Prozac
-
Posts
1,714 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
37
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Everything posted by Prozac
-
I simply answered your previous question. I didn’t even mention Biden in my response. I purposely referred to a “hypothetical alternate president”. That could’ve been a President Rubio, a President Cruz, a President Bush, Obama, or yes a President Biden. I believe that any of those choices would have chosen a unifying and coherent message vs Trump’s bombast and gibberish. This is a case where “being presidential” absolutely matters and would have led to a far more cohesive national response. Do you dispute that Trump’s rhetoric was damaging?
-
Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that Trump’s policy response was identical to a hypothetical alternate president. You don’t think that rhetoric alone can have a net positive or negative effect on a crisis? I’m sorry but the guy who publicly advocates injecting bleach into the population writ large does not promote confidence from said population. This “only policy matters” take is a cop out by those trying to justify placing an utter moron into the highest office in the land to themselves. Yes, policy matters, but so does character. “The ends justify the means” has never been a morally effective argument in this country. The character of our leaders is a pillar of what has allowed the United States to (rightly) claim the moral high ground for most of its existence and may be the most devastating casualty of the last four years.
-
Don’t we have a kitty here somewhere that requires a donation when you say that name out loud? I hope you at least spit on the floor after typing that.
-
I see “@JRubinBlogger” making some sort of statement about a “list”. I don’t know who she is, nor do I give two fucks about what she says. You stated “AOC is calling for a list of names of those who supported the current President according to her recent Tweets”. I still see no evidence of AOC calling for said list.
-
Source/link?
-
We agree. I don’t believe we’re yet at a point where equal opportunity truly exists though. The fixes for this can be complex, messy, and imperfect.
-
^ Fitting, considering who was at the controls. The giggling crowd members are perfect. Someone should put this on DF’s Wikipedia if it’s not there already.
-
Perfectly reasonable response. I think you’re wrong and you’re thinking tactics not strategy, but I absolutely understand where you’re coming from. I think I would enjoy a conversation over a beer or six with you on the topic. 🍺 🍺 🍺
-
I was really hoping for Klobuchar as the running mate. Hell, I think a Klobuchar/Buttigieg ticket would’ve been highly preferable to what we got. I really hope the lesson both parties take from this election is that America wants them to moderate. The pessimist in me says they will just double down though. The R’s have seen how a populist cult of personality can charge their base, and the D’s will likely conclude that a more progressive candidate would’ve led to the gains in congress they’d hoped for. It’s kind of depressing.
-
This is a valid question and a tough one. At best “affirmative action” is a deeply flawed short term bandaid applied to an issue that requires a far broader and more nuanced response in the long run (see Jazzdude’s post above). I think it’s sort of a necessary evil in the current environment. Others will disagree and have some valid reasons for doing so. To answer your question directly I’ll be (admittedly) somewhat hypocritical in my response: If I am picking the people that I will have to fly in difficult conditions with, you’re goddamn right I’m going to pick the most capable regardless of race, sex, etc. If, however, I am a policy maker responsible for the long term health of a military service, I’m likely going to apply some artificial selection criteria to help ensure some level of diversity for all of the reasons mentioned in my previous post. Like I said, it’s a flawed and temporary solution. But sometimes a flawed solution is better than no solution.
-
Fox News should be cancelled! Oh, wait, wrong set of easily outraged, over emotional snowflakes.
-
One point to add to my prior post: I’m not saying we can’t have a discussion on the best way to accomplish racial equality. I happen to believe that affirmative action programs are a key part of a broader overall strategy that includes investment in education and community outreach. There are certainly many valid strategies or combinations of strategies out there, but just accepting that our pilot force is racially misrepresented is the wrong answer.
-
It matters because when you have an institution that does not reflect the society it represents, you have problems. You could argue that the military is different. You’d be right to say, for example, that the majority of the population is obese and that doesn’t work for the military. Those kinds of arguments hold no water when it comes to race though. Like it or not, the US military has made racial equality a priority since the Eisenhower administration. One of the reasons the American public has a high amount of trust in their military is because it, at least in theory, represents a cross section of themselves. The faith of the American population is a key factor in long term combat effectiveness. If you look at the big/long term picture, we are playing chess not checkers.
-
Honestly, I think AOC gets far more media attention from FOXNews and Breitbart than from most “mainstream” sources.
-
If Biden does win this election, as it is looking like he will, this should be a wake up call for legislators of all stripes. Yes, Trump managed to effectively mobilize his base, but the majority of the country does not want a bombastic pathological liar in the White House. Great. However, as you mentioned, if Biden wins it will be by a very slim margin. Hardly a mandate as you say. It looks like Dems will at best eke out a tie in the senate and not much will change in the house. I’ll be honest; I was hoping for voters to punish the Republican Party for their unabashed support of Trump and force the party into introspection and change over the next four years. That didn’t happen. The American people have indicated they are not willing to give the Democrats a free hand to pursue what many fear will be radical policies. Fair enough. The message is, then, we’re done with Donald Trump but that doesn’t mean we’re ready for Bernie style “Democratic Socialism”. What the American people need now is for the parties to take a step back and understand that the “mandate” from the voters this time around is that we need them to find a way to cooperate and compromise. We are such an equally divided country it’s time to realize that a razor thin political advantage does not equal a mandate. The only way forward is to recognize the legitimacy and desires of the other side and try to find common ground wherever it exists. Am I hopeful that will happen? Not really. If Trump loses he will litigate as long as he can and will continue to whine about it until the day he dies. Many, many of his supporters will eat it up and the US Government will be forever illegitimate in their eyes. Not good. The only truly positive change I think will take place will be the fact that we won’t have a president who constantly attempts to inflame the American population. It’s a start I guess.
-
Do you speak like that to people in the real world or are you a keyboard cowboy? Wondering what your credentials are as I have a hard time believing your douchieness levels would be tolerated by professional aviators. So far you’ve brought fuck all to the conversation other than to tell us what a badass Bear Grylls you are. Cool bro. Shouldn’t you be back on the farm or some shit? I hear that’s a lot of work and you sure seem to have a lot of time to sling shite insults on the inter webs.
-
Isn’t it up to the person making bold claims to prove them? I really don’t understand this argument. It’s like me saying Mike Pence is a child molester. I have zero proof to back that up, but you have zero proof that he’s not. It just doesn’t work that way and it’s patently outlandish.
-
Where is your land? How many hectares....um, I mean acres? Number of animals on said land? What do you grow there? Is it fertile? We must get this information to AOC ASAP so your land may be incorporated into a collective for glorious Socialist Republic of United States comrade!
-
1st female Air Force combat vet in run for congress
Prozac replied to F-15E WSO's topic in Squadron Bar
Yes. He goes by Congressman here. He hasn’t posted much here lately though I can’t say I blame him. Any moderately intelligent person in public life probably doesn’t need to be prolifically posting on message boards. Associating with the p baseops.net crowd (or just military aircrew in general) too much is likely seen as a bit crass in a lot of Washington circles. Regardless, even though I don’t share a whole lot of views with him, I’m glad he’s there, along with the likes of Duckworth and Crenshaw. We need more like them. -
1st female Air Force combat vet in run for congress
Prozac replied to F-15E WSO's topic in Squadron Bar
Our very own Congressman perhaps? AFAIK he was a stand up dude when he was in and seems to be acquitting himself in congress fairly well so far. -
Pence was pursuing an anti gay agenda as Governor of Indiana right up until his VP nomination. There is no evidence any of his views have changed in the last four years. To the second part of your post, I wholeheartedly agree. Various religions should be free to practice as they see fit barring illegal activity. I can’t see any scenario where courts would back any attempt to dictate moral views to a religious institution.
-
My union forum had to shut down any and all political speech. It’s amazing how low grown men and women will go, thinking they are getting their point across. One of the reasons I would support mandatory national service is that it mixes people from all walks of life and forces them to work together. Along the way, you learn to respect differences in opinion and culture, even though you may not share them. We need more of that right now.
-
I agree 100%. We could start a whole thread on how outdated the idea that the government should be incentivizing marriage is.
-
Disagree. Pushing your particular religious views onto the population as a whole is anathema to American values. No one is forcing Mike Pence to marry a man. No serious person is suggesting that his relIgion should change it’s beliefs. He is free to practice as he sees fit. Actively attempting to deny an entire segment of the population of rights the rest of us enjoy is certainly treating them poorly and is a shitty position to take.
-
Agreed. Much better debate all around. I don’t see it moving the needle at all though.
