I wouldn't call 15-17% pregnancy rates for women on ships as "horrible" or an "unintended" consequence. Sailors doing the dirty and women getting pregnant is a given, especially cooped up on a ship. This comes with the territory of a mixed-gender force, and progress can be made tailoring the logistics to lower the pregnancy rate.

Pregnancy is a part of life. Only women can get pregnant. Stating these facts doesn't come close to proving that women in the force is a net negative. Especially when the Navy already pulls sailors off of shore leave early because critical billets are unfilled.

Now come asechrest.  I was kind of tracking with you on this issue until this post.  I think you’re either being naive or haven’t read about the impact of a significant number of women getting pregnant on ships.

It is no small matter when you have to pull a woman off a ship, especially a nuclear vessel that could be at sea for half a year without needing to dock.

A nuclear aircraft carrier is not a college dormitory.  The interaction between the teams and need for esprit de corps is mandatory to maintain a combat footing.  Interpersonal and sexual relationships interfere with that.

Saying “this comes with the territory in a mixed gender force” is an answer given by sociologists, not warriors who’s job it is to win a war, not conduct social experiments.

I used to have a woman work for me who was a Lt. Commander in the Naval Reserves and flew MH-60 Seahawks.  When in active duty she flew these off destroyers in anti-drug ops off South Africa. She was a tough cookie. Her husband was retired Navy. In the reserves they would fly from Jacksonville to Bath, Maine to test weapons systems when they put out a new Destroyer.

While working for me she became pregnant.  The navy let her continue to fly until the earlier of (a) 7 months or (b) when her survival gear no longer fit.

She stopped flying around 5-6 months, but for neither of the reasons above. She stopped because her crew mates were doing HER jobs for her, like climbing on top of the aircraft for preflight inspections. They were being gentlemen and didn’t want her to fall in her pregnant state.  That’s gallant in a peacetime reserve setting, but could disrupt union cohesion when the shit hit the fan in a combat footing, especially on a vessel.

Back to the OT of the thread: Bernie's age doesn't bother me. Yes it's a liability, statistically speaking, but statistics don't address the individual. He has always seemed sharp and I've seen nothing in his recent public appearances to suggest cognitive decline. My problem with Bernie is his policies (Medicare for all would be a disaster in this time of $22 trillion debt), his narrow focus on economic inequality (he lives in a left-wing populist world where the common man is good and big business the epitome of evil), and the fact that he can't discuss international affairs intelligently to save his life, my main takeaway from the Clinton-Sanders debates in 2016.

So far there hasn't been an announced dem candidate I could vote for. They're mostly left-wing extremists pushing Sanders-style "democratic socialism", not a real centrist in the bunch. Sad. I'm still very lukewarm to Trump and much of what he does scares the crap out of me, but he has grown into the job more than I expected, and I'd have to hold my nose and punch his number on the ballot if the alternative were any of the current crop of Dems.

My long-shot hope is that a moderate Republican (maybe someone like Kasich - definitely NOT Weld) successfully challenges Trump in the primaries. I realize it isn't likely to happen unless Trump does something REALLY disastrous, but I'm afraid our next President is going to be a socialist if it doesn't. Heck, I strongly suspect that if the Dems had gone for Bernie, we would have a socialist in the WH now.

Primarying a first term president is the best way to elect the opposition party.  Too much money, resources, volunteers, and strategy is wasted beating your primary opponents before you ever step foot into the general.

Any GOP primary candidate knows this, and if they get into the game, you will know they’re playing for the other team.

Ahh, I see.  I didn't see that it was put up with private funds, though if it is maintained by the state then the state is participating in the establishment of a religion.  If its maintained by private individuals then that argument is moot.

No, the first amendment does not mean the US has to be free of religion.  That honor goes to China.  It does mean that the government can't choose favorites, though.

What part of “Congress shall pass no law” is confusing to you?

Just take a look at Menendez.  He’s got a penchant for under age girls, and goes on sex holidays to the DR.  No problem, he gets re-elected.

Last week I literally saw Melendez on TV talking about the immorality if the wall.

Let that sink in.

Never say never.  I predict he’ll re-emerge.

They always do. These charges are a resume enhancement for liberals.

Probably not.  His political career is over, and she's a rug muncher, like Hillary (probably with Hillary) anyway.  She's probably after Valerie Jarrett, or Michelle Obama at this point.

Thanks for ruining breakfast asshole.

But you’re probably right.

Do you beleive border security is a national security issue or not?  What is the President's role and responsibilty in these matters of national security?

Trump’s role as Commander in Chief under the Constitution provides broad authority for him to fulfill his obligations to protect this country.

Comparing this to Obama using EOs to grant DACA recipients status is not anywhere near the same. Any comparison is infantile.

^^^This. The problem is: “doing something about it” has consequences- known consequences- devastating economic consequences. All for a hypothetical and unproven future benefit.

Even if the science is “science”, the ”cure” is pure religion. Not politics, religion. We are asked - TOLD - that surrendering our liberty and our treasure to the government is mandatory in order to cure the planet, and anything less is effectively murder. And we are being told this not by scientists, but by politicians who have no more knowledge of this topic than my English Labrador.

So pardon me if I say “Fuck you” when you (basically the left, not you Rush) call me a science denier. I don’t deny science, I reject what this MMCC religion has done to science.