SurelySerious

How are they doing?

When I was looking down the list of candidates on the ballot in the spring on issue X their positions were all the same. Then again on issue Y. And Z, and so on. It was disappointing.

The VP candidate choice does have a lot riding on it in many people’s mind. Unfortunately, from my perspective, he’s started his consideration with the 17 assembly line robots that were in the primary. Hah, I can’t imagine what whackos rise from the woodwork for the next Republican candidate, but I think if I’m the Democrats, Tim Scott is what I’m maneuvering against.

And? I don’t care about the things the Dems can’t control, I care about the thing they do, which is their nominee. And they fielded 17 robots with exactly the same view on nearly everything (that are unlikely to appeal to anyone slightly right of center), a socialist hack who scares the moderate Democrats, and a guy who they can’t bring outside.

Democratic party center of mass is not median that appeals to people on the right. He also can’t complete a sentence.

Likely.

Mmm, maybe, but ^ this is what’s actually keeping Trump’s re-election alive. WTAF Democratic party? All they had to do was offer a median candidate that appeals to a broad base that is still mentally coherent.

It’s super easy to sit back in your home country and hack a website.

Time. While there are waivers for everything, things like TPS and WIC have TIS windows, and typically FAIP puts you behind the curve.

I sincerely hope if that’s the case, they roll up the assholes with the high powered lasers first.

Aw jeez man, really got me with that one.

Wait, your edit was for punctuation? Should try again for coherence.

Why did they censor the tail code. It's not like they're everywhere. Exactly. Did you not get the new SecAF OPSEC email at 4:30 on a Friday telling us worker bees with so many ties to the media to stop leaking info?

I am trying to figure out why a specific party at a specific time has stopped an attempt to potentially work towards improving the situation. I’m not too worried about Clinton or Reagan, they’re not legislating now.

So the common ground of moral fabric generally dictates the laws of the government. Right now one grievance is improper/inappropriate/downright bad policing at various levels (local/state/federal), which aren’t meeting the expectations of many people. I thought at first glance Tim Scott’s (R) policing reform proposal from a few weeks ago looked like a good start, but the (D) wouldn’t even let it be debated from what I understand. So that makes me skeptical that the (D) party takes reform seriously. Brawnie I think it was you who alluded earlier to something along the lines of a UCMJ for police to increase accountability. Since the organizations are so varied I’m not sure that’s practical, however it is currently very difficult to hold police accountable to a high standard against the laws that currently exist due to union arbitration agreements. Even when a policeman commits what would otherwise be a crime in some instances, due to the governmental agreement with the union the court is bound to the arbitration process instead of further legal action. Essentially sweeping things under the rug. I think reducing the power of these arbitration agreements in disciplinary actions when there is an allegation that amounts to a crime would be a step in the direction of holding people to a higher moral standard. As we in the military are subject to the UCMJ because we have been entrusted to do violence on behalf of the people against enemies in upholding the constitution, hold police truly accountable to existing laws since they are entrusted with using violence to protect and defend the people domestically. From where I sit, those with the biggest share to lose, if you will, are police unions in this push. Which party has police unions in its pocketbooks, and which party has recently not taken policing reform seriously via holding people accountable? (D). This is admittedly the conspiracy paragraph, but it’s plausible.

As opposed to having them focus on being “warriors” instead of doing their job? I say have them take ownership of what they actually are.

It’s not a non sequitur when you argue that law enforcement should be held accountable according to what you view as moral instead of what is codified as law. That was your entire argument 50 minutes ago. Sure, you can say what you want, but you didn’t merely say you thought it was wrong, you argued others should be held to what you view is wrong instead of what is in the law. It does indeed follow then that we are legally accountable to the law, and not to your thoughts.

You can’t hold law enforcement accountable to your morality, only what is codified as law. If you think there is a disparity, you should lobby your elected representatives.

Legality entails the Constitution inherently, and working off of one’s own morality instead of said legality is vigilantism. If you think the laws are inadequate, you should probably consult your elected officials.

Are we to act on one’s own morality then, or within the law? Because there are plenty of things that different groups of people consider immoral that are legal.

Hagia Sophia: “Erdoğan’s decision to convert the building back into a mosque is thus a dramatic reflection of his slow but steady victory over Atatürk and his secular legacy [and reaching back to the Ottoman past]” A Better Plan for Istanbul's Hagia Sophia.pdf Ah, good. Trying to bring it back like Putin and Soviet “glory.”

Which is I think a bad position to take. As stupid as I think the destruction is, painting your own citizens as a wartime enemy isn’t good. But I also see videos from Portland where people are using guerrilla tactics trying to burn down federal buildings. Clearly some people think the USG is the enemy.

Yeah it’s pretty simple: the image of warrior isn’t helpful in recruiting when most of your people don’t do that thing because you’re probably not reaching the diverse people you need to do modern skill sets that have nothing to do with being a Ranger. Like all the cyber/comm functions that there are probably people who are really good at that we don’t attract because they don’t even bother because most marketing is of dudes running around kitted out in a desert. Yeah, the airpeople is stupid and whatever about the bodywash marketing, but the point is real. The AF is still going to get the 10% of the people it needs to actually go do combat in the skies and whatnot if it were to more accurately assess itself as mostly not-special-operators. Even the Army is 50% support. Taking warrior out of the creed (Or just getting rid of said creed) would not be the end of the world you’re trying to paint. It would probably help the 90% of desk jockeys embrace what they actually do and maybe take some pride in their work so I don’t have to learn finance every time I go TDY. Edit, and totally unrelated to the main point, this is one of the better explanations of the basic governmental relationship from citizen to the military: “I loaned away my power and right to violence to a section of government in return for protection. The military gets to be violent FOR ME in order to reduce violence overall. As part of that same contract, I need to have a role in oversight so that loan of my power isn’t abused and that my tax money is spent smartly. I execute this role by voting for representatives (as a US citizen, that’s my Congressperson, Senators, and the President) so I can go spend my time doing other things.3 This relationship means the military in western democracies are managing up to the people they are responsible to: their (mostly) civilian citizens.4 As a result, they have very different communications goals than a company trying to complete a transaction. Because of this militaries need to make sure that citizens care in an empathetic manner and have a vague understanding of the issues involving the military, so that when I go to the ballot box, or (dare I say) call or write to one of my representatives, I should have vague ideas about the military if they want me to advocate a policy preference. In return, my representatives are supposed to tell my military what to do on my behalf and provide for its needs. Otherwise, I won’t ever develop opinions that I can act on about, say, if the F-35 is a boondoggle5 or should dress shoes be made of plastic for military uniforms. And I especially need to understand these issues when my country goes to war and deploys soldiers, airmen, marines, and sailors somewhere.”

For as much as you decry ad hominem and straw man, you sure do a lot of it.

“The term warrior, as a brand marketing term for militaries in western democracies, should be permanently junked; it sells an impossible image for soldiers, marines, airpeople, and sailors to live up to while preventing the civilian population from executing its oversight function.” How many times is that in the stupid creed again, for a force where like 5% of people do war fighting and 80% sit behind a desk?