• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump - No transgender individuals in the military

So, this is "modern presidential": DJT's first Tweet just said, "After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow......"

NINE MINUTES later, he completes the thought about disallowing transgendered personnel.

So?

Pentagon Briefly Worried Trump Was Declaring War
 
Ziggurat said:
Where do you think you are? This is the politics forum. You're not allowed to be sensible about the issue. You need to have an ideologically rigid response.
Click to expand...


lefties ... think ideology always trumps reality. Like the mindless asshats who attempt to re-purpose freeways for protests and stuff and then get surprised when they get hit by cars. How dare cars disrupt a protest that occurs where cars go. Yet to a car's front tires those same ideological purists are just bumps in the road. Ideology (marching on a freeway) will lose to reality (tires only recognizing things as bumps and not bumps) every time that way. ;)

mgidm86 said:
...Could this be what he is referring to when he talks about the cost? It may be giving Trump too much credit to suggest this was a consideration, but just mentioning it...
Click to expand...
So is that your acknowledgement such a basis has merit? That is, it's a valid idea unless he thought of it huh?! :cool:

For some reason I can't visualize too many people who are or want to be transgender also wanting any kind of military career. Of course it happens, for example Chelsea (nee Bradley) Manning. But then again look at what a nightmare she turned out to be. She literally "aided and abetted the enemy" and then when caught and imprisoned actually made her captors her biotch servant by forcing them to physically change her gender on their dime and they did it. So really, Trump's wrong in wanting to eliminate that kind of side show? Especially in an organization with a very serious task that has neither the resources nor the moral obligation to buy into that kind of nonsense?

Through the years the military has refused "flat feet" (and other minor afflictions) recruits in numbers so large as to dwarf the entire US population of TG persons. Every single TG (or wannabe) could try to enlist and be refused and still not approach the millions of non-LGBT people who have been refused military service for being 'less than perfect humans', or more precisely 'humans that will probably cost us extra time and money we don't have'. So who's being discriminated against again? And how many of them are there?

Where's that No Flat Feet In The Military? thread? Too soon? :eye-poppi


Edited by Loss Leader: 
Edited for mild Rule 0/12
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Skeptic Tank said:
Teehee!

I always love how those who portray homophobia as this awful thing never hesitate to still make jokes where the premise is that being gay is worthy of mockery.

I actually don't have too much of an issue with homosexuals. I don't think it's a choice, and they have my sympathy. Some have my admiration. I just don't think a healthy society celebrates it or even seeks to remove the stigma. The stigma serves a purpose. It helps define normality and enforce normality.

I certainly don't have any issue with women, but they have no business in combat, policing or firefighting. Neither do trans.
Click to expand...

If someone can kick the mandated amount of ass, haul the mandated amount of crap, and follow the appropriate orders, they deserve to get in.

Now I don't believe requirements should be any different between races, genders etc. Which is usually where I lose my friends on the left. But if someone can make a certain standard, let them in, on the flip side if they can't, we cannot simply lower the requirements.

If the military says "this is what a soldier has to be able to do. " I support that, unless "is able to do" is change factors that, otherwise would not impact the person's ability to actually be a soldier. Anything else is not the military trying to be the best force it can be, and that I cannot support.
 
Meadmaker said:
Interesting explanation of why this happened today, and so quickly.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/26/trump-transgender-military-ban-behind-the-scenes-240990

Summary: Republicans were planning on introducing a controversial anti-trans measure that would have held up important spending bill. Trump short-circuited the process by an even more anti-trans presidential directive.
Click to expand...

That makes the Congresswoman's ludicrous claim about the cost of reassignment surgery on CNN this morning make more sense.
 
American military can afford to splurge billions upon billions on boondoggles that are too expensive to bring out in war yet can't afford to spend a couple of million dollars a year on transgender soldiers.

Lets hope Mattis at least pushes back against Trump. Not just because of this specific issue but rather more generally since Trump's behavior is outrageous and worrying.

In a normal country you'd spend months studying the potential effects of legislation and government directives. In America it takes maybe thirty minutes and 140 characters. This is just how it works in America. It's that simple.
 
Last edited:
Arcade22 said:
American military can afford to splurge billions upon billions on boondoggles that are too expensive to bring out in war yet can't afford to spend a couple of million dollars a year on transgender soldiers.

<snip>
Click to expand...


Or, conversely, go over the medical benefits provided to soldiers and see what other vanishingly minute fractions of the money spent can be legislated against.

Why should we be paying for soldiers' Viagra?
 
Apart from the fact that Twitter is not a legal form of enacting policy, any EO that stated what Trump has said in his tweets would actually be a violation of the 14th Amendment and thus Unconstitutional.
 
The Don said:
Putting to one side whatever the "tremendous medical costs" would be, I thought that the military should be focused on keeping the US safe, not on "decisive and overwhelming victory" :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The latter is the vast majority of the former. There are reasons to find what he did as pandering rather than practical, but this isn't one of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom