How Obama Will Lose My Vote In 2012 (DADT Discussion)

It'll suck, but it's still the terrible trap our system leaves us in: lesser of two evils and all that.

Having the judicial branch of the government impose what the military can and cannot do opens a large can of worms. Furthermore, the military could just say the law is on the books, and we will follow it until it isn't.

Traditionally the Courts have been deferential to the military on relevant cases. They recognize that the laws that apply universally to American citizens do not always translate into an organizxation like the military, which has readiness and operational concerns. This result would not have happened in any court outside Cali, I'd bet.

That said, the rest of Nordling's post represents the issue President Obama faces. The Congress screwed up their last, best chance to do something about DADT. It is unlikely that the next Congress will do anything, since it will lean more right. So this represents a way to get what he wants, but not the way he wants it. And it will probably be temporary, until the SCOTUS gets hold of it. Hardly the big victory.

Finally, the military is currently in the midst of a study on the issues facing integrating gender preference. These are probably minor in an office building...but they will not be inside the military organizations, where you live, eat, sleep, shower, and shit with your co-workers. You need to make everyone comfortable, or it affects unit morale and effectiveness. Sure, he could say "Fuck Them", but that is hardly the smart route to go for any politician. So he might want to see the military study before deciding to fiat out of DADT. As an example, we are about to put women on submarines. Sounds simple, right? Just carve out some berthing. But there is no room for berthing, so this will cost money. Women get out of the military more, so the net results of costly training will be fewer officers kept for the amount trained (and nuclear training...not cheap). So training will cost more. The atmosphere is extraordinarily unsuitable for fetuses, having higher amounts of CO than usual (which displaces oxygen). No big deal for grown men and women, but a huge deal for developing fetuses. So any pregnancy will result in immediate removal of the affected crewmember at sea. Which costs money. Of course, there is a gain, you have a larger talent pool to draw from. But there are hard issues here, and they require study, analysis, and thoughtful recommendations.

It will be the same for integrating homosexuals openly into the military. It's not an easy problem. Fixing the law is easy, but making it work is hard. Maybe it is worth waiting for those recommendations before pushing a policy that may have negative effects in the short-term.

And I despise DADT. I spoke against it before it was even enacted, in 1993, when I was serving in uniform. I consider it un-American. But considering how all Constitutional rights are limited in the military (for everyone), I see the "freedom of speech" component of the ruling specious at best.

That said, this might be the only way to dump DADT in the near-term. But I disagree that the issue is as clean as Nordling believes. I do believe the military should have a voice in removing the policy (not in the decision to do so, but in the HOW).

Yes, Nordling. Go ahead. Once again make an important discussion all about you.

Will you even be able to type that PM, or will it be too hard for you to see?

Just a note here: The Navy has already comprehensively researched the issue and found that homosexuals are at least as capable as nonhomosexual soldiers. The study also found that integrating gays into the military would create very little "upheaval" among those already serving. I can't recall how to find the report, but I know I read it in law school.

Rath is still very angry. Masturbate a bit!

LD, I think this is the study you're referring to?

Hey, at least this douchebag didn't cry every time a trailer for a kid's movie came on TV.

Jeez, guys. Going for the throat a bit, aren't we?

I mean, carry on if you like. But sometimes it's good to take Martin's advice.

Just no eye-gouging.

Clouds getting burst left and right up in this motherfucker.

WTF? Christ, man.

And Alan, all I can suggest is that whatever your decision, just please remember that a single-issue vote can have unintended consequences.

I'm pretty sure the one I'm thinking of is quite a bit older. I graduated in 2006, but the study had been around for a while. Although, the points made by this study are also good ones.

It should be emphasized...not that anyone is really paying attention to the debate, that First Class wasn't saying that eliminating DADT is a bad idea. I was just pointing him/her in the direction of some relevant info. (and pointing quite poorly at that)

Just a typo from LD, I'm guessing. I just figured I'd be the irritating goof to point that out.

As for the study I posted above, it's apparently just one of many similar studies over the last few decades. Of course, those are just facts, which don't hold a candle to rhetoric.

Exactly what the hell is wrong with you? Every thread I've seen you post in for the past month has consisted of you saying incredibly cruel and overall dickish things to people with little or no provocation.

Whatever the fuck your problem is, stop taking it out on other people on the boards. It's borderline trolling.

lol

It's not really a mystery or anything. Rath's always been a bit of an asshole.

The only way this is going to get done permanently is an act of Congress. Anything else and DADT will become a political football--if Obama were to declare it over by presidential order, the next Republican president could (and let's face it, would) simply reverse the decision by same. And so on, ad infinitum.

Until then, I think the Justice Dept. kind of has an obligation to fight for the laws on the books, even if the stated preference of the administration runs counter to that law. I read this this morning, and it kind of crystallized why that's important:

Macken, I'll respond to you in PM shortly, but I guess I was just surprised that Nordling went there. I know he knows, as I do, what it's like to lose a parent to a long, slow illness, and the devestating effect that can have on a child, whether that child is grown or only five.

That being said, serious question:

Okay, Alan, you've taken your stand. Now what are you going to do?

Are you going to contact your Senator and Congress member to urge them to urge President Obama to do what you want?

Are you going to donate money to the many progressive groups who are trying to lobby the majority party into taking a stand on gay rights as well?

Are you going to, instead of scraping together the money to attend BNAT this year, rally for gay rights instead?

Have you ever?

I'm sure you're a big believer in "one vote, one voice" and voicing your support or disdain at the ballot box (me too), but there are just so many things you can do to help if you believe this strongly, if you believe, as I know you do, that gay rights are the civil rights movement of our time. So here's my challenge to you, and you don't have to take it, but here it is:

Put up or shut the fuck up.

There we have it ladies and gentleman. Rath of all people is encouraging folks on the CHUD message boards to stop using hyperbole and put their money where their mouths are.

I don't believe I was using hyperbole; I thought it was a pretty reasoned response to Nordling's declaration that he was taking a stand on this single-issue. (To be fair, I have a single issue that weighs who gets my vote above any other, and that's abortion. Kali ma can of worms kali ma...)

I don't love the guy, but I loved Bill Maher's line about "when it comes to voting it's important to know the difference between a disappointing friend and a deadly enemy."

Got to agree with CHUD's resident wise man on this one

I can't pretend I am not enormously frustrated (and in places, outright angry) with our President, but if you're in a swing state and would risk inflicting President Palin (or whatever backwoods neanderthal will get the GOP nomination) on this country over your pet issue, that's despicable and you're doing a great disservice to your nation.

Sorry, just MHO

Alan, I have not read the decision, but if this is an instance of making bad law for good reasons then the Department of Justice may have to appeal. Not because they disagree with the immediate results, but because of the implications of the precedent being set. The article you linked ignores this very strong possibility (probably because most people don't understand/contemplate the power of precedent in our legal system).

I agree in principle with Nordling's ideology, but this is just another example of moral issues being an influential factor in an election. Don't vote for Obama because he lied to the country about military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, put together a cabinet comprised of an unprecedented number of Wall Street cronies and lobbyists, flip-flopped on more than half of his campaign promises, or expanded federal "State Secrets" laws to torture and suppression of the media, not because he may have cold feet over the religious right's reaction to gays in the military (which needs to be scaled down to begin with).

ETA: Need another reason?

You mean you don't agree with Rath's view of, "If you vote based on issues that personally affect you, you're a faggot."?

Wow, what a total and complete mischaracterisation of my point, matches.

Just the way I interpreted it.

If gay people want to openly serve that's fine with me, but as a former soldier I would advise against it. DADT is wrong, and it's a relic of an attempt to "protect the culture" or the military. But if we're aiming for perfect world then can someone please explain to me why a military is needed in the first place? Oh yeah, it's human nature to kill and inflict violence on one another. With that in mind I wish luck to the first soldier who reveals his sexual preference to his platoon prior to taking an open shower.

This planet has a long way to go.

I'm not voting for either of you guys at this point.

Here's that rant the quote I mentioned is from (skip to 2:30 and please, please close it before he puts on the pimp outfit). Nice rundown of this administration's accomplishments so far.

I may respond to the rest of your post in a little bit, but I don't want to derail. But I was kind of busting your balls about the fact that you have this tendency -- and I have done this before -- to take issues that are worth discussing and make them all about you, and what you think. I just thought it was funny rather than start a basic DADT thread, you chose to put your opinion right there in the title.

Then you went for the mom crack. Only then did I go for the throat.

It's tough though, when it is put like that it seems like an obvious no-brainer to go with the candidate who on the surface appears to be the lesser of two evils, but they spend their entire lives creating an artificial surface to shove down the people's throats. Personally "voting for the lesser evil" makes me feel as scummy as voting for the greater evil.

So we can't have opinions here?

It's okay, I guess. I owned a Dashboard Confessional album.

I still own them all.

And Rath I meant no malice in my simple interpretation of your posts. I was just surprised by the force with which you smacked Nordling down.

Ever? I believe you've used it often on the boards in general. Not to pile on, Rath, but you've stirred up quite a bit of self-centered drama around here, especially in the supposed "good ole' days" of yore. You're the last person that should be complaining about someone talking shit on the boards. Complain about Nordling attacking your mom, I understand that I guess. But you basically called him out for taking issue with the president over something important to him, then insulted him for crying, then turned around and asked him to take a stand on something rather then just post about it --- (on a movie message board), all while acting under the odious assumption that he hasn't. You used to have "I'm leaving forever" meltdowns all the time. Who are you to tell someone they have to man up and do what they say rather then post about it?

The same claims can be made for you. Have you ever until this moment encouraged someone to get off CHUD and contact their congressman, sign up for phone banks or marches, provide links or any other information of the sort? Do you see what kind of a bullshit slippery slope that is?

Heads up. It didn't sound pretty reasoned at all. It sounded petty and mean spirited.

Rath and Nordling, keep the personal attacks out of here. It's a volatile enough topic.

DADT for some, tiny American flags for others.