Poll

Will Trump get re-elected in 2020?

Yes
No

Author Topic: POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD  (Read 2242492 times)

The best scenario is pretty much already in effect

According to studies, the majority of wartime casualties in the United States are 20 year olds. Imagine how bad an all-20 year old unit must be

Time to ban 20 year olds from enlisting. The logic behind this decision is flawless, for I have statistics to back it up! Take that 20 year old sjws, no more ruining the army with your mediocre survival rate

That's gotta the dumbest thing you've posted
The logic you're attacking doesn't even apply here you dipstuff

That's gotta the dumbest thing you've posted
thats the point- it's a post to match the stupidity of yours! flimsy logic, incorrect conclusions drawn from good statistics, clear anti sjw narrative just to drive home how non-inclusive your species of libertarianism can be

lol rated r for real men only!!! no girls allowed here!


thats the point- it's a post to match the stupidity of yours! flimsy logic, incorrect conclusions drawn from good statistics, clear anti sjw narrative just to drive home how non-inclusive your species of libertarianism can be

lol rated r for real men only!!! no girls allowed here!



Good christ I'm going to headbutt an icepick



rated r for really brother


That's gotta the dumbest thing you've posted
The logic you're attacking doesn't even apply here you dipstuff
isn't it roughly the same logical path? he saw evidence that 20-year-olds are less effective in the military than people who are older, so naturally you can assume that having more 20-year-olds would reduce the effectiveness of the military. is that not the same type of logical path you went down for women? someone posted some statistics that showed poorer performance in women, so you assumed that they would weaken the military as a whole.

in any case, the broad comparable performance from one group to another is irrelevant. one's admission to military service is/should be an evaluation of their individual merit, not the apparent merit of whatever collection of people you associate them with.

and important note: that statistic was for mixed-love units, not all-female units.

and important note: that statistic was for mixed-love units, not all-female units.
in reality it doesn't matter, if the variable factor was the introduction of women it would suffice for someone to draw broad conclusions about women in general. the idea that they should be forbidden from entry because of a comparable inferiority overall is silly though. who we admit into military service has nothing to do with how well we see people of their 'category' perform. it's always an individual effort and it makes no sense to broadly bar a group of people from entry because you think they aren't quite optimal enough

People named Dan are not allowed to work at my company.

flynn entered a plea bargain, in which in exchange for providing info on other Annoying Orange administration members (see: donald Annoying Orange and mike pence), he only got that one charge meaning that he wont be spending his whole life in prison
this'll be real interesting to watch unfold

Tbh I don't see an issue with women in combat roles. It gives incentive for the enemy to capture out troops alive instead of executing them. Even if it is to plunder their 'spoils of war'
this is kind of interesting, because the muslims fought in the middle east wouldn't surrender to female soldiers and often fought until they died or executed themselves.

It's actually hilarious how Muslims are so loveist that they'd rather kill themselves than get sent to one of Obama's 5 star terrorist hotels by a woman