or mediocre males seeking sports medals, are men taking advantage of rules and policy changes to gain access to women's spaces and sports.

 

 If I ever told my TKD instructor I’d like to fight a woman in my next tournament, he’d tell me to pack my stuff and get out of the dojang in three seconds. 

[Carborendum]

29 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Full disclosure - when it comes to sports, I'm the dictionary definition of a 'mediocre male'.  I once got stood on my head and soundly defeated by a lady in a beginners class MMA.  But I have no desire to compete against any females.

LoL!

I'm a fairly typical male.  When I still had youth, for virtually any physical feat of strength or speed, I could probably beat over 80% (maybe 90%) of women.  Gina Carano could wipe the floor with me.

I would never win medals in any sports from College level or above.

As for martial arts, I have taken lessons in four different arts at different points in my life.  Not a single female (no matter their training level) could defeat me in any sparring match.  But none of them looked like Gina Carrano.

So, I think you're exaggerating your weakness... unless that woman was Gina Carrano.  (Can you tell I'd be no match for Gina?)

[LDSGator]

17 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

would never win medals in any sports from College level or above.

Same. In TKD I’m a D3 college player at best. I get by on hard work and a refusal to quit.

[NeuroTypical]

31 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So, I think you're exaggerating your weakness... unless that woman was Gina Carrano.  (Can you tell I'd be no match for Gina?

She absolutely had Gina's body type.  And I suspect she came to the beginners class with some background in Jiu Jitsu.  And I also had zero interest in wrestling a woman who was not my wife, was surprised that I got paired with her, and basically just froze up and got stood on my head.  

If it came down to a situation where I was like actually fighting for my life against her, she still might have won if I couldn't escape, but it's at least possible both of us would have ended up in ambulances.  

Edited October 28, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[Carborendum]

On 10/22/2024 at 11:47 AM, NeuroTypical said:

 

Rogan said something that piqued my interest.  Trump may say some crazy things and seems to not have a filter.  But he actually preferred that to all the phony politicians who have rehearsed addresses and always tip-toe around issues to make sure they don't offend anyone other than their opponent. etc. etc.

With Trump, you know exactly what you're getting.  Warts and all.

No politician is perfect.  We all know that.  But we know exactly what we're getting with Trump.

With Biden, we couldn't even figure out when he was lucid or not.

With Kamala, we can't even figure out what she's saying or if she actually answered the question at all.  How on earth are we supposed to know what to expect from her?