RBG’s dead and Mitch is gonna do it
- Thread starter Revnak
- Start date
There are two feminist positions on the draft: make it universal or abolish it entirely.
A conservative asshole trying to introduce making it universal had to vote against his own proposal. Shockingly, the same white dude *also* opposes women being in combat to begin with, so I get a two-fer by only posting one link:
Women should be eligible for the draft, commission recommends
The 11-member commission’s report was briefed to the Pentagon on Monday and will be presented to the White House and congressional staffers Tuesday.www.politico.com
A proposal to expand the draft to include women was first introduced in 2016 by then-Rep. Duncan Hunter, a vocal opponent of women serving in combat, in an unusual episode during negotiations over the annual defense policy bill. Hunter offered the amendment as a dare, and voted against his own proposal.
Women make up a majority of eligible voters in the US. They currently have and spend much more money than do men. They are able to get laws passed requiring bigotry against men. Example: In California, when forming corporate boards, by law, they are required to engage in bigotry against men.
If women want to get a thing legislated for themselves, they can and will do so. 95% of combat deaths are male? They could easily get that to 50-50. It isn't what they want.
Marginally, they do.
As an aside, rich people make up a tiny, insubstantial fraction of the US population. Clearly, they have little or no political power.
To be fair, I think a whole bunch of people want it 0-0 because all these forever wars are pretty pointless.
Also, women can vote all they want. They cant make laws here's who can. Trump's, Obama's and Bush's cabinets
I wonder if you can notice a pattern...
How Trump’s Cabinet picks compare to Obama and Bush’s nominees
After campaigning on a platform dedicated to shaking up Washington, Donald Trump has selected Cabinet members who come from Congress, the military and the corporate world. Most of the positions are subject to confirmation by the Senate. See who Trump has chosen and how they compare with the...
www.latimes.com
Because these are the guys who actually determine whose allowed to serve
I would think even if we can get out of these stupid forever wars, there will still be casualties. They happen even in training. Getting that number closer to 0-0 would be laudable though.To be fair, I think a whole bunch of people want it 0-0 because all these forever wars are pretty pointless.
Also, women can vote all they want. They cant make laws here's who can. Trump's, Obama's and Bush's cabinets
I wonder if you can notice a pattern...
How Trump’s Cabinet picks compare to Obama and Bush’s nominees
After campaigning on a platform dedicated to shaking up Washington, Donald Trump has selected Cabinet members who come from Congress, the military and the corporate world. Most of the positions are subject to confirmation by the Senate. See who Trump has chosen and how they compare with the...
Because these are the guys who actually determine whose allowed to serve
USA
Actually the President/Executive Branch cannot make any laws. Only Congress can actually make laws or change existing laws:
"All legislative power in the government is vested in Congress, meaning that it is the only part of the government that can make new laws or change existing laws. "
The Legislative Branch | The White House
Established by Article I of the Constitution, the Legislative Branch consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate, which together form the Unite
And even though women are more than half the population, women ONLY make up 25 % of the Senate and 23 % of the House. So yea, this idea of women controlling much of anything right now is beyond absurd.
Last edited:
IIRC, in one recent year, the US Army had something like 90 casualties in training (something high double digits). Don't remember the year or the exact number, as the point the person was making was that half of them were from handguns.
Double digits doesn't seem that bad, comparatively.
What you need are nice, short, in-and-out snappy wars like Grenada and Panama.
“When I'm sometimes asked when will there be enough women on the Supreme Court and I say, 'When there are nine,' people are shocked. But there'd been nine men, and nobody's ever raised a question about that.” ~Rruth Bader Ginsburg
Is it bad that I wish this would happen, if for nothing else, but to see men who are terrified of the idea of women simply doing what men have done throughout history completely lose their shit? It would be rather hilarious tbh. It wouldn't be the woman's fault that the men had strokes and heart attacks at the mere idea of women actually finally being equal to men.
Not to mention the people claiming that they don't care about gender, they just want the most qualified people, and it's just a coincidence/science that that's always men if we assume a meritocracy.
Then, they suddenly are against meritocracy when they find out that most valedictorians are now female.
"Nationally, 70 percent of high-school valedictorians are girls."
Though this is STILL not represented in top schools, as top schools still often discriminate against women:
"But it’s a different story at many of the nation’s top private colleges. Yale, for instance, has had higher acceptance rates for men than women 14 out of the last 15 years. Vassar College’s acceptance rate in 2018 was 35 percent for men versus 19 percent for women. At Georgetown, it was 18 percent for men and 14 percent for women. At my alma mater, Brown, it was 10 percent for men and 8 percent for women."
Why it’s much easier for men to get into the Ivy League than women
Bernice Sandler, “the godmother of Title IX” who passed away on Jan. 5 at age 90, had one big regret about the landmark law she helped enact. Though Title IX makes it illegal for colleges to discri…
nypost.com
It is pretty difficult for them to claim their admissions are merit based when their admissions numbers do not match the national statistics for merit.
So now you're against affirmative action?Then, they suddenly are against meritocracy when they find out that most valedictorians are now female.
"Nationally, 70 percent of high-school valedictorians are girls."
Though this is STILL not represented in top schools, as top schools still often discriminate against women:
"But it’s a different story at many of the nation’s top private colleges. Yale, for instance, has had higher acceptance rates for men than women 14 out of the last 15 years. Vassar College’s acceptance rate in 2018 was 35 percent for men versus 19 percent for women. At Georgetown, it was 18 percent for men and 14 percent for women. At my alma mater, Brown, it was 10 percent for men and 8 percent for women."
.Why it’s much easier for men to get into the Ivy League than women
Bernice Sandler, “the godmother of Title IX” who passed away on Jan. 5 at age 90, had one big regret about the landmark law she helped enact. Though Title IX makes it illegal for colleges to discri…
It is pretty difficult for them to claim their admissions are merit based when their admissions numbers do not match the national statistics for merit.
That has nothing to do with elite institutions discriminating against females. There were still more black females who were valedictorians than there were black males.
So whats their excuse this time? I thought they wanted to make sure that judges wouldn't be appointed until after election so that the murican peoples voices are heard.
So far, a handful of reasons I've seen are shit like "it's the president's duty to fill the position as quickly as possible." "the voice of the people need to be heard about this." and tons of other bullshit they are tossing up to try and hide their hypocrisy on the subject. Because they don't actually give a shit about their constituency, they just know they can use them to push their own self-serving agendas.
I want political parties to be abolished. They never get anything done and it's incredibly tribalistic.
I think the US is too big to function without representational democracy, and in such a system representatives will naturally group together based on mutual interests. I think the solution, not the ideal solution because I don't have any idea what that might be, would be to implement a multi-party system like the ones seen in Europe. As it currently stands people are forced into just two parties and it is really easy to get polarized, but if you had ten parties you'd have the parties you agreed more or less with on certain issues but still disagreed with on other issues.
Yeah, people try to get rid of parties, but it just doesn't work.
Preferential voting allows more parties, though in Australia we've still only got 2 really viable options (Labor and the Liberal/National coalition), with the Greens way below either of them.
I'm not sure that I follow. Do you think Ivy League schools accepting higher percentage men than one would expect based on merit is a good thing?