2016 Election
Happiness is a European headed home, with an Middle Easterner under each arm : ) Religion seems to be the problemQuote: HeySlickHow many christian and jewish parents mutilate baby boy's penis's?Quote: ams288Look at Britain. 8000 known cases of Female Genital Mutilation each year and not one single person has been successfully prosecuted for it That is sharia.
Or what about: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/herpes-strikes-nyc-babies-ritual-circumcisions/story?id=18890284 this is protected practice, right here in New York.Quote:They are and never will be compatible with our culture and that's my entire point -- you and others seem to be ok with this invasion. I contend this will be a major issue for my fellow Americans in the future. BTW jihadist are the REAL problem.
Quote: petroglyphHappiness is a European headed home, with an Middle Easterner under each arm : ) Religion seems to be the problem
Religion is the problem. Especially certain religions.
Sure not all of the refugees are terrorists, but almost all have views that are incompatible with progressive values.
Westboro-type extremists are not trying to forcefully and violently, even lethally, persuade or convert me.Quote: ams288Your average Muslim is just a regular person trying to make it in life and not imposing their views on non muslims
Your average Christian is just a regular person trying to make it in life and not imposing their views on non Christians
Does the Westboro Baptist church that protests at soldier funerals represents Christians? Of course not.
Just as extreme Muslims do not represent your average Muslim in this country
But since your lack of participation prevented me from making my point, I have to do it this way.
A lot of the things we say can be taken out of context, or values can be extrapolated that don't necessarily reflect those that we hold. I kind of feel a lot of that goes on in certain topics, especially charged ones like most of this thread. It's fun to land zingers and score hollow points for your side, but the real folks here should strive for better. Props to those who pursue the latter.
Quote: HeySlickI've expressed my opinions regarding this disturbing issue --- the financial costs to America will be staggering. The real problem won't be religion. it's the jihadist/radicals within the Muslim invaders. I will not argue any longer with those who doubt what I have had to say/written regarding this troubling issue -- Have a Nice Day/or may luck be on your side.
An interesting point, and I'd agree that radicals are the ones that make life dumb. I think even the most stout pro-immigration person would have a problem if another culture demands they continue their culture here, especially when some aspects may be criminal in nature. But can you explain how the Muslim issue will be different than any of our others?
I see Muslims about, often in full robes. It bothers me, yes, but on about the same level as men's skinny jeans and women's high waisted pants. I just think it looks odd, and then I go about my life. Certainly, this isn't something that's going to destroy America. Many perform some odd rituals based on faith. A man prostrate and bowing is quite weird to me. But then again, so is eating crackers and wine and thinking it's the actual body of a man-god. It disturbs me, and then I go about my life.
The rest seems kind of far fetched. Take Sharia Law for example. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't claim faith as a get-out-of-jail free card for most (all?) criminal acts. Just ask former Dolphins running back Rickie Williams. If a wad of Muslims take hold in my town and claim is Chestnut Street under Sharia Law, then I'll likely lol. But if they try one of their own for adultery and sentence her to beheading, guess what? The minute they produce the knife, I can shoot them dead. I can run them down by car. I can produce a knife as well. I and 30 of my favorite rednecks can stomp a mudhole in all their asses. In this sense, they ain't no different than urban gangs and their violent gang initiations. It's fine that they hold to certain customs. It ain't fine when they engage in them in violation of State and Federal law. At least that's my interpretation, anyways. Feel free to pick it apart.
Will a large influx of any foreigner bring about new issues? Certainly. I just think this should be handled like any other. We don't prohibit Africans for fear of civil war and ebola outbreaks, or Columbians out of fear they're all cocaine mules, or Brits out of fear they'll eliminate handegg in favor of futbol. Any group is going to have a fringe of undesirables. Let them all in, let the cool ones stay, and stomp out the stragglers.
The msm propaganda machine is just doing it's job. It's just a distraction.Quote: HeySlickMuslims don't/won't assimilate into America --- & President Obama perpetuates the insanity
Right now the absolute monster turd in the bowl is this, the TPP; a 5544 page agreement, drawn up in secret by lobbyists and corporate lawyers
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_most_brazen_corporate_power_grab_in_american_history_20151106
https://theintercept.com/2015/11/06/ttp-trade-pact-would-give-wall-street-a-trump-card-to-block-regulations/
http://infojustice.org/archives/35309
If this trade deal passes,[treaty] which supersedes the consitution, soon followed by the TTIP and the TSA, we won't have to worry about anybody assimilating. For all intents, there won't be a USA as we know it, to assimilate to.
The TPP gives complete authority of the law to corporations, it will even supersede the Supreme Court. That is what is at stake right now. Immigration or this phony election will hardly matter.
This isn't NAFTA on steroids it is sedition on meth. To the msm that does the dirty work ala Edward Bernays,,,,watch the birdie.
The current CIC is just a tool, as stooge, a puppet....just like the one before him. It is the NWO, recognize it or not. The problems are hardly skin color, religious or sexual persuasion. If we can't recognize who we aren't even allowed to criticize , how could any public protest help?
edit; Slick, I guess I was responding whilst you were deleting? Not sure which to, or not to respond too?
There is one.
Anyone want to join in?
It's just a little Forum, not a exporential cross section, but DAMN!
Quote: TwoFeathersATLI'm pissed.
There is one.
Anyone want to join in?
It's just a little Forum, not a exporential cross section, but DAMN!
What? I've no idea what you're discussing or wanting people to join in on.
Quote: petroglyphThe msm propaganda machine is just doing it's job. It's just a distraction.
Right now the absolute monster turd in the bowl is this, the TPP; a 5544 page agreement, drawn up in secret by lobbyists and corporate lawyers
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_most_brazen_corporate_power_grab_in_american_history_20151106
https://theintercept.com/2015/11/06/ttp-trade-pact-would-give-wall-street-a-trump-card-to-block-regulations/
http://infojustice.org/archives/35309
If this trade deal passes,[treaty] which supersedes the consitution, soon followed by the TTIP and the TSA, we won't have to worry about anybody assimilating. For all intents, there won't be a USA as we know it, to assimilate to.
The TPP gives complete authority of the law to corporations, it will even supersede the Supreme Court. That is what is at stake right now. Immigration or this phony election will hardly matter.
This isn't NAFTA on steroids it is sedition on meth. To the msm that does the dirty work ala Edward Bernays,,,,watch the birdie.
The current CIC is just a tool, as stooge, a puppet....just like the one before him. It is the NWO, recognize it or not. The problems are hardly skin color, religious or sexual persuasion. If we can't recognize who we aren't even allowed to criticize , how could any public protest help?
edit; Slick, I guess I was responding whilst you were deleting? Not sure which to, or not to respond too?
I truly DON"T like to renege - if I hadn't done so i.e, deleted the previous post of mine it would've made me look/and feel like a hypocrite -- going back on my previous words saying 'I was done arguing'. Have a nice day/evening and good luck gambling.
Quote: HeySlick
I truly DON"T like to renege - if I hadn't done so i.e, deleted the previous post of mine it would've made me look/and feel like a hypocrite -- going back on my previous words saying 'I was done arguing'. Have a nice day/evening and good luck gambling.
What are the odds Heyslick will post in this thread again?
All this point counter point is just done for fun.
Its entertaining.
Don't be afraid to join in again :-)
Nothing hypocritical about posting the logic behind your views.
I had two quotes attributed to me on the last page that weren't mine. It's not that big of a deal, I just don't want people thinking I have strong feelings about Muslims invading America. Cause I don't.
-----
Anyhow, another Republican debate tonight. This one seems pretty boring so far. Ben Carson is already in a REM sleep.
Quote: ams288You people need to learn how to format quotes.
I had two quotes attributed to me on the last page that weren't mine. It's not that big of a deal, I just don't want people thinking I have strong feelings about Muslims invading America. Cause I don't.
-----
Anyhow, another Republican debate tonight. This one seems pretty boring so far. Ben Carson is already in a REM sleep.
I'm watching the WSOP final table instead of the debate tonight (they're down to 3 and figure to finish tonight). I figure you only get one of those a year. And you know, if anything gets said, it'll be broadcast wall-to-wall tomorrow.
Quote: ams288
Anyhow, another Republican debate tonight. This one seems pretty boring so far. Ben Carson is already in a REM sleep.
Have to agree with Carson. I watched for as long as I could, then turned it off.
I think Carson spoke once. I thought he would be more aggressive in the wake of recent events.
Kasich won't shut up. He jumps in constantly when it is not his turn. Comes across as too aggressive.
Trump has been ok. Nothing special.
Rubio and Cruz continue to be good debate performers. It is definitely a strength for both of them.
Fiorina and Paul don't belong on the stage in my opinion.
And then there is Jeb. lol. Jeb's entire campaign continues to amaze me and not in a good way. He started off tonight trying to show more energy, but that didn't last long. There is one very strange strategy that he is doing tonight and that is he is referencing Hillary Clinton much more than his opponents on stage.
That is a common tactic among front runners. They try to portray that they have already won the nomination and are ready to take on the other party in the general election. Problem is Jeb is NOT the front runner, he is in 5th place in single digits. This tactic seems somewhat misplaced.
We'll see what happens the rest of the way.
Quote: beachbumbabsI'm watching the WSOP final table instead of the debate tonight (they're down to 3 and figure to finish tonight). I figure you only get one of those a year. And you know, if anything gets said, it'll be broadcast wall-to-wall tomorrow.
It's now heads up. I won't spoil it for you :-X
I think it's different than for some of the lower tier candidates who never saw themselves as leading frontrunners. Jeb expected to be a front runner most of the time. He's way below those expectations.
Quote: kewljAn hour, 44 minutes in and Carson just got his second question (unless I missed something). He is the co-front runner. I would say Fox Business News isn't taking him or his campaign very seriously. :/
Or maybe they realized every time he opens his mouth something insanely stupid comes out and they wanted to do as little damage as possible to him.
Quote: ams288Or maybe they realized every time he opens his mouth something insanely stupid comes out and they wanted to do as little damage as possible to him.
Perhaps.
I didn't expect you to chime in, I'm surprised ;-)
“He looks at me and goes, ‘Um, how old are you. And I said, ‘Well I am 26, I will be 27.’ And he goes, ‘Well, that is kind of old for us.’ And then he says to me, and this is what gets me, ‘Maybe the dogs will take you,’ meaning the Army.”
–Former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton, speaking at a breakfast, Manchester, N.H., Nov. 10, 2015
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/12/hillary-clintons-claim-that-she-tried-to-join-the-marines/
In my time as a recruiter, no one was ever a "no" until there was a definite reason for it. It is tough enough doing that job without insulting potential candidates away...
I don't believe she would be known to anyone at that time. Just a random unknown person.
Quote: RonCI see Hillary brought out the thing about trying to join the Marines again. I'd like to know more about that attempt; it happened before I joined, so I can't say that "nothing like that" would have happened but I consider it highly unlikely that someone who was in the business of recruiting people to join the Marines would have given her that brush-off without some other factors being involved (there are a myriad of them that could disqualify someone even when there is a great need for people).
“He looks at me and goes, ‘Um, how old are you. And I said, ‘Well I am 26, I will be 27.’ And he goes, ‘Well, that is kind of old for us.’ And then he says to me, and this is what gets me, ‘Maybe the dogs will take you,’ meaning the Army.”
–Former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton, speaking at a breakfast, Manchester, N.H., Nov. 10, 2015
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/12/hillary-clintons-claim-that-she-tried-to-join-the-marines/
In my time as a recruiter, no one was ever a "no" until there was a definite reason for it. It is tough enough doing that job without insulting potential candidates away...
Ho Hum
She obviously had no interest in joining
She simply wanted to see their reaction to a woman trying to sign up.
Immature and childish, sure. What was her age?
The latest on Carson
Writing about medical fraud
"Why don't people steal very often in Saudi Arabia? Obviously because the punishment is the amputation of one or more fingers, I would not advocate chopping off people's limbs, but there would be some very stiff penalties for this kind of fraud, such as loss of one's medical license for life, no less than 10 years in prison, and loss of all of one's personal possessions."
That's all fine unless you are a friend of Carson and have committed medical fraud
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-11-12/ben-carson-calls-dentist-convicted-of-fraud-my-best-friend-
Hillary would have looked like this:
Maybe the recruiter gave a bad first impression, or tried to flirt. I would never mention that part, as people could take it as a crack at the Marines. Saying they didn't want her is more mild, but maybe not be the whole story either.
Quote: RonCI see Hillary brought out the thing about trying to join the Marines again. I'd like to know more about that attempt; it happened before I joined, so I can't say that "nothing like that" would have happened but I consider it highly unlikely that someone who was in the business of recruiting people to join the Marines would have given her that brush-off without some other factors being involved (there are a myriad of them that could disqualify someone even when there is a great need for people).
“He looks at me and goes, ‘Um, how old are you. And I said, ‘Well I am 26, I will be 27.’ And he goes, ‘Well, that is kind of old for us.’ And then he says to me, and this is what gets me, ‘Maybe the dogs will take you,’ meaning the Army.”
–Former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton, speaking at a breakfast, Manchester, N.H., Nov. 10, 2015
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/12/hillary-clintons-claim-that-she-tried-to-join-the-marines/
In my time as a recruiter, no one was ever a "no" until there was a definite reason for it. It is tough enough doing that job without insulting potential candidates away...
I have never been in the Marines so I can't say from personal experience. Nor, have I ever tried to join them. And, I don't know when you were in so things may be vastly different now.
But with the exception of the Coast Guard, the Marines recruit the fewest people every year, and with recent cuts they are even far smaller, so from recruiters I have talked to, they frequently turn down people on a first meeting who they don't think will be a good fit, since they recruit so few people compared to the oher branches they can afford to be pickeir and take their time with people.
However, females in all branches have a far easier time, since there are so few females currently in, the military can readily take them.
So, I don't buy it either that they would turn down an educated, qualified, healthy female, unless there is another reason they turned her down that she is not sharing.
Quote: GandlerI have never been in the Marines so I can't say from personal experience. Nor, have I ever tried to join them. And, I don't know when you were in so things may be vastly different now.
But with the exception of the Coast Guard, the Marines recruit the fewest people every year, and with recent cuts they are even far smaller, so from recruiters I have talked to, they frequently turn down people on a first meeting who they don't think will be a good fit, since they recruit so few people compared to the oher branches they can afford to be pickeir and take their time with people.
However, females in all branches have a far easier time, since there are so few females currently in, the military can readily take them.
So, I don't buy it either that they would turn down an educated, qualified, healthy female, unless there is another reason they turned her down that she is not sharing.
Maybe she was wearing a t-shirt with a peace symbol on it during the interview and they had a difficult time taking her seriously. I have a difficult time taking her seriously still.....
The Lord is my Shepherd ........Shepard?...... Sheep herder?......
In 1988, George H W Bush won 59% of the white vote, which translated in to over 400 electoral votes (270 needed to win). In 2012 Mitt Romney won the same 59% of the white vote, which was good for only 200 electoral votes. That tells you that the percentage of white vote is shrinking so incredible quickly.
In 1988, the white vote made of 83% of the electorate. In 2012 it made up 76%. In 2016, they estimate it will only make up 73%.
With this kind of data staring them in the face, the republicans need to do one of two things to stay competitive. They would need to win a larger share of the white vote to compensate. If they continue to get the same percentages of the non-white vote that they have been getting, it would take 65% of the white vote to offset that. Those are astronomical numbers not seen before. Ronald Reagan, in his two landslide victories recorded 62 and 61% of the white vote. They would need to surpass that and by quite a bit to win with today's electorate.
Second choice is to get a larger share of the non-white vote. The republicans have made no progress in the black electorate since dating back to blacks being given the right to vote. With the latino electorate, the republicans generally receive 25%.
If you stick with that 59-60% of the white vote number that republicans generally get and the very low percentages of black vote that they continue to draw, they would need 40% of the latino vote to win. That is far more than they ever achieved. The highest recent totals were George W Bush drawing mid 30 percent of latinos votes. (For some reason the bushes draw more latino support than average republicans).
So bottom line, with the white vote being an increasingly smaller piece of the pie, they need 40% of latino vote, a number never achieved. Does anybody think the tone from the recent debate of deporting 12 million latinos is going to allow the republicans to get 40% of the latino vote?
Quote: kewlj
Second choice is to get a larger share of the non-white vote. The republicans have made no progress in the black electorate since dating back to blacks being given the right to vote.?
kJ
Nice, long and thoughtful post.
But I think perhaps not entirely historically correct.
The Republican Party was the Party of the Black vote for many years, at least as I remember it. I will check the records. Hopefully they haven't been re-written, but who knows?
Quote: TwoFeathersATLkJ
Nice, long and thoughtful post.
But I think perhaps not entirely historically correct.
The Republican Party was the Party of the Black vote for many years, at least as I remember it. I will check the records. Hopefully they haven't been re-written, but who knows?
Could be, 2F. The data being looked at was more or less recent data, The later part of 1900's through today. I guess the last 40 years or so.
It WOULD be interesting to see what a black candidate on the republican ticket would do. Such a candidate surely wouldn't get 90-some percent of the black vote like Obama did, but certainly would receive a much larger percentage than republicans normally get. But I don't think this cycle or this man (carson) is the guy that is going to get that done.
By the same token, it will be interesting to see a latino on the ticket means concerning the latino vote. That is much more likely to happen this cycle and I believe the republicans are banking on that to change the latino numbers. Funny thing though, the 2 latino candidates with the best shot of landing on the ticket are both of Cuban heritage and there is an unusual divide between Cubans and the rest of the lation populations of Mexico, Puerto Rico, and central/south America.
I also believe Hillary is likely to pick a young latino running mate, probably the Castro brother that is currently in the Obama administration (former mayor of san Antonio), or possible his twin brother who is a congressman.
Quote: TwoFeathersATLkJ
Nice, long and thoughtful post.
But I think perhaps not entirely historically correct.
The Republican Party was the Party of the Black vote for many years, at least as I remember it. I will check the records. Hopefully they haven't been re-written, but who knows?
Republicans have been losing the black electorate since at least 1936 according to http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/blacks-and-the-democratic-party/ when Roosevelt captured 71%. Admittedly it wasn't till Truman that blacks started to identify more prominently as Democrats. Add to that the Southern Strategy push by the GOP and Lyndon Johnsons supporting the Civil Rights act and you have a record setting victory for Democrats with blacks when they captured 94%. Since then it has remained around the high 80s to low 90s.
Quote: TwirdmanRepublicans have been losing the black electorate since at least 1936 according to http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/blacks-and-the-democratic-party/ when Roosevelt captured 71%. Admittedly it wasn't till Truman that blacks started to identify more prominently as Democrats. Add to that the Southern Strategy push by the GOP and Lyndon Johnsons supporting the Civil Rights act and you have a record setting victory for Democrats with blacks when they captured 94%. Since then it has remained around the high 80s to low 90s.
This little quote seems fitting
"The only things worth learning are the things you learn after you know it all"
- Harry S Truman - (No period after his initial)
Quote: HeySlickQuote: TwirdmanRepublicans have been losing the black electorate since at least 1936 according to http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/blacks-and-the-democratic-party/ when Roosevelt captured 71%. Admittedly it wasn't till Truman that blacks started to identify more prominently as Democrats. Add to that the Southern Strategy push by the GOP and Lyndon Johnsons supporting the Civil Rights act and you have a record setting victory for Democrats with blacks when they captured 94%. Since then it has remained around the high 80s to low 90s.
This little quote seems fitting
"The only things worth learning are the things you learn after you know it all"
- Harry S Truman - (No period after his initial)
So the consensus is that the Black vote has traditionally gone Republican "since that vote was allowed"?
Which was my point.
Quote: GandlerI have never been in the Marines so I can't say from personal experience. Nor, have I ever tried to join them. And, I don't know when you were in so things may be vastly different now.
But with the exception of the Coast Guard, the Marines recruit the fewest people every year, and with recent cuts they are even far smaller, so from recruiters I have talked to, they frequently turn down people on a first meeting who they don't think will be a good fit, since they recruit so few people compared to the oher branches they can afford to be pickeir and take their time with people.
However, females in all branches have a far easier time, since there are so few females currently in, the military can readily take them.
So, I don't buy it either that they would turn down an educated, qualified, healthy female, unless there is another reason they turned her down that she is not sharing.
I have been out of the Marine Corps for nearly as long as I was in but I was in recruiting for a very long time and I don't remember anyone ever being turned down JUST for being a bad fit right off the bat. That was not exactly a luxury we had; the quotas always meant everyone got the benefit of the doubt until they were found to be disqualified or simply just wasting our time. Times do change and numbers in the force have been reduced, but what usually happens in those cases (needing fewer people or having more applicants than needed) is that the standards go up.
For example, in hard times we would accept Cat IV applicants in low numbers; but even in those same times we would rarely accept a Cat 3B female because the demand for females was low enough to allow for a higher standard. Same thing with HS Grads, GEDs, and non-grads--the better the times; the less of the lower qualified people that were accepted. Keeping the standards high is important, but readiness is more important.
ASVAB "AFQT" of 50 or above was golden (Cat I-IIIA), 31 to 49 (Cat 3B) was held to mostly around 33%, and Cat IVA (21-30) was a very low precentage when allowed. Those lower than 20? No go.
HS Grads were most often 100%; the lowest I recall was around 90% with the rest being GEDs and fewer few 10th grade completions.
Officer qualifications were, of course, higher and I would expect that is what she was looking at given her education level. It is a tough gig--for example, the EASIEST physical training I saw while working with candidates in Officer Candidate School was above the level of most of that seen in Recruit Training. I had to do the same training as an Enlisted Instructor; it was tough and should be--these folks that come out as officers will lead Marines. They need to be damned good to deserve that opportunity.
So there you have it. I have a vast amount of experience in the field of recruiting and a decent amount in the acquisition and training of officers. I find it far more likely that--if the conversation with a recruiter or officer selection personnel ever took place--she disqualified herself by mentioning something that made her ineligible (something as innocent as "I have asthma and can't run a mile without severe shortness of breath and an inhaler" is easily enough to screen someone out). There are a lot of other factors that can disqualify someone...and we were taught to screen to disqualify but reality is that there was still a quota to meet.
My opinion, after hearing dozens of stories about "why" people were turned down, all making themselves look good and the Corps look bad, is that she mentioned something that was disqualifying and is leaving that part out, that she decided not to pursue it and she is embellishing her story to make herself sound good (instead of just saying that she did not want to pursue it), or that she made a flippant attempt and was wasting someone's time.
My opinion is, of course, just like everyone's and I have no "facts" on her actual case. I am a little more versed in the process than most here, though...for whatever that may be worth...
Quote: RonCI have been out of the Marine Corps for nearly as long as I was in but I was in recruiting for a very long time and I don't remember anyone ever being turned down JUST for being a bad fit right off the bat. That was not exactly a luxury we had; the quotas always meant everyone got the benefit of the doubt until they were found to be disqualified or simply just wasting our time. Times do change and numbers in the force have been reduced, but what usually happens in those cases (needing fewer people or having more applicants than needed) is that the standards go up.
For example, in hard times we would accept Cat IV applicants in low numbers; but even in those same times we would rarely accept a Cat 3B female because the demand for females was low enough to allow for a higher standard. Same thing with HS Grads, GEDs, and non-grads--the better the times; the less of the lower qualified people that were accepted. Keeping the standards high is important, but readiness is more important.
ASVAB "AFQT" of 50 or above was golden (Cat I-IIIA), 31 to 49 (Cat 3B) was held to mostly around 33%, and Cat IVA (21-30) was a very low precentage when allowed. Those lower than 20? No go.
HS Grads were most often 100%; the lowest I recall was around 90% with the rest being GEDs and fewer few 10th grade completions.
Officer qualifications were, of course, higher and I would expect that is what she was looking at given her education level. It is a tough gig--for example, the EASIEST physical training I saw while working with candidates in Officer Candidate School was above the level of most of that seen in Recruit Training. I had to do the same training as an Enlisted Instructor; it was tough and should be--these folks that come out as officers will lead Marines. They need to be damned good to deserve that opportunity.
So there you have it. I have a vast amount of experience in the field of recruiting and a decent amount in the acquisition and training of officers. I find it far more likely that--if the conversation with a recruiter or officer selection personnel ever took place--she disqualified herself by mentioning something that made her ineligible (something as innocent as "I have asthma and can't run a mile without severe shortness of breath and an inhaler" is easily enough to screen someone out). There are a lot of other factors that can disqualify someone...and we were taught to screen to disqualify but reality is that there was still a quota to meet.
My opinion, after hearing dozens of stories about "why" people were turned down, all making themselves look good and the Corps look bad, is that she mentioned something that was disqualifying and is leaving that part out, that she decided not to pursue it and she is embellishing her story to make herself sound good (instead of just saying that she did not want to pursue it), or that she made a flippant attempt and was wasting someone's time.
My opinion is, of course, just like everyone's and I have no "facts" on her actual case. I am a little more versed in the process than most here, though...for whatever that may be worth...
Your post is worth a lot, IMO. Very much appreciate you taking the time to give us hard facts.
I was at loose ends after getting my BA, working only sporadically in my field. The Army was recruiting, so I went to talk to them. I took whatever the tests were called, hoping for a Warrant Officer post in recreational activities, which they encouraged. After they looked at my results, they said that might be possible someday, but my MOS would be crypto as that was what they needed, and I had the skills/aptitude. However, I did not fit their height/weight table requirements (though I was in VERY good shape) and would have to get there before I could be inducted. In the mean time, I was offered a position in my field in Minneapolis, and accepted that instead.
I mention that to suggest that perhaps she did not fit within their scale as well, which IMO was on the skeletal side for women at that time (this was 1981 for me; I think hers was 1976? so contemporaneous), and how do you bring that up from either side of the conversation? It might at least be a factor given the vague information about why she didn't join in the end.
Quote: beachbumbabsYour post is worth a lot, IMO. Very much appreciate you taking the time to give us hard facts.
I was at loose ends after getting my BA, working only sporadically in my field. The Army was recruiting, so I went to talk to them. I took whatever the tests were called, hoping for a Warrant Officer post in recreational activities, which they encouraged. After they looked at my results, they said that might be possible someday, but my MOS would be crypto as that was what they needed, and I had the skills/aptitude. However, I did not fit their height/weight table requirements (though I was in VERY good shape) and would have to get there before I could be inducted. In the mean time, I was offered a position in my field in Minneapolis, and accepted that instead.
I mention that to suggest that perhaps she did not fit within their scale as well, which IMO was on the skeletal side for women at that time (this was 1981 for me; I think hers was 1976? so contemporaneous), and how do you bring that up from either side of the conversation? It might at least be a factor given the vague information about why she didn't join in the end.
Your story is the kind of thing I alluded to--in your case, genuine interest but not being within the standards for joining for whatever reason. I am uncomfortable with her way of telling the story because most stories are like yours; someone who is interested but ineligible at the time they attempt to join.
The way she tells the story, it makes some people wonder about "why" she was turned down and she also makes an allegation of a Marine behaving in unprofessionally without anyone being able to get the other side of the story.
This is something that would have been better left unsaid...
Quote: RonC
The way she tells the story, it makes some people wonder about "why" she was turned down and she also makes an allegation of a Marine behaving in unprofessionally without anyone being able to get the other side of the story.
I have no doubt Hill went in there with the intention of trying to embarrass the military
I'm sure she had no intention of joining.
Just was in an anti-military mood and went in trying to push buttons to get a reaction she could use against the military
Is it right.
Of course not. But its not terribly wrong. More of a prank.
I know Hill is no angel.
Considering she was a young adult, I chalk it up to immaturity.
Curious. Have you seen this kind? Somebody coming in but not really wanting to join, just wasting your time.
Quote: terapinedI have no doubt Hill went in there with the intention of trying to embarrass the military
I'm sure she had no intention of joining.
Just was in an anti-military mood and went in trying to push buttons to get a reaction she could use against the military
Is it right.
Of course not. But its not terribly wrong. More of a prank.
I know Hill is no angel.
Considering she was a young adult, I chalk it up to immaturity.
Your take may well be the way it happened; it seems plausible to me. The question I have, if it was the case, why would the person who wants to be Commander in Chief bring this up at this point? I know she mentioned it sometime before this but I don't really see a good reason to regurgitate it now.
Quote: terapinedCurious. Have you seen this kind? Somebody coming in but not really wanting to join, just wasting your time.
There were people who would challenge why we served but I don't remember any obvious cases of someone wasting my time. The thing I did see was people who acted like they wanted to join but just couldn't do it in the end. I think they were sincere but, unless someone makes it obvious, who knows... It is quite possible that more of this happened in the midst of the Vietnam War, which was before my time. I didn't get to recruiting until almost ten years after the end of Vietnam, so the whole anti-war protest thing was over at that point (at least for that conflict).
But now I am wondering how 'successful neurosurgeon" is even defined. ??? The "gifted hands" doctor performed 4 attempts to separate conjoined twins and consulted on a fifth case. Only one set went on to live what is considered a normal life. The other four cases ended in death or severe disability (to the point of institutionalized lives) of one or both twins.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/11/13/siamese-twin-separation-that-launched-ben-carson-fame-ended-poorly-for-twins/miZSU7XaINfDWFXWsfYLDO/story.html
Quote: kewljI have never really understood how being a very successful neurosurgeon qualifies someone to be president.
But now I am wondering how 'successful neurosurgeon" is even defined. ??? The "gifted hands" doctor performed 4 attempts to separate conjoined twins and consulted on a fifth case. Only one set went on to live what is considered a normal life. The other four cases ended in death or severe disability (to the point of institutionalized lives) of one or both twins.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/11/13/siamese-twin-separation-that-launched-ben-carson-fame-ended-poorly-for-twins/miZSU7XaINfDWFXWsfYLDO/story.html
I think first or pioneering procedures get a little more credit even with results that usually not as good as later standards. First heart transplants, etc., didn't have long lasting results in the beginning.
First human heart transplant person only lived 18 days, but still considered a milestone procedure more than a failure.
But if there is any merit at all to this the republican establishment better wake up. They keep saying "it's early" and "none of these polls matter". It may be early, like in the first half of a football game, but when you are down 3 touchdowns, it begins to matter. :0
http://news.yahoo.com/trump-surges-among-likely-republican-primary-voters-reuters-213521679.html
Quote: kewljBut if there is any merit at all to this the republican establishment better wake up. They keep saying "it's early" and "none of these polls matter".
The Republican establishment has been in pure panic mode for a while now. They know they are in trouble.
But Trump's numbers are YUGE. There's not really much they can do to stop him...
The "Republican Establishment" will get shaken up in a way that perhaps it has needed to be shaken up for a while. Too many people feeling too entitled to "their" place in the party and not keeping those who are Republican but don't see everything the same way. Their treatment of the Tea Party is one example--at the core of the reason people supported the movement was that it was a conservative movement in a party that has gone too moderate to liberal over time.
Note I said the reason people supported it--we've had all kinds of debates about how it started and even accusations of things that did not occur at rallies--the people supported it because it represented a potential shift to more conservative positions that they wanted to see.
The Democrats do a better job of tossing up a big tent and keeping people involved across the spectrum of support. The Republicans have failed at that, in my opinion. The Democrats do shift their positions from moderate to liberal but it is more with the flow of the folks in the party where the "Establishment" has maintained more control of the direction of the Republican party.
I'm okay with a shake up. I don't really want a President Trump OR a President Clinton, but some results are deserved based on the way things have been run over time. In this cycle, pushing JEB!! too hard has made him look more imperial than Presidential, instead of letting him run on his merits and seeing what happens. NO ONE really wants a candidate forced down their throat. Then there is talk of the "Romney Option"--let's trot out someone else if our establishment candidate can't win--that should be a non-starter.
Maybe defeat of the establishment will crush the Republicans forever, as some liberals here have said that they think will happen. I tend to think it will lead to major changes and a better party over time. There will always be a need for at least two parties and it is important enough to a large group of people to not allow Progressives, Liberals, and Statist types go too far. It is just that those things aren't important to enough in leadership at this point to make them risk their positions...so they might need to be ripped away!
Quote: RonCI have been out of the Marine Corps for nearly as long as I was in but I was in recruiting for a very long time and I don't remember anyone ever being turned down JUST for being a bad fit right off the bat. That was not exactly a luxury we had; the quotas always meant everyone got the benefit of the doubt until they were found to be disqualified or simply just wasting our time. Times do change and numbers in the force have been reduced, but what usually happens in those cases (needing fewer people or having more applicants than needed) is that the standards go up.
For example, in hard times we would accept Cat IV applicants in low numbers; but even in those same times we would rarely accept a Cat 3B female because the demand for females was low enough to allow for a higher standard. Same thing with HS Grads, GEDs, and non-grads--the better the times; the less of the lower qualified people that were accepted. Keeping the standards high is important, but readiness is more important.
ASVAB "AFQT" of 50 or above was golden (Cat I-IIIA), 31 to 49 (Cat 3B) was held to mostly around 33%, and Cat IVA (21-30) was a very low precentage when allowed. Those lower than 20? No go.
HS Grads were most often 100%; the lowest I recall was around 90% with the rest being GEDs and fewer few 10th grade completions.
Officer qualifications were, of course, higher and I would expect that is what she was looking at given her education level. It is a tough gig--for example, the EASIEST physical training I saw while working with candidates in Officer Candidate School was above the level of most of that seen in Recruit Training. I had to do the same training as an Enlisted Instructor; it was tough and should be--these folks that come out as officers will lead Marines. They need to be damned good to deserve that opportunity.
So there you have it. I have a vast amount of experience in the field of recruiting and a decent amount in the acquisition and training of officers. I find it far more likely that--if the conversation with a recruiter or officer selection personnel ever took place--she disqualified herself by mentioning something that made her ineligible (something as innocent as "I have asthma and can't run a mile without severe shortness of breath and an inhaler" is easily enough to screen someone out). There are a lot of other factors that can disqualify someone...and we were taught to screen to disqualify but reality is that there was still a quota to meet.
My opinion, after hearing dozens of stories about "why" people were turned down, all making themselves look good and the Corps look bad, is that she mentioned something that was disqualifying and is leaving that part out, that she decided not to pursue it and she is embellishing her story to make herself sound good (instead of just saying that she did not want to pursue it), or that she made a flippant attempt and was wasting someone's time.
My opinion is, of course, just like everyone's and I have no "facts" on her actual case. I am a little more versed in the process than most here, though...for whatever that may be worth...
I was turned down of my original branch of choice some years ago (not the Marines, and not going to say which) because of my politcal involvment against a certain activity that they do, and they said at this time they couldn't take me because of my activism.
So I talked to the Army and they didn't care at all and I joined.
I only mention that anecdote to illustrate branches can and do turn people down if you are politcally active in a way that they deem incompatible or damaging to their image. So it is a possibility her membership of certain groups may have had a impact. Or it could have just been some random medical issue.
But regardless of what may or may not have happened, it's irrelevant overall, she is a terrible canidate and a terrible person.
Quote: GandlerI was turned down of my original branch of choice some years ago (not the Marines, and not going to say which) because of my politcal involvment against a certain activity that they do, and they said at this time they couldn't take me because of my activism.
So I talked to the Army and they didn't care at all and I joined.
I only mention that anecdote to illustrate branches can and do turn people down if you are politcally active in a way that they deem incompatible or damaging to their image. So it is a possibility her membership of certain groups may have had a impact. Or it could have just been some random medical issue.
But regardless of what may or may not have happened, it's irrelevant overall, she is a terrible canidate and a terrible person.
There were certain things you could not be at the time; those are disqualifying factors and not just someone telling her to go away because of her looks or something irrelevant. For example, you can't be a conscientious objector and join the service. I would suppose that open activism opposing what the military does or stands for would merit disqualification--why would you allow people in who are either making you look bad or opposing what you do? Still, for what she said to happen SHE had to SAY or DO something that caused the person to believe she was disqualified. Exactly what you did and you were turned down--you were an activist against something they did--not a good fit because you are at odds with the service you considered.
Judgement does have to be exercised by recruiting personnel--bad judgement is what causes most recruiting scandals. Good judgement would not have a recruiter saying go join the "dogs" even if the person was deemed disqualified. We have rivalries between services but the last thing i needed as a recruiter was to be reported for being nasty to an applicant. Not saying that it couldn't have happened, just that there is no real point to her even using this story.
Quote: RonCThere were certain things you could not be at the time; those are disqualifying factors and not just someone telling her to go away because of her looks or something irrelevant. For example, you can't be a conscientious objector and join the service. I would suppose that open activism opposing what the military does or stands for would merit disqualification--why would you allow people in who are either making you look bad or opposing what you do? Still, for what she said to happen SHE had to SAY or DO something that caused the person to believe she was disqualified. Exactly what you did and you were turned down--you were an activist against something they did--not a good fit because you are at odds with the service you considered.
Judgement does have to be exercised by recruiting personnel--bad judgement is what causes most recruiting scandals. Good judgement would not have a recruiter saying go join the "dogs" even if the person was deemed disqualified. We have rivalries between services but the last thing i needed as a recruiter was to be reported for being nasty to an applicant. Not saying that it couldn't have happened, just that there is no real point to her even using this story.
I agree, assuming her story even happened at all, all we can do is speculate on why they turned her away. So it's not really important, the fact that she is a horrible politician (well techically I guess she is a good politician, which is why it's horrible) and a mean person is reason enough for me to never vote for her. I honestly would rather see Bernie Sanders than her, even though I disagree with him on almost everything economically, at least he is honest, and has a reasonable view on guns.
Quote: GandlerI agree, assuming her story even happened at all, all we can do is speculate on why they turned her away. So it's not really important, the fact that she is a horrible politician (well techically I guess she is a good politician, which is why it's horrible) and a mean person is reason enough for me to never vote for her. I honestly would rather see Bernie Sanders than her, even though I disagree with him on almost everything economically, at least he is honest, and has a reasonable view on guns.
I am really still trying to just figure out WHY she said it at all--I don't see how the anecdote helps her in any way. Does anyone?
Quote: RonCI am really still trying to just figure out WHY she said it at all--I don't see how the anecdote helps her in any way. Does anyone?
I know I say this a lot RE: Fake Hillary Scandals, and I sound like a broken record, but.....
Who cares?
This anecdote doesn't help nor hurt her. You'll never be able to figure out if it is true or a lie. So again.... Who cares?
Certainly not someone who rips into Dr. Carson's autobiography.Quote: ams288I know I say this a lot RE: Fake Hillary Scandals, and I sound like a broken record, but.....Who cares?
