re: Don't trust the johnny come lately "the left left me" newcomers

quote:

---

quote:
many “republicans” have fallen victim to extremeism in the past several years. We can’t let them take the party with them.


So you took a good hard look at both parties and this is what you came up with?

---

I was a member of the anti-war free speech left during the Bush administration. Now, all of the virtues I fought for (individual liberty, anti-censorship, civil rights, privacy, better working conditions) are championed by the right, and the villains I fought against (Dick Chaney, big business, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush, Karl Rove, the Koch Brothers) endorse the left.

I didn’t change my values, the parties did.

quote:

---

None of these have anything to do with true conservatism.

---

Well, that is either a lie or a True Scotsman fallacy. You'd have to type more for me to figure out which.

quote:

---

Trump’s midnight pardons of 3 war criminals degraded trust among the military and our allies who count on us to uphold the law when times are tough.

---

Or the move gave actual soldiers confidence that they could engage to win without worrying about pencil pushers second guessing their decisions.

I don't know enough about what those people were convicted of to know who was right on that one, but if we're going err with the military I would damn sure rather err on the side of winning than not. If that makes me an "extremist," then I really don't care.

quote:

---

Trump’s SECDEF pick wants to essentially remove women from the military, or at least make them second class citizens.

---

Nope. He wants to remove them from combat roles.

There are 178 countries in the world with active duty militaries.

There are 74 countries in the world who allow women to serve in those militaries in any capacity.

Only 13 allow women to serve in combat roles.

Since only 13 out of 178 countries allow women in combat roles—by definition—it is an objective fact that the extreme point of view is to have women serving in active combat roles and the mainstream view is to not allow them to serve in combat roles.

And it's not debateable. Just get a dictionary and look up the relevant words.

quote:

---

I say: "I'm sure that's a remarkable woman who does that. But who cares, how does it serve the core mission special operations?"

---

The fact they’re a man, or woman, shouldn’t matter and it hasn’t for years now. Women who meet the qualifications are serving in those units. Those who don’t, aren’t.

Hegseth is the one making it about sex.

He’s on the wrong side of history, and I think that is what will ultimately keep him from getting confirmed.

quote:

---

The fact they’re a man, or woman, shouldn’t matter and it hasn’t for years now. Women who meet the qualifications are serving in those units. Those who don’t, aren’t.

---

I can't speak from experience. All I know is hearing the pretty universal refrain from the combat arms community that women in units require additional work, lowered qualifications and can create stress/tension/etc.

But, beyond that, I don't think there is any question that far fewer women than men can become effective in combat roles. I think all reasonable people would agree. I assume - reasonably - that the military spends money to promote these roles to women for equality purposes, expends funds to open pathways for them, to accommodate women in what historically (and in most situations, currently) are overwhelmingly male - and all to what end?

Candidly, I have no skin in the game in keeping women out of combat. I don't care about the end result (whether they are/aren't) other than to the extent it makes it more difficult/dangerous for others to do their jobs. What I do care about is the broken mindset of placing these various priorities - ensuring pathways to women, DEI, trans sexual harassment training, etc. - alongside the fundamental mission of these organizations. I think it's pretty insane we're even talking about it, TBH.