|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Only females or minority groups are allowed to have exclusive activities with where their gender or other status is the determining exclusion. It's just how it works. Myself, I generally don't see the need nor have the desire for such. But I'm not sure exactly why the same standard should not apply across all strata. If there was a 'just us girls' gaming group, I'm pretty sure it would not be considered to merit negative attention.
I thought you said context matters earlier.
Freehold DM wrote:
I agree it's loaded, but which is better, a slow reduction in killings over the next 10 years, or that 10th year suddenly achieving the goal? Ex:
I say this because we aren't going to solve the issue this year and have a perfect year next year. We've had a strongly racist system for 400 years, you're not going to stop it and reverse it on a dime. It has momentum. I think we've mostly stopped the momentum, but we still need to turn it around and get it going the other way. It's going to continue to take time and energy. I would guess it takes us at least another generation.
There are grandchildren of slaves and slave owners alive today. S%@# like this doesn't go away fast.
I heard part of a RuPaul interview recently. He was suspicious of claims that LGBT rights had come a long way, or that things had been normalized. His comment was that in the 70's, gay men actually made significant process in acceptance in the rest of society, but then disco died and the AIDS epidemic came along and all that was wiped away.
I don't think that progress is linear; there are times we regress, sometimes significantly. I think the best we can hope for is to make progress, and even if regression happens, the progress puts us in a position to make either faster or bigger progress next time. We need to admit the times we take a step back and realize it's inevitable that that happens at some point.
Anything fits any term as long as you're allowed to make up your own definition.
I define dogs as things that live on land that are capable of swimming. Using that definition, penguins are dogs. You might disagree with my definition, but that's how I use it.
See how that works?
So really, the answer to my question from before, is no, you don't actually have any evidence of bribery, because you aren't allowed to make up definitions of things to suit your argument.
Violence favors the oppressor even more. It allows them to legitimize their own use of force and grip onto their oppressive tactics harder.
If you insult me and I punch you, you'd probably feel entitled to defend yourself. If you do use violence, now I also feel entitled to violence.
Non-theoretical example: post-9/11, the US didn't take a step back and collectively say "Oh s&, we must have pissed someone off, maybe we should examine our behavior." We looked around for something to bomb.
Violence begets violence.
Statistically this is born out in the rest of the world as well. Non-violence has about a 50% effectiveness of large amounts of change and nearly 80% of at least moderate change. Violence has about a 20% effectiveness of large amounts of change and rarely if ever results in moderate change. By change, I mean changing the situation to more closely align with the acting groups ideals.
Do you have evidence of actual bribery?
This is a reason I don't really care about debate analysis, most of it is lodged in the ideology of the person saying the analysis. I'd offer my own, but see above.
I hope some people found it useful and actually gained information on the candidates, how they think and how they behave.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
The religious argument was used for roughly 200 years, first to allow slavery, then to continue discriminating after slavery. You can claim it's a hard sell, or that it's not "true christianity", but the fact remains that the claim WAS made on religious grounds routinely.
As a country we've actually decided this, you're not allowed to discriminate based on race. It doesn't matter why you want to discriminate on race, you're just not allowed to do it (with a couple of exceptions, such as using it to inform college admissions demographics, but even this is still contested). The reason for this is pretty simple: if you are excluded from basic economic participation in society, you are essentially being excluded from society.
If you can't get a loan, buy food or work, because you are being excluded based on some discriminatory belief, you are being excluded from society. This is a concept that is already legally accepted and applied in our society. It's not okay to discriminate based on broad social concepts. You can refuse to sell to someone for specific reasons, like they're being disruptive and mean, but you can't exclude them for fundamental aspects of their being (like skin color, gender, religion, etc).
The question then becomes what qualifies as these fundamental aspects of being. We've now added "sexual orientation" to that list as a society. It's not an issue of religious freedom, because religion isn't being discriminated against, but rather being used as a determining factor of what discrimination is allowed. The thing is that this form of discrimination isn't allowed, so the religion is irrelevant.
If discrimination were allowed in this form, then religion would be a valid method of determining what you would discriminate.
Use some examples from Fox News and tell me that's not already happening.
I think the marches and protests have to evolve. Here in Minnesota, they've started disrupting major economic targets and I think that's the way to go. Disrupt the airport, freeways, anything that represents millions of dollars a day. Shut it down, or even just slow it, and you force people to listen.
Last year BLM did a head fake towards the airport, then hit the Mall of America (it's a big deal here, during the Christmas lead up we get a LOT of out of towners shopping here, as far away as Iceland when times are good). They've shut down the biggest freeway once as well. Hit the elites in their pocket book and they can't ignore you.
By "getting along", do you mean "look the other way while Putin does whatever he wants"?
Lowering interest rates can help promote growth as it makes money easier to move and more available to fun new business ventures (expansion or completely new). The problem is that it can create an abundance of cash, leading to inflated demand. Word choice there was intentional, because the fear is inflation. Essentially, phantom growth that only appears because money (borrowing) is cheap.
The economy is actually getting to a better place than we've been led to think. Wages last year actually grew significantly for the low and middle class. There are some surprising demographics that had big jumps, I don't remember the specifics though, so I'm loathe to name them, but some included high school drop outs.
Even with this growth happening right now, we're not seeing inflation. Since inflation is the primary danger of cheap borrowing, if it's not manifesting, there's no reason to raise interest rates.
I agree that the economy isn't as good as we'd like or could be, but it's gotten better than the political rhetoric would lead one to believe.
So, I used to think that Jill Stein might be a loon, but at least we agreed on some fairly progressive ideas. Turns out, she thinks that in the problems between the US and Russia, Putin is completely innocent and just reacting to an overmilitarized US.
While I agree that the US foreign policy is too militaristic, Russia (or rather Putin) is not the world's savior.
Jill Stein thinks that a man who has journalists assassinated is a good partner for protecting human rights.
Ahem... it's "embiggen". I don't know why; it's a perfectly cromulent word.
snipped for brevity
GWL, you're looking at the wrong aspect of my commentary. I wasn't talking about who controls the presidency. I was taking issue with the term "standard one term democrat". In the modern era, when people say something like that, they are referring to Jimmy Carter, since he's the only democrat in nearly 147 years to only serve one term.
A sample size of 1 is not a trend.
Yup, couple more I missed. No, JFK doesn't count. Particularly if you're trying to establish "standard one-term Democrat". There are no similarities with Jimmy Carter, for example, on why they both didn't receive second terms. If you compare JFK's approval ratings with just two term presidents, he comes out very favorably (he has one of the highest while in office) and probably would have won a second term.
The term "standard one-term Democrat", or similar insinuations get thrown around quite a bit.
You've got Polk, Van Buren, Pierce, Buchanan, Johnson and Carter. I could see an argument of consistency in the period from 1837 to 1869, that something about Democrats and how they ran the country led to them having one term. But then you have a 106 year gap, and I don't think we can draw a lot of parallels between Carter and the rest of them.
Republicans have had more 1 term presidents in the 20th century than Democrats. They've had more just after WW2, than the Democrats had all century.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
If you disagree with me or the things I say, I can handle it. I'm just asking you not to insult me directly. I don't think I'm being unreasonable in that request either.
Any chance we can do this without personal attacks?
I don't think anyone is even remotely aware of my metaphor, outside of this thread, which means your "wondering" is to make an implication on the discussion here. If I'm not understanding your meaning correctly, which you say I'm not, please illuminate it for me.
I said democratic racism was more subtle (implying btw, that it's more subtle than republican racism).
You responded by pointing out that black people are killed in democratic controlled cities.
The inferred connection I'm making there, is that you're claiming democratic racism is directly related to those killings and isn't subtle at all. Am I wrong?
Edit: I edit a lot. It's a forum, not a chat room and I get an hour to edit my remarks. I frequently use this feature, particularly as it helps me cut down on the number of posts and helps me organize my thoughts more clearly, hopefully making my contributions to the thread easier to read. Not always successful.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
You're laying the blame for the killings of African-Americans on Democratic politicians, correct?
I mean, you were listing democratic mayors with killings earlier. That's the implication, if not just outright direct meaning.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
So, are the cities hellholes because Democrats run them? Or do Democrats run them because they are hellholes?
Baltimore is 63% black by population, with a population of 622,000. Maryland has 40,000 disenfranchised felons. Let's assume they're all black and they all live in Baltimore. If that's true, African-Americans still account for 56% of the population in Baltimore. Baltimore isn't run by Democrats. It's run by black Democrats.
Just curious, is it because they're Democrats that they're racists and ordering their police to kill fellow citizens?
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Are you putting forth that Democratic mayors devise and implement direct policies that their police officers should "go out and shoot some black people"?
Or is the cause of these deaths more nuanced and complicated than that?
I apologize for the earlier analogy. It was an attempt at hyperbole and we're talking about people's lives. I think the killing of black people is unacceptable. It has reduced significantly over the decades and when white people do it, they aren't necessarily punished, but they aren't as celebrated either (we don't hold picnics and have towns posing for photographs with the body). I'm not 100% convinced the problem can be solved at this point by ONLY talking about the body count. Relatively speaking, the body count is getting small, while any number is tragic, hammering at the killing issue alone until perfect isn't going to fix it at this point.
Policing in general needs to be changed, but this doesn't just address the killing issue, but also the criminalization issue, which as long as that happens, killings will always be a problem. By that, I mean if police officers, regardless of political party and/or race, view African-American's as predominantly criminals, they're more likely to use violence to resolve a situation, which is more likely to end up with someone dying.
Just shouting at the police to stop killing POC isn't going to fix it. We need to change the things that cause police to treat POC as criminals automatically. That thought in the back of a man's head that makes him automatically suspicious of a black man, that's the subtle problem. I don't think BLM can reach a satisfactory state until that subtle problem is addressed. That doesn't mean I think they should stop, on the contrary, they are a huge part of helping to solve that and should continue.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Did you see the part where I agreed with you? There is a lot of s#~@ that's still f@$+ed up. Do you understand my point?
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I had a reply that got ate a day or two ago about the racism.
I think the Democratic party is pretty racist. It's subtler than Republican racism, but it still exists. It's also a good example why I'm an incrementalist (though I appreciate hardcore rhetoric, it reminds us of how far we need to go).
In the "civil rights" era, a lot of victories were won and progress was made. The thing is that it's harder to deal with the more subtle and insidious varieties when you have to first convince people to stop lynching you, setting dogs on you and allowing you to participate in society like a human being.
If your roommate is trying to stab you with a knife, it might not be the best time to resolve why they never contribute to purchasing toilet paper. Fix the worst thing first, worry about the smaller stuff later.
I know I harbor a lot of racist behavior. I try to be aware of it. I try to avoid it. I would like to think I'm successful, but I know it's doubtful. Hopefully by being better than the generation before me and encouraging others to be aware and keep changing, things will be better after I'm gone. I hope the Democratic party (well, all parties really) can do the same.
I think the Democrats are worse than a lot of people either realize or want to admit. I think we're still better than the other major alternative, but we do have major problems and need to fix them.
I've really got to get this out of my system.
If you are opposed to globalization, you are in favor of a world with more war.
Globalization has been one of the greatest peace-making forces in the entirety of human history. To rail against the concept is astounding to me from a progressive standpoint. To oppose globalization is to be in favor of putting the working class at greater risk of dying in wars.
Have you actually looked at the difference between say... how Trump runs his charity versus how Clinton runs hers? Based on your statements, I would have to say no.
You've bought into complete falsehoods about Clinton, while ignoring verifiable facts about Trump.
Imagine picking an auto-mechanic. Your choice is:
1) an experienced mechanic who has worked on a variety of cars. They've got a lot of bad reviews on Yelp, but they have some good reviews too. Plus they've been in business for decades. There's a guy in the neighborhood that won't stop yelling about how awful this mechanic is, but that guy is kind of an a&@$$!# to everyone. They fixed your muffler once, didn't overcharge and it's worked fine since.
2) a person who owns a garage, but no car. Has posters of cars on the wall, but has never driven a car, let alone fixed one. They rode in a couple though. They seem really nice and talk a lot about how they have a strategy for fixing your car.
Jill Stein might sound like she has some nice ideas, but she doesn't know how to lead.
To misquote Jay-z, he's not a businessman, he's a business, man.
I'll summarize for those who don't like clicking links.
Donald Trump used to build buildings. The last one was the Trump-SoHo Hotel completed in 2007. That same year marks the start of Trump's time on NBC on The Apprentice. Since then, Trump Organization has changed their focus from building things, to licensing the Trump name to other developers to put on buildings.
The business practice started earlier than this, with the first licensing deal to a foreign business being in South Korea in 1999, selling the name for $8 million a year. The company he made the deal with is Daewoo, which the Trump Organization continues to do business with to this day.
Daewoo is also an energy company in South Korea. Specifically, they make nuclear energy. If South Korea were to begin manufacturing nuclear weapons, their nuclear power plants would play a vital role and make the owners a lot of money. Trump has advocated South Korea building their own nuclear weapons.
In 2008, the Trump Organization struck a deal with the Dogan Group, developers in Turkey. The Dogan Group is run by the Dogan family, who were highly influential in Turkish politics. They were so influential, that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan met with Trump and officiated the ribbon cutting for the building's opening.
The Dogan's have since fallen out of favor with the government though. President Erdogan has also used Trump's comments to justify going after the Dogan family and is calling for Trump's name to be removed from buildings in Turkey. Turkey is a vital ally in the Middle-East and the Air Force is currently using a Turkish air base in their bombing campaign against ISIS.
Trump is currently engaged in business with Garant Holding, which is led by Anar Mammadov. The State Department and CIA have significant evidence that Mammadov has been laundering money for the Iranian army.
There are other countries with which the Trump Organization has significant ties:
These financial connections often lead to political figures in those countries. It's unknown exactly how these connections will play out, but Trump has already admitted (many times) that he is willing to exploit a political connection to support his business.
I agree it's an unusual situation.
My complaint isn't that Jane Sanders specifically isn't a target. That's an example. Rather that male candidates aren't judged by their wives. Sure, 1-2% of articles might be about their wives, but I'd wager the % is even lower than that.
Bill is actually mentioned in that article more times than Hillary. I think a strong case could be made against Hillary by looking at HER record (which is included in the article) and mentioning Bill only as a matter of context. Instead, entire paragraphs and sections of it are devoted to Bill.
Just to be clear, the best you got is a sarcastic comment framed as a fictional account. That's your proof there's no sexism.
Pardon me if I'm not swayed by this supreme display of eloquence and facts.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Don't forget the article's inherent sexism.
Cause we see a whole lot of articles blaming men for what their wife did at her previous job....
The article does spend time on Hillary herself, but it also talks about what Bill did an awful lot. Does it talk about Sander's wife at all? Heck, did any article ever? Hyperbole, I'm sure that there was at least one article that talked about her, possibly even a handful. The point is that male candidates are never asked to account for their wife's behavior.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
You should read up on how Trump has run his foundation. It is one of many, many insights into how he would run the presidency.
From 1988 to 2008 he put about $5.3 million of his own money into the Trump Foundation. During that period, nothing strange really happened, it was run like a lot of family foundations. He gave to a diverse set of causes. His last donation was in 2008.
In 2009 it had a cash total of about $4,000. Since then it has only received donations from sources other than Trump. Vince and Linda McMahon are the largest donators, and essentially their donation was an appearance fee for Trump to be on WWE. This in itself isn't that damning, lots of celebrities use their celebrity to raise money for charity. Other major contributors have been NBC and the company that installs carpets in his buildings in NYC.
What's interesting is where the money gets spent. Since 2009 major shift has happened with major donations going to political groups. As far as the IRS is concerned, there is no difference between something like the Red Cross and Citizen's United (yes, THAT Citizen's United). Citizen's United is the single largest recipient of money from the Trump Foundation in the past 7 years. At the time, Citizen's United was suing the NY Attorney General who was pressing a lawsuit against Trump University.
Money has gone to several large Christian political groups run by the Graham family. A member of which was very vocal in defending him when he proposed he ban on Muslim immigrants.
It's also donated money to police organizations. Which then host fundraisers at Trump owned golf courses.
During his time on the Apprentice, he regularly consoled losers that he would donate to a charity of their choosing. He said he'd do it out of his own pocket. Not only did he never actually do it, sometimes his foundation didn't even do it. Instead show sponsors would foot the bill.
Then of course there's the times he's:
All the things that people have accused (without proof) the Clinton Foundation of doing, there is literally proof that Trump has done it. He's funneling money to friends, political allies, buying himself things and probably laundering money.
To add, Trump is not disclosing his assets to the public (ie. his tax returns), nor is he putting his assets in a blind trust. He's going to put Trump Organization in the hands of his children, who are also his closest political advisors.
Trump isn't going to run this country for the benefit of the 0.01%. He's going to run this country to benefit himself.
Edit: removed an item off the list, thanks Rednal.
For the record, I'd play a game with anyone. I think there some specific posters that I'd be interested in precisely how they run/do/approach things, but I welcome anyone and everyone at a lot of my tables.
I also run games at some cons, so playing with people I don't know well is something I'm used to.
Captain Battletoad wrote:
While I certainly like pho in the Winter, I routinely have it during the Summer as well.
South Vietnam doesn't have 4 seasons, just wet and dry.
His point isn't a bad one. By making lists of people we DO want to play with, that necessarily means we are making an excluded list of people we DON'T want to play with. Does it mean we can't talk about our interests and who might share them or bring something specific that is interesting to a table? I don't think so. But it isn't a bad idea to recognize how this is a popularity contest and how that can affect some people.
When I was growing up, the hobby tended to be largely made up of people who had been excluded from other cliques. It pains me when I see people then try to turn the hobby cliquish and exclude others.
We don't need to debate this. Awareness of potential issues is all that's really required, no one needs to rewrite their lists or include those who haven't been yet. I think in general, the thread is fairly positive so far, mostly talking about why certain people seem intriguing. That's a good thing. Maybe other people will put a little effort into following their posts and get exposed to their ideas and also become intrigued.
Apocalypse World (and derivatives): No initiative. Enemies don't take actions, instead they inflict consequences based on player actions. If you don't directly fight, you're less likely to take damage. Often if you fight though, you take damage, the variable is how much you inflict.
Marvel Heroic Roleplaying: Mentioned above. Whoever has a characteristic or power that implies they go first, goes first. After that, once you finish your turn, you decide who goes next, until everyone gets one turn. You have to balance the timing of when you give someone a turn versus denying your enemy multiple turns in a row.
Mythender: the myth goes first. After that, players decide order on their own. If they can't agree, or don't go fast enough, the myth starts the next round. Combat ends at the end of round 5, if the myth isn't dead, all the players die (or if a lesser myth, the myth escapes intact). This is important narratively as it creates a context for player actions and really, really helps things along.
Dr. Who: your action determines your initiative. If you talk, you go first. If you run, you go second. If you do something not covered by the first two, but not violent, you go third. Violence goes last.
Feng Shui: you roll initiative giving a total number called "shots". Person with the most "shots" goes first, and spends them to do an action. Typically you start with 7-15 shots, depending on your roll and stats. An attack action typically costs 3 shots, with special extra actions costing 1 shot or increasing your attack's cost. If you have 1 or 2 shots left, you can still attack with no penalty. If combat is still going after everyone reaches zero, roll again and repeat.
Is it really that strange that a legislative person would do things in the interests of businesses in their district? Businesses are part of the community. I would agree that I'd like to see more weight being thrown behind working class constituents, but you'd agree that a senator/congressperson's constituents include the people who work at businesses in their voting district?
(Lots of stuff)
You're point about political leanings is right now. Most all military folks lean Republican. I'm not sure what the split is with POC in the military, but I'd wager it leans more conservative than the general population in that regard as well. As for analysis of who they'll vote for, I'm not sure on that, but the military vote is pretty small. A lot of it is absentee ballots, which are rarely even counted in the process.
I'm not saying s~&% in the military is good, but I see people complaining about discharges and the VA and medical benefits and they really don't understand what they're talking about. I even see veterans talking about this s+!@ and they don't know what they're talking about.
1) Cuts. There actually haven't been that many cuts. Defense spending is down as share of federal budget and GDP, but this is largely to stagnation in spending. Military pay has increased.
The Army and Navy continue to see large amounts of SRB's (selective reenlistment bonuses) and typically the total amount goes up every year. This is the primary tool for retention. If they were trying to oust large numbers of people, you'd see a decline in this as it would save you money AND discourage people from reenlisting. SRB's are a signing bonus for a contract and can be up to $90,000 for 6 years. The Marines are the exception to this and have seen 50 MOS's lose their SRB's and another 40 see a reduction. Again, Army and Navy have seen an increase in spending on retention (I haven't seen the Air Force's numbers).
2) Discharges. Medical discharges depend on the type of medical problem. Injuries and illness receive honorable discharges, while obesity tends to get a General. The primary determinant of benefits after a medical discharge are length of service. If you're in boot camp and lose a leg, you're not going to be eligible for a lot of benefits. The VA will take care of your medical stuff for life, but you won't get the GI Bill and lots of other stuff.
If you want to talk about discharges, what you should do is look at the numbers from the Army that involve misconduct. There are six broad categories of discharges (I did this for a living, I had to take tests on this in order to get promotions, I regularly scored in the 95% on these tests):
Honorable - this means you complete your term of service. You're leaving the military because your time is up (either you didn't reenlist, or weren't eligible for reenlistment).
General - this is an administrative discharge. Something happened that is causing you to leave the military, it's not a punishment necessarily, but includes medical discharges. It can include bad performance, if someone is evaluated negatively, consistently gets in minor trouble and generally doesn't get along with their superiors, this discharge can be used.
OTH - This is a step down from a General. It's still administrative but always includes non-judicial punishment, typically of more severe variety (security violations, violence, it used to include being gay). Misconduct (as judged by the military) is always involved.
BCD and Dishonorable - These are used by a court-martial. Dishonorable is worse than BCD, depending on what you did will determine which one you get.
ELS - this is used when you have served less than 180 days. Basically if you can't make it through boot camp + job training, you get one of these.
What the Army has had an issue with over the past 10 years is discharging people with General or OTH people who had no obvious physical injuries, but had suffered a Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and/or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). What happens is that someone with PTSD starts to behave erratically, violently or unpredictably. They get in trouble routinely. A pattern of misconduct develops and instead of having the person get checked out and receive treatment, the Army discharges them based on the severity of their misconduct. This means their PTSD is undiagnosed while active and it doesn't go into their medical record. Then when they apply for benefits they have to prove they have PTSD and that's takes time if you've never received treatment.
3) VA processing time
Yeah, it sucks. The VA and DoD haven't been able to agree on a electronic records system. They both claim to have different needs and priorities and have spent money differently. Congress has mandated that they integrate by the end of this year, but they didn't actually allot any money to the issue or put any force behind it. The VA does actually have a very modern records system, it just isn't compatible with the DoD's.
Another issue is staffing. This delays claims processing. It also delays treatment once you're in. For me I have to schedule appointments about 6-8 weeks in advance. If I know I need a recurring appointment, I schedule 3-4 of them at a time and plan it out about 3 months in advance. I can get in to take care of stuff, it's just not going to be immediate (unless it's something I can go to urgent care for, like I did with an infection in my elbow about 2 years ago).
4) Not standing by the brass
While enlisted folks will definitely trash officers and tell you they're the worst, they also want to stand by the sacrifices they've made enacting policy over the past 15 years. By that, they want to think of their sacrifices (limbs, friends, peace of mind) as having been worth something and towards a greater good. If someone comes in and says that all that was for nothing, that their leaders where s$+@ and they were led to do s$+%ty things, most military people who lost something are going to disagree. This is the sunk-cost fallacy and is super common to human thinking.
It goes like this: Because I gave up a lot to do a thing, that thing must be important. I will now rationalize how this thing was important.
We do it to justify our actions and our stories of ourselves. It's really normal and we all do it constantly throughout our day, not just our lives. So while the enlisted personnel might not like the brass, they're going to stand by them if someone says that they're all bad and everything they've led the enlisted on was also bad. They'll do it because they've already rationalized to themselves why they had to follow the brass through all those s@$$ty times.
Of course some will break from this, but this will be people predisposed to disagree with authority anyways. Interestingly enough, anti-authoritarian people don't like Trump. Authoritarians (people who have an affinity for strong leadership) are more likely to like Trump, but they're also more likely to see the military leadership in a positive light. I think it's fairly split with how all this will shake out. If instead, Trump were more military positive (instead of saying they sucked), he'd lock up that vote no problem. As is, he keeps running his mouth and costing himself small portions of that vote.
Not that the military vote is very significant in any election (other than for endorsements and publicity).