tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post8558856753957425629..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Rubio and CruzRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-30953002408496566592016-02-09T02:18:14.725-05:002016-02-09T02:18:14.725-05:00"And then I would place the blame firmly on t..."And then I would place the blame firmly on the laps of Republicans playing games with tactics (like Hunter)…"<br /><br />By all means blame the wrong side. Nothing like your self-defeating philosophy to empower the liberal establishment. <br /><br />"You may not like it, but not many people, including politicians, really care whether the laws are consistent or not."<br /><br />Which goes to show how stupid many voters are. But I already knew that. <br /><br />There is, however, a growing men's rights movement in this country, because many men are fed up with feminist double standards. Take the battle between feminists and gamers.<br /><br />Or take the response of some soldiers I read on a Military Times forum:<br /><br />[Quote] IF women want to serve in combat arms, and get true equality, then they damn well should also have to sign up with the Select Service, just like guys do.<br /><br />[Quote] I believe the question was (paraphrased) "Since they can fill combat roles, should they be required to register for the draft?" It only makes sense that the answer to this question be yes. Now, if the question was "Do you think women should be in combat roles?" then I might expect some differing answers, but that wasn't the question. If they said that women should be in combat roles but NOT have to register for selective service, then they would be idiots.<br /><br />[Quote]] So discrimination is ok if the women are the one benefiting? That sounds like how you are saying it.<br /><br />While i feel the same way when i see people scream that we 'need to treat women equal, but not equal'. I have and always will say, IF they want equality, then that should also include RESPONSIBILITY. Part of that responsibility is the signing up for selective service. Part of the 'equality' that goes with that is being in combat arms. If they don't want combat arms, then they don't need to worry about selective service.<br />BUT since they Do seem to want to be in the combat arms orgs, then they bloody well should be required to sign up.<br /><br />I see that as no different from 'your son is married and has 2 kids, and your son has to go off and fight a war which he may not come back from'. Or are you saying men's lives are not as important as women's lives?<br /><br />------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />So consider the male soldiers who are tired of feminist double standards. <br /><br />I'm not crazy about Rubio's answer. But in fairness, he added a crucial caveat: "so long as the minimum requirements necessary to do the job are not compromised."<br /><br />But, of course, that's exactly what's happening. Lowering standards to accommodate women. So if we really held women to the same standard as men, very few women would qualify–especially Special Ops. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-87026803215294564642016-02-09T00:39:01.689-05:002016-02-09T00:39:01.689-05:00We will have to disagree, but let me part with a f...We will have to disagree, but let me part with a few more comments<br /><br />>> There's also the question of tactical bills (a la Duncan Hunter) that put the squeeze on liberals.<br /><br />Rubio, for all apparent reasons would vote in favor of it. That's NOT what Hunter is doing. Rubio does not appear to be using a tactic at all, which is my point.<br /><br />>> The idea is to force liberals into retreat.<br /><br />I don't see that. Those liberals who really object to it would likely be in favor of a softer version where registration with the selective service for women is voluntary (didn't Christie propose something like that in the debate?). They may also be against the whole issue of selective service and the draft and try to abolish it. Or they could just vote in requiring women to register with selective service, not seeing any fallout like you do (where do you get the evidence for this "fallout" from liberals?). But they are not going to retreat from allowing women in combat just because of this. They stand too much to loose with that last option. If I were them I wouldn't retreat, nor would I see this tactic particularly damaging or frightening to my cause.<br /><br />What I think could easily happen is that Democrats would not care about it, vote to force women to register for selective service, and then say thanks to the too clever for their own good Republicans. And then I would place the blame firmly on the laps of Republicans playing games with tactics (like Hunter), and of Republicans being in favor of the liberal position (like Rubio or Bush), for now being in the worst position of all -- having BOTH women in combat AND women forced to be available for the draft.<br /><br />>> For instance, affirmative consent policies discriminate against men by denying men due process, by denying men the presumption of innocence, &c. <br /><br />That's not about to change any time soon. Hence, my point about consistency. You may not like it, but not many people, including politicians, really care whether the laws are consistent or not.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04813599592004928506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-857120967334640782016-02-08T23:59:13.133-05:002016-02-08T23:59:13.133-05:00"First, Rubio and Bush, for all apparent reas..."First, Rubio and Bush, for all apparent reasons, would vote in favor of women being drafted, and Cruz wouldn't. To me that's the issue."<br /><br />That may be the issue for you, but it's not the only issue for me. There's also the question of tactical bills (a la Duncan Hunter) that put the squeeze on liberals.<br /><br />"I am not about to vote for someone who would change the law to force my daughters to register for a possible draft. There's no excuse for Rubio being in favor of it."<br /><br />It may well be the case that Rubio is dead wrong on this issue. But you can't rationally isolate that from other considerations. <br /><br />"Second, who says laws have to be consistent? Since when is consistency a virtue in US laws?"<br /><br />You keep missing the point, because you don't think strategically or tactically. The idea is to force liberals into retreat. Make them balk. Make them admit men and women are different after all.<br /><br />And, yes, there is something to be said for legal consistency. It's called equal protection under the law.<br /><br />For instance, affirmative consent policies discriminate against men by denying men due process, by denying men the presumption of innocence, &c. <br /><br />Many Democrats who spout feminism will rebel at the idea of draft registration for women. That puts the Democrat party in a bind. Will it alienate its own constituency by treating women the same as men? This is a wedge tactic. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-31204274576186612312016-02-08T23:50:09.196-05:002016-02-08T23:50:09.196-05:00First, Rubio and Bush, for all apparent reasons, w...First, Rubio and Bush, for all apparent reasons, would vote in favor of women being drafted, and Cruz wouldn't. To me that's the issue. I am not about to vote for someone who would change the law to force my daughters to register for a possible draft. There's no excuse for Rubio being in favor of it.<br /><br />Second, who says laws have to be consistent? Since when is consistency a virtue in US laws? If it were, either abortion would be completely banned (at least for the third trimester) or infanticide would be allowed (at least for the first few months after birth). Even pro-choicers such as Peter Singer see the inconsistency -- which is why they favor the legalization of infanticide. There is no magic that happens in the birth canal to make any morally significant difference 1 day before or after birth. <br /><br />I am sure the examples could be multiplied both at the federal and state level.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04813599592004928506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-90740960860841521572016-02-08T23:28:20.520-05:002016-02-08T23:28:20.520-05:00"OK, but we are not talking about Hunter and ..."OK, but we are not talking about Hunter and Zinkie."<br /><br />That may not be what you're talking about, but that's what I'm talking about. <br /><br />"Where's the evidence that they don't intend to vote for it?"<br /><br />You're demanding evidence for something I never claimed. <br /><br />"So if Rubio and Bush are truly in favor of women being drafted, then Cruz did not miss the point at all."<br /><br />Now you and Cruz are both missing the point. We currently have a coed military. The distinction between women in combat and noncombatant roles is fairly arbitrary. Every soldier is a potential combatant. Take navel warfare. Isn't very sailor a combatant in that situation? <br /><br />So the real question is how far Cruz is prepared to reverse the whole coed military experiment. If we're going to have a coed military, and men are required to register for the draft, so should women. Hence, we need a policy that's consistent in one direction or another. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-52346957652290595992016-02-08T22:29:10.872-05:002016-02-08T22:29:10.872-05:00OK, but we are not talking about Hunter and Zinkie...OK, but we are not talking about Hunter and Zinkie. Rubio and Bush answered they would support it in a rather convincing fashion. Where's the evidence that they don't intend to vote for it? At least Hunter and Zinkie have announced their intentions (however ill advised I think their game is), but where have Rubio and Bush said they would not vote for it?<br /><br />IMO, Cruz was referring to the GOP candidates and not to Hunter and Zinkie. So if Rubio and Bush are truly in favor of women being drafted, then Cruz did not miss the point at all.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04813599592004928506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-83146327191367156322016-02-08T21:40:35.678-05:002016-02-08T21:40:35.678-05:00I've already indicated that I wouldn't vot...I've already indicated that I wouldn't vote for Christie, either in primaries or the general election. I'd only vote for Jeb if he was the nominee. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-39859734515524834972016-02-08T21:32:58.836-05:002016-02-08T21:32:58.836-05:00I'm not referring to the GOP candidates. I'...I'm not referring to the GOP candidates. I'm alluding to this:<br /><br />https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/02/04/lawmakers-introduce-bill-to-make-women-take-part-in-the-draft/stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76415085284692154672016-02-08T21:14:13.139-05:002016-02-08T21:14:13.139-05:00"Although I agree with him on the merits, his..."Although I agree with him on the merits, his statement misses the point. Liberals say women can do anything a man can do. So this is calling their bluff. Right now we have a double standard. This is a way of forcing liberals to be consistent–and make them pay a political price for consistency. "<br /><br />What evidence do you have that Christie, Bush, and Rubio do not really support a draft on women and this is just "calling their bluff"?Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04813599592004928506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79502619558694940562016-02-08T14:29:40.102-05:002016-02-08T14:29:40.102-05:00Steve, you are right on target. I agree with every...Steve, you are right on target. I agree with every single point you made. Although I rank Cruz highest in my hierarchy of potential nominees, I am not comfortable with every single issue he has spoken about. In particular, because I am living on Social Security only as my income, I am vitally concerned with fiscal policies that are discussed. His tax plan includes, apparently, a version of VAT tax. This is going to make the effective cost of living rise for all seniors. My wife and I are already squeezed enough. Rising prices put even more pressure on our budget, although we are totally dependent on Washington's opinion what constitutes inflation. I am a free marked proponent and would prefer "the fair tax" proposal, but NO candidate is championing the fair tax. No candidate is perfect, as you said. But we need to be realistic about what can be accomplished. I am also supporting the Article V Convention of States project. Hopefully this will come to fruition and cause some changes.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00729029248815671902noreply@blogger.com