Notice how we’ve strategically avoided even mentioning vanilla. No wonder Trump won.
#AllFlavorsMatter
I said Democrats “generally don’t seem as enthused about giving [members of the military] the resources they need to do their jobs properly”. I don’t think that’s false, or “hyper” partisan although perhaps it is mildly partisan. For example, the House just voted on the National Defense Authorization Act a few days ago. Here is the breakdown of the vote:
Why did 97% of the Republicans vote for it and only 62% of the Democrats?
I strategically avoided it because I didn’t want it to turn into something like the argument about whether or not milk is racist. 
I think most Republicans idealize a color-blind society, while Democrats tend to emphasize various race/class/gender/sexual orientation group memberships (I don’t know if “identity politics” is a phrase too loaded with negative connotations for our discussion, but if you’re familiar with the phrase, you’re probably familiar with examples of what I’m referring to here). There is a sense among Republicans that some Democrats “play the race card” or unfairly accuse people of being “racist” precisely because it’s such a politically-potent attack (and one that Democrats seem to be largely immune to). That sense probably manifests itself as “avoidance” or “sensitivity” at times.
Agreed.
Because they disagreed on what constitutes “the resources they need to do their jobs properly”. Yes, it’s both false and hyper-partisan (in that it directly implies that Democrats care less about military folks than Republicans) to state it as you did. IMO anyway, though I don’t see how it couldn’t be hyper-partisan to imply that one party cares less about the military than the other.
I think most Democrats also “idealize a color-blind society”, but strongly disagree with Republicans how to get there. I think most Democrats believe that we can’t achieve that, or even get closer to it, unless we acknowledge and take steps to defang and eliminate the tendrils of racism, bigotry, and discrimination that still remain in our society. Thus policies like AA are necessary (for now) to get to that ideal “color-blind society”.
Do you have a cite for that? Did you listen to committee hearings in which Democrats thoughtfully responded to the military’s request for X number of F-35s and Y number of submarines said, “No, I’ve studied the issue closely and I think you can do it with 0.75X and 0.5Y”? Did you read statements or press releases by the Democrats that voted against stating their reasons for voting ‘No’? Or does this reason you claim just exist largely in your imagination?
Would you also say it’s “hyper-partisan” to imply that one party cares less about diversity than the other?
Do you have a cite for the committee hearings and statements from multiple (maybe all?) members of the military, high-ranking and low-ranking alike, stating in unanimous agreement that this specific defense authorization is the exact perfect 100%-correct amount of resources that they need to do their jobs?
If so, I’ll spend the time looking for individual cites for what seems to me to be incredibly obvious – that legislators might disagree on the the exact resource levels necessary for the military to do their jobs.
If not, I’ll just rely on common sense – legislators can disagree on what levels of funding are necessary for the military to do their job without any reason to believe that their commitment to the military is greater or lesser than the legislators they disagree with.
It’s pretty partisan, though diversity doesn’t have nearly the emotional (and therefore political) connection that commitment to the military does.
I served, and I’ve had people ask me how I could possibly vote for Democratic politicians while being a veteran. That shit pisses me off to no end. Wanting higher levels of funding for the military says absolutely nothing about one’s commitment to the military and its members. Literally zero.
Right, because voter ID laws so blatantly discriminatory that the courts struck them down (TX, NC) is a way of encouraging diversity.
Spare me how ‘inclusive’ Republicans are. The reason it’s a cudgel is because they fear the ‘great hordes of color’ getting to share Republicans’ precious power.
That’s not a very compelling cite, but cool, it’s your opinion, and you’re entitled to it.
I didn’t say anything about one’s “commitment to the military” I said Democrats “generally don’t seem as enthused about giving [members of the military] the resources they need to do their jobs properly”. I thought it was understood that “resources” in that context meant “funding”.
Same exact thing when you say “resources they need to do their jobs properly”. If you said “resources the military leadership requested”, it would be different. Do you understand how those two phrases are extremely different in their implications?
How could someone be committed to the military if they don’t believe in providing military members “the resources they need to do their jobs properly”?
If you provide some cites as to why the Republicans voted the way they did, and that all military members unanimously agree that this level of funding is the exact perfect level required to do their jobs properly, then I’ll spend the time to look for some cites as well.
Or you could provide some cites that Democrats voted against this bill specifically because they don’t believe in providing military members the resources they need to do their jobs – do that and I’ll probably become a Republican!
So, is this the new, improved, non-partisan?
“Now, it would be partisan and unfair to accuse the American left of hating Our Heroes, but they don’t seem to like them very much, do they? And of course they don’t actually despise America, but they don’t much care for our core values, our shared heritage of rugged individualism and free market solutions. And while they all lay claim to Christian values, they don’t seem to understand that a gated community makes 'Love thy neighbor” a lot easier!.."
Nice packaging. “New! Improved! With the electrolytes that plants crave!” is catchy. Oh, wait. Brown, crumbly, odiferous. Might be good for the rose bushes. If I had any.
You are asking for cites for claims I have not made. First off, I never claimed that “all military members unanimously agree that this level of funding is the exact perfect level required to do their jobs properly”, so why would I need to provide a cite for such an absurd position?
Secondly, I never claimed that “Democrats voted against this bill specifically because they don’t believe in providing military members the resources they need to do their jobs”. 73 House Democrats voted against the NDAA and they probably had (at least) 73 unique reasons for doing so. My statement that they “they generally don’t seem as enthused about” it was a personal observation (one that happens to be fairly common in society today, hence your past experiences with people questioning your party affiliation in light of your veteran status), not an attempt to read their minds and determine the motivation for their actions. YOU were the one that wanted to ascribe a particular motive to their ‘No’ vote (Because they disagreed on what constitutes “the resources they need to do their jobs properly”), and that’s why I asked you for a cite.
If I noticed someone typically picked chocolate ice cream when offered a choice between that and strawberry, I might say ‘you generally don’t seem as enthused about strawberry ice cream as chocolate’ without implying any particular motivation for their lack of enthusiasm. Perhaps they had a traumatic experience with that flavor of ice cream, or have a severe allergy, or just prefer that flavor. Any (or all) of those might be the reason(s), and my statement about their level of enthusiasm can still be valid.
Look, if it’ll help us move on to more meaningful discussions can we consider my post #169 amended like this:
“… giving them the resources [DEL]they need to do their jobs properly[/DEL] the military requests.”
I’ve got not particular attachment to the “need to do their jobs properly” phrasing, if that’s what you’re objecting to.
You provided zero cites that Democrats lacked enthusiasm for ensuring military members have “the resources they need to do their jobs” – just a cite for some votes about the funding requested by military leadership. You’re still equating voting for or against the bill as having anything to do with enthusiasm for ensuring military members have “the resources they need to do their jobs”. Those two things have nothing to do with each other.
That being said:
Yes, that is literally the only thing I objected to in your post (honestly, not sarcastically). Changing this removes any problem I have with it whatsoever. Thank you.
Hopefully you see the problem that I had with your statement – stating someone is lacking enthusiasm for ensuring the military has “the resources they need to do their jobs” is pretty much a direct and explicit attack on patriotism and commitment to the military, no matter your intentions.
It’s kind of like a debate about funding for SWAT and other police activities – an advocate for higher funding might try to accuse an advocate for a lower level of funding “I guess you’re just not that enthusiastic about making sure that cops have the resources necessary to prevent children from being raped and murdered…” but that’s a bullshit and unjust and explicitly political attack that has nothing to do with reality or the possibility of reasonable debate.
What if they give
more
than the military requests? Does that make them more patriotic? If the Dems are trying to give them only what is requested by the pentagon, and the republicans are trying to give them more, does that really mean that the republicans are honoring the military more?
IMHO, the increases to military spending are because it benefits those with military bases and/or contractors in their districts, and these bases and industries tend to be in republican districts. Republicans are voting to bring dollars home to their district, and it has nothing to do with patriotism or a desire to ensure that the military is properly equipped. This is not a bad thing, it means that money gets to go where it is deemed needed by the representatives willing to trade their votes out for the funding, so it is actually a very efficient way of redistributing wealth to the areas that need it the most, but patriotic, not so much.