• 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

Mike Pence's son is in the Marines, training to be a pilot. One wonders where he stands on these issues. His father is pretty clear about gays and transgenders not belonging in the military.

Reading Trump's tweets about this yesterday, it doesn't really seem like something coming from his typical unscripted "brain".
 
So the response from the Pentagon is basically, "Nah, business as usual."

And the response from others I've seen is, by whose authority? Trump's tweet yesterday was a clear directive. He is the commander-in-chief. How can the Pentagon response be anything but 'yes sir"?

The White House has indicated that tweets are official statements.

Turn this around. If he had ordered integration/non-discrimination via Twitter, would you be ok if the Pentagon said no?
 
Ziggurat said:
I've heard this claim before, and asked for evidence, but none was provided. I can easily accept that other militaries incorporate transsexuals without HUGE negative consequences, but if the negative consequences are small, how would you know they don't exist? How can you be certain that you would have heard of any small problems that might exist? Furthermore, if there are issues which would only arise during combat deployment abroad (for example, medical issues with hormone treatments), many western militaries might not have even experienced them.
Click to expand...

The default position should not to be accepting there is such difference without a serious study showing there is such a difference. The null is that there is no difference. If you pretend otherwise, and state it should up to TG to prove there is no difference before accepting them, you are acting on pure prejudice and phobia.

You may as well replace TG by colored people and have the same reaction.

That is why the burden is on those pretending this would be a problem. i.o.w. : you in this case.
 
Last edited:
pgwenthold said:
So the response from the Pentagon is basically, "Nah, business as usual."

And the response from others I've seen is, by whose authority? Trump's tweet yesterday was a clear directive. He is the commander-in-chief. How can the Pentagon response be anything but 'yes sir"?

The White House has indicated that tweets are official statements.

Turn this around. If he had ordered integration/non-discrimination via Twitter, would you be ok if the Pentagon said no?
Click to expand...

At this level of leadership, a tweet isn't really an order. What does that tweet even mean and how does one alter all the far ranging policies? At this level, you can't simply declare "make it so" and watch it happen.
 
Aepervius said:
The default position should not to be accepting there is such difference without a serious study showing there is such a difference. The null is that there is no difference. If you pretend otherwise, and state it should up to TG to prove there is no difference before accepting them, you are acting on pure prejudice and phobia.

You may as well replace TG by colored people and have the same reaction.

That is why the burden is on those pretending this would be a problem. i.o.w. : you in this case.
Click to expand...

And now we have a second person that hasn't been paying attention.

First off, I never came to any default position. Second, I never claimed that any particular side of the issue had a burden of proof. Third, I never "pretended" this would be a problem.

And lastly, and most damningly for your accusation against me, Border Reiver already provided the evidence I asked for, and I already accepted it.
 
pgwenthold said:
So the response from the Pentagon is basically, "Nah, business as usual."

And the response from others I've seen is, by whose authority? Trump's tweet yesterday was a clear directive. He is the commander-in-chief. How can the Pentagon response be anything but 'yes sir"?

The White House has indicated that tweets are official statements.

Turn this around. If he had ordered integration/non-discrimination via Twitter, would you be ok if the Pentagon said no?
Click to expand...

Apparently the POTUS cannot just order a change in policy like that;there are legal issues to go through.So it's business as usual until those are thrashed out.
And the tweet was not addressed to the Military Leadership and might not constitute a direct order.
 
dudalb said:
Apparently the POTUS cannot just order a change in policy like that;there are legal issues to go through.So it's business as usual until those are thrashed out.
And the tweet was not addressed to the Military Leadership and might not constitute a direct order.
Click to expand...

He's the President, the Commander-in-Chief. He can make orders any way he wants.
 
Seems to me that if someone is so mentally fragile that working with homosexual or transgender people causes them sufficient distress to render them unable or less able to do their job, they are the ones who should be kicked out of the military.
 
pgwenthold said:
He's the President, the Commander-in-Chief. He can make orders any way he wants.
Click to expand...
Doesn't actually work that way.

First there's statutory authority on which the DoD exists in civil law. Then there's proper chain of command and authentication issues, maybe some federal laws and oh yeah, the Constitution.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
 
pgwenthold said:
So the response from the Pentagon is basically, "Nah, business as usual."

And the response from others I've seen is, by whose authority? Trump's tweet yesterday was a clear directive. He is the commander-in-chief. How can the Pentagon response be anything but 'yes sir"?

The White House has indicated that tweets are official statements.

Turn this around. If he had ordered integration/non-discrimination via Twitter, would you be ok if the Pentagon said no?
Click to expand...
I would think any official orders (as opposed to official statements) would need a signature or some other legally binding element. Who is to say that Barron didn't sneak in and fire out a set of tweets from The Donald's phone?

So yes, even if he were to order integration/non-discrimination via Twitter, I would expect the Pentagon to say "we're awaiting official documentation before determining how to proceed".

We are talking about a division of the government which doesn't buy a toilet seat without a requisition in triplicate through an entire chain of command, are we not?
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Does this opinion actually indicate that there are no problems? No, it doesn't. It might be that there are no problems. It might be that he thinks the problems are outweighed by some other unspecified consideration, one which the rest of us might or might not share. But it is not a claim, not even an expert opinion claim, of what I asked about. It truly is just an opinion.
Click to expand...

Don't you think that it is more appropriate to actually show that there is a problem before supporting a ban rather then demanding that others show that there isn't a problem?
 
pgwenthold said:
Turn this around. If he had ordered integration/non-discrimination via Twitter, would you be ok if the Pentagon said no?
Click to expand...

It would have been a nice indication of policy direction, but Tweets are not legal documents that establish policy. If he want's to do that he has a tool, it's called an Executive Order, which he is very familiar with considering he's signed 42 of them, and such an EO would not make it through the Court's because it'd be blatantly Unconstitutional.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Don't you think that it is more appropriate to actually show that there is a problem before supporting a ban rather then demanding that others show that there isn't a problem?
Click to expand...

And a third person demonstrates they haven't been paying attention. At no point did I ever indicate I supported the ban.
 
Ziggurat said:
And a third person demonstrates they haven't been paying attention. At no point did I ever indicate I supported the ban.
Click to expand...

Yes I'm quite aware that you are an expert at hiding behind your JAQing. The fact that you put the onus on proving there was no issue clearly indicated your position though. If you were truly as impational as you want people to believe, you would have demanded that those that made the claims of a problem backed it up rather then getting everyone else to try and prove a negative, or that something doesn't exist.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
So Mooch is going to fire the entire communications staff, now?

They have news monitors on to keep pace with national narratives, I wonder what it's got to be like to work at a place where all day on the TV is one person from down the hall talking **** on someone else from down the hall, then that guy's friend across the street at OEOB talking **** back on the first guy while reading in the paper that you and everyone there will be fired soon.

Makes for some awkward water cooler and coffee machine moments, I bet.

"**** off, Tony."

"Eat **** and die, Reince."

"See you at lunch?"

"Yup."
Click to expand...

It's was pure Joe Pesci in a Martin Scorcese Mafia Film....
 
PhantomWolf said:
Yes I'm quite aware that you are an expert at hiding behind your JAQing. The fact that you put the onus on proving there was no issue clearly indicated your position though. If you were truly as impational as you want people to believe, you would have demanded that those that made the claims of a problem backed it up rather then getting everyone else to try and prove a negative, or that something doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Except that's not what I did. The question I asked is as relevant to proving there is an issue as to proving that there isn't. And I didn't ask it of anyone in particular either. Furthermore, since the question has in fact been answered and I accepted the answer, that makes every complaint you have completely superfluous anyways. The only point of continuing your baseless attack is your own weird personal vendeta, not because of any actual merit in your position.

Really, this is getting pathetic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom