nothing said so far changes my position in agreeing with the expert.
This is not just about being combat effective (though it does in part) but rather being a distraction.
I have to think the distraction is minimal while under fire but rather the everyday life is what worries me and worries the experts. I don't care what you say about

Trained competent soldiers do not allow themselves to be "distracted" .
Trained competent offficers do not tolerate distractions.

our military is comprised of people, regular human beings who get distracted by human nature things like sex. You can no doubt train them to be less distracted but human nature is what it is. If the expert says they are a distraction, I trust what they have to say over what you want to believe.

and the example that women were a possible distraction in law or medical school, of that I have no doubt! Of course they were but that distraction was not in a military operation were they? I was in a math class one spring day in 10th grade, a new student (male) had just transferred in to the school from an all boy Catholic school. He asked me how could I get anything done with so many pretty girls wearing halter tops (it was the 70's) all around? Yeah, we were distracted! It wasn't combat, it wasn't life or death, it was freaking math class!

GMTom wrote:our military is comprised of people, regular human beings who get distracted by human nature things like sex. You can no doubt train them to be less distracted but human nature is what it is.

Spot on.

As I said previously, military personnel fall heavily in the 18-25 age bracket. Show me one of those that isn't distracted by sex and I'll show you an abnormal person.

Combat efficiency is determined before combat. Unit cohesion is established before combat and (hopefully) enhanced during combat.

To think these units can be socially experimented upon and have no negative effects is pure folly.

To change gears for a moment....

I just heard from old Newt G that Giuliani was offered at least 3 positions under Trump but declined them all. He said he only wanted Secretary of State.

It also doesn't look like Blip Romney will get the nod from the bullpen either.

Now he's looking at a guy who ran Exxon, Rex Tillerson.

I like the fact that he seems to be taking some time with this pick. It's a crucial choice. Of course they all are.

I hope he gets it right.

dag

But wait, I forgot, we're not living in a democracy, so I guess it doesn't matter what we do. Only the filthy rich will be able to run for president, financially supported by the filthy rich and their lobbyists and re-inforced by a filthy rich media on either side of the spectrum. It's a miracle the country even continues to operate. Perhaps a tribute to local politics I don't know.

Doesn't his cabinet look like a kleptocracy to you Dag?
The same people Trump railed about, the same filthy rich lobbyists are being put in place...how did the hand grenade work out?
Putins candidate is there to enrich himself. He's even making money off the secret service ....

Ricky,

I'm going to let you in on a secret. Don't tell anyone.

Politicians lie to get elected.

And its still early to see if the grenade will go off or not. Can you at least give the man a little rope before hanging him?

dag

Politicians lie to get elected.

And you knew he was lieing all along did you? Which lies were acceptable?

What effect do you think the Trump hand grenade is going to have?

rickyp wrote:dag

Politicians lie to get elected.

And you knew he was lieing all along did you? Which lies were acceptable?

What effect do you think the Trump hand grenade is going to have?

#1 it heaped shame upon your poll-loving head.

#2 it kept the biggest kleptocrat in history from becoming President.

#3 it will put our military in order.

rickyp wrote:dag

Politicians lie to get elected.

And you knew he was lieing all along did you? Which lies were acceptable?

What effect do you think the Trump hand grenade is going to have?

Obviously neither Mrs. Clinton's or Mr Trump's lies were acceptable to Dag, as He voted for Stein. Same with me as I voted McMullin.

Seems clear to me...

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Ricky,

I'm going to let you in on a secret. Don't tell anyone.

Politicians lie to get elected.

And its still early to see if the grenade will go off or not. Can you at least give the man a little rope before hanging him?

He is not really helping himself much though, is he?

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:dag

Politicians lie to get elected.

And you knew he was lieing all along did you? Which lies were acceptable?

What effect do you think the Trump hand grenade is going to have?

#1 it heaped shame upon your poll-loving head.

The nationwide polling was not that inaccurate - comparing to the Nate Silver projection, Hillary was down less than half a point, Trump up by just over a point and Johnson was down by nearly 2 points.

All well within the 3% usual standard variation.

What was wrong were the state-wide polls, and there will be a post-mortem on those. But even so, none of the states that Trump flipped had more than a 6% Dem lead in the polling projection either. So again within the 3% tolerance of standard 1000 respondent polls.

#2 it kept the biggest kleptocrat in history from becoming President.

Let's not be too sure about that. Trump seems to think he can carry out his Presidential role in parallel with his business interests. All that stuff about how Hillary was too close to Goldman Sachs, and he's appointing Mnuchin, Bannon and Cohn to cabinet level posts?

Wall Street and big business are getting a lot out of this. Not sure Main Street America will do so well as a result.

#3 it will put our military in order.

Really?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:dag

Politicians lie to get elected.

And you knew he was lieing all along did you? Which lies were acceptable?

What effect do you think the Trump hand grenade is going to have?

#1 it heaped shame upon your poll-loving head.

The nationwide polling was not that inaccurate - comparing to the Nate Silver projection, Hillary was down less than half a point, Trump up by just over a point and Johnson was down by nearly 2 points.

All well within the 3% usual standard variation.

What was wrong were the state-wide polls, and there will be a post-mortem on those. But even so, none of the states that Trump flipped had more than a 6% Dem lead in the polling projection either. So again within the 3% tolerance of standard 1000 respondent polls.

#2 it kept the biggest kleptocrat in history from becoming President.

Let's not be too sure about that. Trump seems to think he can carry out his Presidential role in parallel with his business interests. All that stuff about how Hillary was too close to Goldman Sachs, and he's appointing Mnuchin, Bannon and Cohn to cabinet level posts?

Wall Street and big business are getting a lot out of this. Not sure Main Street America will do so well as a result.

#3 it will put our military in order.

Really?

Rickyp, like most liberals, was so distraught he could not post for a month.

My interest was, and is, schadenfreude. Watching Valerie Jarrett meltdown and seeing the Democrats refuse to accept the results has been terrific.

As for #2, I'm sure. No one ever self-enriched via government office quite like the Clintons.

Re the military, I am certain Mattis is all the assurance I need. He's all about having the right mission and executing that mission.

fate

As for #2, I'm sure. No one ever self-enriched via government office quite like the Clintons

They made their mney after office.
You apparently haven't followed the financial successes of post presidential Reagan, or the Bushes. Like the Clintons, the speaking fees, publishing royalties, and board memberships and consulting gigs piled up... (Especially for the Bushes. )
Cheney was also remarkably successful in enriching himself. Bill and Hillary did nothing wrong in taking speaking fees and board memberships
Trump, on the other hand, was making out fine even in the election.
He takes self dealing to a new level.

.

Dubya made an absolute killing out of his involvement in the Texas Rangers deal. That happened before he came to office but it was very much the result of back-scratching from his father's political cronies. This sort of thing is almost certainly a lot more common than we'd like to think.

rickyp wrote:fate

As for #2, I'm sure. No one ever self-enriched via government office quite like the Clintons

They made their mney after office.
You apparently haven't followed the financial successes of post presidential Reagan, or the Bushes. Like the Clintons, the speaking fees, publishing royalties, and board memberships and consulting gigs piled up... (Especially for the Bushes. )
Cheney was also remarkably successful in enriching himself. Bill and Hillary did nothing wrong in taking speaking fees and board memberships
Trump, on the other hand, was making out fine even in the election.
He takes self dealing to a new level.

.

Please. No one has ever done it like the Clintons.

She was at State and lining up the bucks for when she left. Bill's fees were never as high as when she was at State. She made big bucks because countries "knew" she was going to be President and they wanted to be on her good side.

As for Sass' claim, again, apples and atom bombs. The Clintons sold access. They were pros at quid pro quo.

We shall never see their like again--in terms of scale.

Trump named Rex Tillerson--the CEOof Excon, the guy that made a deal worth an estimated 300 billion dollars with Russia, received a medal from Putin--as Secretary of State. This follows Trump's already cozy relationship with Putin and Russia's interference in our election and hacking into DNC and Clinton campaign emails.

And by the way if we're a weak and powerless country then Russia interfering in our elections is no big deal. Otherwise, why isn't it an act of war when another country tries to manipulate who gets elected in our country? I guess we are so polarized that another country deciding who gets elected in our country is ok so long as it's the guy we like.

All the nonsense about the Clintons being corrupt but there was no indication that they were ever influenced by foreign interests that donated to the Clinton Foundation. The same cannot be said of Trump whose campaign was full of people tied to Russia and now nominates a guy who has huge economic interests that could be affected by what Putin does. How did Trump even get his name? Did that name get suggested by one of his people with ties to Russia? As Trump would say, this is really bad.

I don't think Trump makes it through his 4 year term without getting impeached. Selling out our country so that he can benefit himself and his family. Disgusting. Sure, Tillerson the guy heading the oil company with a 300 billion dollar oil deal with Russia with no diplomatic experience was just a random pick. And there is no outrage. I don't get it.